Moms make case for gun control

Moms make case for gun control

There are 9248 comments on the usatoday.com story from Mar 16, 2013, titled Moms make case for gun control. In it, usatoday.com reports that:

Peg Paulson had never beaten a path through the halls of Congress before or met a U.S. senator's staffer or advocated for a controversial issue.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at usatoday.com.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1190 May 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the Supreme Court outrank the circuit court?
Pretty sure it does.
You learn all the words to the Second Amendment yet, GayDavy?
"Judge Woods,[later associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1880–87)]"
Another

Huntsville, AL

#1192 May 1, 2013
Richard_ wrote:
<quoted text>
racist

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1193 May 1, 2013
Another wrote:
<quoted text>
racist
Here's one for you to choke on, stooge:

"If we destroyed that which had been done, we should destroy the volunteer system; because by taking away their arms, we destroy also the martial spirit which they were sure to engender. It was true, as had been said, that the States were so jealous of the preservation of this martial spirit, that after they had adopted the Constitution of the United States, as it now stood, they not satisfied until they had secured an amendment which provided "that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." If we destroyed the militia system, we did not indeed take away of the right the people to bear arms, but we destroyed the inclination, the habit of wearing arms; and such was not his sentiment as to what ought to be condition of things in a country like ours. He believed that not only right, but the habit of wearing arms was essential to freemen, and to preservation of the liberty of freemen. This was the principle asserted the Constitution of the United States; and if we did away with this, the effect would be to destroy the principle and the feeling together."--Mr Scott, Oct. 23, 1837, PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE CONVENTION Or THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, To PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, COMMENCED AT HARRISBURG MAY 2, 1837. VOL. IV.(Page 100)]

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1194 May 2, 2013
Another wrote:
<quoted text>racist
Official liberal protocol : when faced with information you can't combat with facts or common sense, cast insults. If that doesn't work, play the race card!
Ice Pick Justice

Woodbridge, VA

#1195 May 2, 2013
I heard about a bunch of moms making a case for protecting the second amendment .
Read

Huntsville, AL

#1196 May 2, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Official liberal protocol : when faced with information you can't combat with facts or common sense, cast insults. If that doesn't work, play the race card!
the post before defending the use of a racial slur and proving to everyone how dumb you are. If you don't know the meaning of words look 'em up. You seem to have way too much time on your hands.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1197 May 2, 2013
Read wrote:
<quoted text>the post before defending the use of a racial slur and proving to everyone how dumb you are. If you don't know the meaning of words look 'em up. You seem to have way too much time on your hands.
I did read the post! I know the meaning of the words. Yes a variation of Melato was used. Why is it that when someone uses it, they are a racist? Yet you liberals sling "cracker", but that's not racist, right? How is the liberal use of "conservascum", " Republiklan ", "village idiot", "wingnutz", "gun gnutters", "teabaggers"and a host of other derogatory terms for a specific group any different?
Hypocrite much?

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1198 May 2, 2013
Read wrote:
<quoted text>the post before defending the use of a racial slur and proving to everyone how dumb you are. If you don't know the meaning of words look 'em up. You seem to have way too much time on your hands.
Still waiting on that example of a pro gun organization attempting to block prosecution of someone caught attempting to purchase a firearm illegally!
Surely you wouldn't state something as fact that you can't back up with examples!
spocko

Oakland, CA

#1199 May 2, 2013
Normal, law-abiding, gun carrying citizens will not be affected by tighter legislation like comprehensive background checks ... No one is trying to take your guns away from you...unless you are mentally ill, or have a criminal background.
Using the logic that "criminals don't obey gun laws" is a useless oxymoron. Of course criminals don't obey the law, that’s why we call them criminals – duh!! But we still need the law, so that violators can be punished. And then there is the Moral justification? Really? How is gun control a moral issue?
Oh puhlezze, restrictions are placed on the “law abiding citizen” all the time, and it always will until you gunloons can figure out a way to catch the criminal before he acts! When was the last time that you caused an accident because you were driving at an unsafe speed – never? You see, me neither, but I still have to obey speed limits.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#1200 May 2, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
I did read the post! I know the meaning of the words. Yes a variation of Melato was used. Why is it that when someone uses it, they are a racist? Yet you liberals sling "cracker", but that's not racist, right? How is the liberal use of "conservascum", " Republiklan ", "village idiot", "wingnutz", "gun gnutters", "teabaggers"and a host of other derogatory terms for a specific group any different?
Hypocrite much?
Melato? You can't even make it as a racist - ye retard!
Duuh

Huntsville, AL

#1201 May 2, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>

Why is it that when someone uses it, they are a racist?
because it is a racist term and intended as a racial slur, bonehead.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1202 May 2, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't matter, it's the law MAKERS that really count
The Supreme Court has final say, GayDavy.

