Gunfire will ring out in lib cities tonight; it's Friday and lib-city gun nuts are ready!!

[Rotagilla]

By morning the streets of liberal-led cities will be littered with the dead and injured bodies of many Brown and Black people. Emergency rooms will be flooded.

you wont see any demonstrations, any riots.

Yep, thanks to the NRA and their toadies in Congress, gun makers and suppliers keep the weapons flowing in.

LMAO..if you magically made all the guns and illegal drugs in america disappear tonight...*poof* ....they're ALL gone .....in two weeks they would all be replaced by smugglers...our southern border is wide open and the progressives don't want to close it...

 

[rightwinger]

There's a lot of screwed up crap in our history . To imply that pre 1965 was all sunshine is just idiotic .

Still waiting on my list of conservative city Utopias ? Anyone gonna answer ?

No. There is no implication that pre-1965 was utopia. There is no implication. It is explicit statement that pre-1965 saw no individual carry out a mass shooting against innocent unarmed people. The implication is that post 1965, there has been a catalytic shift in culture. Otherwise, how do you explain no mass shooting of innocent unarmed people by a lone gunman yet post-1965, we have had many.

A tell-take sign that a Liberal is incapable of intelligent debate is when they start personal insults, smears, and/or trying to shift the debate in hopes of making a legitimate counter argument on the subject matter at hand.

Simply stated: You Lose.

That is an interesting point

In the 60s through 80s our gun nuts seemed to want to make their name through assassination. JFK, MLK, Malcolm X, RFK, Ford, Reagan

Then we got Columbine and they switched gears. Assasination was getting tougher but there were plenty of schools, movie theaters and malls to shoot up.

By the way, you need to look up Charles Whitman

So gun free zones became the next place to kill people. Crazy isn't it?

Are you willing to sit next to James Holmes with your children in a movie theater while he is holding an AR-15?

Would you sit next to him?

 

[rightwinger]

What's the line on the over/under for chicago dead/wounded this weekend?

I'll take 10 dead and 18 wounded...

Are you advocating more gun control in Chicago?

Sounds like it

 

[Missouri_Mike]

There's a lot of screwed up crap in our history . To imply that pre 1965 was all sunshine is just idiotic .

Still waiting on my list of conservative city Utopias ? Anyone gonna answer ?

No. There is no implication that pre-1965 was utopia. There is no implication. It is explicit statement that pre-1965 saw no individual carry out a mass shooting against innocent unarmed people. The implication is that post 1965, there has been a catalytic shift in culture. Otherwise, how do you explain no mass shooting of innocent unarmed people by a lone gunman yet post-1965, we have had many.

A tell-take sign that a Liberal is incapable of intelligent debate is when they start personal insults, smears, and/or trying to shift the debate in hopes of making a legitimate counter argument on the subject matter at hand.

Simply stated: You Lose.

That is an interesting point

In the 60s through 80s our gun nuts seemed to want to make their name through assassination. JFK, MLK, Malcolm X, RFK, Ford, Reagan

Then we got Columbine and they switched gears. Assasination was getting tougher but there were plenty of schools, movie theaters and malls to shoot up.

By the way, you need to look up Charles Whitman

So gun free zones became the next place to kill people. Crazy isn't it?

Are you willing to sit next to James Holmes with your children in a movie theater while he is holding an AR-15?

Would you sit next to him?

If I'm the only one willing to obey the gun free zone? Holmes didn't give a shit about that. Kinda what it means to be a criminal. If I can be armed I would sit next to anyone. In that case he would know he has a problem with killing a lot of unarmed people that can't fight back. If I'm allowed to carry that isn't an option for him. Therefore a **** like him would probably just sit there and watch the damn movie. He's not going to go against a person carrying an AR-15, a cap gun or even a pop-tart chewed into something that looks like a gun. You beat these people by taking their safe space away. They are pussies. And when they have to fight armed people they will never do it.

 

[Rotagilla]

What's the line on the over/under for chicago dead/wounded this weekend?

I'll take 10 dead and 18 wounded...

Are you advocating more gun control in Chicago?

Sounds like it

you should consider getting your hearing checked, then.

 

[rightwinger]

There's a lot of screwed up crap in our history . To imply that pre 1965 was all sunshine is just idiotic .

Still waiting on my list of conservative city Utopias ? Anyone gonna answer ?

No. There is no implication that pre-1965 was utopia. There is no implication. It is explicit statement that pre-1965 saw no individual carry out a mass shooting against innocent unarmed people. The implication is that post 1965, there has been a catalytic shift in culture. Otherwise, how do you explain no mass shooting of innocent unarmed people by a lone gunman yet post-1965, we have had many.