If you had made it into junior high school civics, you'd know that.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1203 May 2, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's one for you to choke on, stooge:
"If we destroyed
Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam...

Vikings: Spam spam spam spam...

Waitress:...spam spam spam egg and spam; spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans spam spam spam...

Vikings: Spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1204 May 2, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
I did read the post! I know the meaning of the words. Yes a variation of Melato was used. Why is it that when someone uses it, they are a racist? Yet you liberals sling "cracker", but that's not racist, right?
Cracker referring to a redneck racist bigot who might be white?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1205 May 2, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting on that example of a pro gun organization attempting to block prosecution of someone caught attempting to purchase a firearm illegally!
Still waiting for you to explain how you can sell a firearm to someone you don't know but not know if he is a convicted felon or a fellow wife beater?
O tay

Huntsville, AL

#1206 May 2, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politi...

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1207 May 2, 2013
spocko wrote:
Normal, law-abiding, gun carrying citizens will not be affected by tighter legislation like comprehensive background checks ... No one is trying to take your guns away from you...unless you are mentally ill, or have a criminal background.
Using the logic that "criminals don't obey gun laws" is a useless oxymoron. Of course criminals don't obey the law, that’s why we call them criminals – duh!! But we still need the law, so that violators can be punished. And then there is the Moral justification? Really? How is gun control a moral issue?
Oh puhlezze, restrictions are placed on the “law abiding citizen” all the time, and it always will until you gunloons can figure out a way to catch the criminal before he acts! When was the last time that you caused an accident because you were driving at an unsafe speed – never? You see, me neither, but I still have to obey speed limits.
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1208 May 2, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Supreme Court has final say, GayDavy.
If you had made it into junior high school civics, you'd know that.
Not quite, troll:

"The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE ALONE, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. TRUTH, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents."--James Madison, The Federalist No. 46, Tuesday, January 29, 1788.

The servants are NOT above their rightful masters; We The People.
Are U Serious

United States

#1209 May 2, 2013
spocko wrote:
Normal, law-abiding, gun carrying citizens will not be affected by tighter legislation like comprehensive background checks ... No one is trying to take your guns away from you...unless you are mentally ill, or have a criminal background.
Using the logic that "criminals don't obey gun laws" is a useless oxymoron. Of course criminals don't obey the law, that’s why we call them criminals – duh!! But we still need the law, so that violators can be punished. And then there is the Moral justification? Really? How is gun control a moral issue?
Oh puhlezze, restrictions are placed on the “law abiding citizen” all the time, and it always will until you gunloons can figure out a way to catch the criminal before he acts! When was the last time that you caused an accident because you were driving at an unsafe speed – never? You see, me neither, but I still have to obey speed limits.
Aren't there already laws on the book covering illegal purchases of guns?
not

Huntsville, AL

#1210 May 2, 2013
Are U Serious wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't there already laws on the book covering illegal purchases of guns?
with the NRA blocking enforcement

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politi...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News OK County acting sheriff: Let's keep working to... 15 hr rationalchaos 3
News Bristol Palin is engaged (May '15) May 18 The Insider 70
News Joe The Plumber Stands By Shocking Holocaust Ch... (Jun '12) May 15 swedenforever 10
News Dem senator won't back concealed carry push May 15 Ridgeway Boy 5
News "Open carry" bill shot down May 14 lifeisshort 72
News Concealed Carry on Campus: Why I Resigned From ... May 14 Say What 4
News Boom! Concealed Carrier Stops a Massacre Be Cra... May 14 jimwildrickjr 2
More from around the web