A tell-take sign that a Liberal is incapable of intelligent debate is when they start personal insults, smears, and/or trying to shift the debate in hopes of making a legitimate counter argument on the subject matter at hand.

Simply stated: You Lose.

That is an interesting point

In the 60s through 80s our gun nuts seemed to want to make their name through assassination. JFK, MLK, Malcolm X, RFK, Ford, Reagan

Then we got Columbine and they switched gears. Assasination was getting tougher but there were plenty of schools, movie theaters and malls to shoot up.

By the way, you need to look up Charles Whitman

So gun free zones became the next place to kill people. Crazy isn't it?

Are you willing to sit next to James Holmes with your children in a movie theater while he is holding an AR-15?

Would you sit next to him?

If I'm the only one willing to obey the gun free zone? Holmes didn't give a shit about that. Kinda what it means to be a criminal. If I can be armed I would sit next to anyone. In that case he would know he has a problem with killing a lot of unarmed people that can't fight back. If I'm allowed to carry that isn't an option for him. Therefore a **** like him would probably just sit there and watch the damn movie. He's not going to go against a person carrying an AR-15, a cap gun or even a pop-tart chewed into something that looks like a gun. You beat these people by taking their safe space away. They are pussies. And when they have to fight armed people they will never do it.

OK so this is your world

You take your young children to see Batman and the only seats are next to a crazy looking guy dressed as the Joker. Since it is not a gun free zone, he walked into the theater with an AR-15 and a backpack full of large capacity magazines

You don't care though, because you have your handgun and figure you can get a shot in.

This is the world you envision?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

No. There is no implication that pre-1965 was utopia. There is no implication. It is explicit statement that pre-1965 saw no individual carry out a mass shooting against innocent unarmed people. The implication is that post 1965, there has been a catalytic shift in culture. Otherwise, how do you explain no mass shooting of innocent unarmed people by a lone gunman yet post-1965, we have had many.

A tell-take sign that a Liberal is incapable of intelligent debate is when they start personal insults, smears, and/or trying to shift the debate in hopes of making a legitimate counter argument on the subject matter at hand.

Simply stated: You Lose.

That is an interesting point

In the 60s through 80s our gun nuts seemed to want to make their name through assassination. JFK, MLK, Malcolm X, RFK, Ford, Reagan

Then we got Columbine and they switched gears. Assasination was getting tougher but there were plenty of schools, movie theaters and malls to shoot up.

By the way, you need to look up Charles Whitman

So gun free zones became the next place to kill people. Crazy isn't it?

Are you willing to sit next to James Holmes with your children in a movie theater while he is holding an AR-15?

Would you sit next to him?

If I'm the only one willing to obey the gun free zone? Holmes didn't give a shit about that. Kinda what it means to be a criminal. If I can be armed I would sit next to anyone. In that case he would know he has a problem with killing a lot of unarmed people that can't fight back. If I'm allowed to carry that isn't an option for him. Therefore a **** like him would probably just sit there and watch the damn movie. He's not going to go against a person carrying an AR-15, a cap gun or even a pop-tart chewed into something that looks like a gun. You beat these people by taking their safe space away. They are pussies. And when they have to fight armed people they will never do it.

OK so this is your world

You take your young children to see Batman and the only seats are next to a crazy looking guy dressed as the Joker. Since it is not a gun free zone, he walked into the theater with an AR-15 and a backpack full of large capacity magazines

You don't care though, because you have your handgun and figure you can get a shot in.

This is the world you envision?

I could do that if he had his weapon and I had mine. And others had theirs. But that's not what happened is it.

What we had is a lot of law abiding citizens willingly disarming themselves in a gun free zone and being shot down by the one guy that didn't give a shit about that.

 

[ninja007]

By morning the streets of liberal-led cities will be littered with the dead and injured bodies of many Brown and Black people. Emergency rooms will be flooded.

you wont see any demonstrations, any riots.

If more of those people had more guns that would solve the problem, according to you.

So in your little mind a law abiding citizen is the same as a criminal?

No that's your belief since you don't want background checks that determine the difference.

hey lib- CRIMINALS DON'T get background checks. They find and steal guns. Or smuggle them in.OR BORROW THEIR CRIMINAL FRIENDS GUN.

 

[LeftofLeft]

There's a lot of screwed up crap in our history . To imply that pre 1965 was all sunshine is just idiotic .

Still waiting on my list of conservative city Utopias ? Anyone gonna answer ?

No. There is no implication that pre-1965 was utopia. There is no implication. It is explicit statement that pre-1965 saw no individual carry out a mass shooting against innocent unarmed people. The implication is that post 1965, there has been a catalytic shift in culture. Otherwise, how do you explain no mass shooting of innocent unarmed people by a lone gunman yet post-1965, we have had many.

A tell-take sign that a Liberal is incapable of intelligent debate is when they start personal insults, smears, and/or trying to shift the debate in hopes of making a legitimate counter argument on the subject matter at hand.

Simply stated: You Lose.

That is an interesting point

In the 60s through 80s our gun nuts seemed to want to make their name through assassination. JFK, MLK, Malcolm X, RFK, Ford, Reagan

Then we got Columbine and they switched gears. Assasination was getting tougher but there were plenty of schools, movie theaters and malls to shoot up.

By the way, you need to look up Charles Whitman

A university of Texas Architectural Engineering student in 1965? Yes. Given that I have a family relative that was also a University of Texas Architectural Engineering Student in 1965, I already know a lot about Whitman and the event.

 

[rightwinger]

That is an interesting point

In the 60s through 80s our gun nuts seemed to want to make their name through assassination. JFK, MLK, Malcolm X, RFK, Ford, Reagan

Then we got Columbine and they switched gears. Assasination was getting tougher but there were plenty of schools, movie theaters and malls to shoot up.

By the way, you need to look up Charles Whitman

So gun free zones became the next place to kill people. Crazy isn't it?

Are you willing to sit next to James Holmes with your children in a movie theater while he is holding an AR-15?

Would you sit next to him?

If I'm the only one willing to obey the gun free zone? Holmes didn't give a shit about that. Kinda what it means to be a criminal. If I can be armed I would sit next to anyone. In that case he would know he has a problem with killing a lot of unarmed people that can't fight back. If I'm allowed to carry that isn't an option for him. Therefore a **** like him would probably just sit there and watch the damn movie. He's not going to go against a person carrying an AR-15, a cap gun or even a pop-tart chewed into something that looks like a gun. You beat these people by taking their safe space away. They are pussies. And when they have to fight armed people they will never do it.

OK so this is your world

You take your young children to see Batman and the only seats are next to a crazy looking guy dressed as the Joker. Since it is not a gun free zone, he walked into the theater with an AR-15 and a backpack full of large capacity magazines

You don't care though, because you have your handgun and figure you can get a shot in.

This is the world you envision?

I could do that if he had his weapon and I had mine. And others had theirs. But that's not what happened is it.

What we had is a lot of law abiding citizens willingly disarming themselves in a gun free zone and being shot down by the one guy that didn't give a shit about that.

Conservatives love to celebrate the death rate in Chicago. Here you have gangs that are heavily armed yet have no reservations about shooting each other over any perceived slight. They do not say, let's do our shootings in safer neighborhoods
Dodge city is still Dodge City
More guns equate to more gun violence

 

[Missouri_Mike]

So gun free zones became the next place to kill people. Crazy isn't it?

Are you willing to sit next to James Holmes with your children in a movie theater while he is holding an AR-15?

Would you sit next to him?

If I'm the only one willing to obey the gun free zone? Holmes didn't give a shit about that. Kinda what it means to be a criminal. If I can be armed I would sit next to anyone. In that case he would know he has a problem with killing a lot of unarmed people that can't fight back. If I'm allowed to carry that isn't an option for him. Therefore a **** like him would probably just sit there and watch the damn movie. He's not going to go against a person carrying an AR-15, a cap gun or even a pop-tart chewed into something that looks like a gun. You beat these people by taking their safe space away. They are pussies. And when they have to fight armed people they will never do it.

OK so this is your world

You take your young children to see Batman and the only seats are next to a crazy looking guy dressed as the Joker. Since it is not a gun free zone, he walked into the theater with an AR-15 and a backpack full of large capacity magazines

You don't care though, because you have your handgun and figure you can get a shot in.

This is the world you envision?

I could do that if he had his weapon and I had mine. And others had theirs. But that's not what happened is it.

What we had is a lot of law abiding citizens willingly disarming themselves in a gun free zone and being shot down by the one guy that didn't give a shit about that.

Conservatives love to celebrate the death rate in Chicago. Here you have gangs that are heavily armed yet have no reservations about shooting each other over any perceived slight. They do not say, let's do our shootings in safer neighborhoods
Dodge city is still Dodge City
More guns equate to more gun violence

In other words it's the people not the guns in Chicago. And the strict gun laws aren't making any difference. Exactly what we've been saying for years.

 

[Timmy]

I'm still waiting for my list of conservative run cities that will not be having gun problems . Anyone ???!

 

[rightwinger]

Are you willing to sit next to James Holmes with your children in a movie theater while he is holding an AR-15?

Would you sit next to him?

If I'm the only one willing to obey the gun free zone? Holmes didn't give a shit about that. Kinda what it means to be a criminal. If I can be armed I would sit next to anyone. In that case he would know he has a problem with killing a lot of unarmed people that can't fight back. If I'm allowed to carry that isn't an option for him. Therefore a **** like him would probably just sit there and watch the damn movie. He's not going to go against a person carrying an AR-15, a cap gun or even a pop-tart chewed into something that looks like a gun. You beat these people by taking their safe space away. They are pussies. And when they have to fight armed people they will never do it.

OK so this is your world

You take your young children to see Batman and the only seats are next to a crazy looking guy dressed as the Joker. Since it is not a gun free zone, he walked into the theater with an AR-15 and a backpack full of large capacity magazines

You don't care though, because you have your handgun and figure you can get a shot in.

This is the world you envision?

I could do that if he had his weapon and I had mine. And others had theirs. But that's not what happened is it.

What we had is a lot of law abiding citizens willingly disarming themselves in a gun free zone and being shot down by the one guy that didn't give a shit about that.

Conservatives love to celebrate the death rate in Chicago. Here you have gangs that are heavily armed yet have no reservations about shooting each other over any perceived slight. They do not say, let's do our shootings in safer neighborhoods
Dodge city is still Dodge City
More guns equate to more gun violence

In other words it's the people not the guns in Chicago. And the strict gun laws aren't making any difference. Exactly what we've been saying for years.

Hard to make a difference when you only have to go outside the city limits to get all the guns you want

What we do know is the more guns you have, the more gun violence you see

 

[Clementine]

By morning the streets of liberal-led cities will be littered with the dead and injured bodies of many Brown and Black people. Emergency rooms will be flooded.

you wont see any demonstrations, any riots.

But all they have to do is put up signs stating that the cities are gun-free zones.

This is how liberals think it will work:

 

[Maryland Patriot]

By morning the streets of liberal-led cities will be littered with the dead and injured bodies of many Brown and Black people. Emergency rooms will be flooded.

you wont see any demonstrations, any riots.

If more of those people had more guns that would solve the problem, according to you.

So in your little mind a law abiding citizen is the same as a criminal?

No that's your belief since you don't want background checks that determine the difference.

because criminals all got a gun that way?

you idiot; your inner-city gun runners are buying them illegally elsewhere, or transporting them illegally across state lines

Thats BS, besides they would have to bring them into no gun zones. This is why we have laws, nobody will break the law.
Im telling you, if we made it illegal to shoot and kill someone all of this would be a non issue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

By morning the streets of liberal-led cities will be littered with the dead and injured bodies of many Brown and Black people. Emergency rooms will be flooded.

you wont see any demonstrations, any riots.

If more of those people had more guns that would solve the problem, according to you.

So in your little mind a law abiding citizen is the same as a criminal?

No that's your belief since you don't want background checks that determine the difference.

hey lib- CRIMINALS DON'T get background checks. They find and steal guns. Or smuggle them in.OR BORROW THEIR CRIMINAL FRIENDS GUN.

Child molesters don't respect the law either. By your 'logic' we shouldn't have laws against child molesting.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

If I'm the only one willing to obey the gun free zone? Holmes didn't give a shit about that. Kinda what it means to be a criminal. If I can be armed I would sit next to anyone. In that case he would know he has a problem with killing a lot of unarmed people that can't fight back. If I'm allowed to carry that isn't an option for him. Therefore a **** like him would probably just sit there and watch the damn movie. He's not going to go against a person carrying an AR-15, a cap gun or even a pop-tart chewed into something that looks like a gun. You beat these people by taking their safe space away. They are pussies. And when they have to fight armed people they will never do it.

OK so this is your world

You take your young children to see Batman and the only seats are next to a crazy looking guy dressed as the Joker. Since it is not a gun free zone, he walked into the theater with an AR-15 and a backpack full of large capacity magazines

You don't care though, because you have your handgun and figure you can get a shot in.

This is the world you envision?

I could do that if he had his weapon and I had mine. And others had theirs. But that's not what happened is it.

What we had is a lot of law abiding citizens willingly disarming themselves in a gun free zone and being shot down by the one guy that didn't give a shit about that.

Conservatives love to celebrate the death rate in Chicago. Here you have gangs that are heavily armed yet have no reservations about shooting each other over any perceived slight. They do not say, let's do our shootings in safer neighborhoods
Dodge city is still Dodge City
More guns equate to more gun violence

In other words it's the people not the guns in Chicago. And the strict gun laws aren't making any difference. Exactly what we've been saying for years.

Hard to make a difference when you only have to go outside the city limits to get all the guns you want

What we do know is the more guns you have, the more gun violence you see

No, what we do know is criminals get guns illegally, meaning they don't go outside the city and get a background check, and unarmed law abiding citizens get shot up because of it. More guns in citizens hands keeps criminals in their place. No armed citizens gives criminals free reign. Gun control doesn't work and never will. Look at Mexico.