Republicans Response to Colorado Shooting: Cant do nothing

So, you -don't- have the capacity to effectively address the issue put to you.
Thank you.

And you lack the capacity to carry on a simple discussion. You cannot see beyond your own beliefs, and you probably need notes.
Hypocrite. You can't see beyond your own belief that guns are scary and bad and evil.

I do not think such things about guns, my father was a cop and I grew up around guns. If you read what I say you will see that my opinion of a society where you need guns for protection is not a civilized or desirerable society to live in. People like you oppose my opinion and do not accept that I have a right to sucn an opinion.
 
Lol...

Myself, and other like-minded people(regarding this topic): Hmmm, I don't think its quite right for someone to have weapons like the AR-15 with 100 round mags.

GOP and the Right: OH SHIT, THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE ALL OUR GUNS AWAY! FUCK U LIB!
 
There have been multiple threads but one thing remains the same. When you ask a republican what could be done to stop dangerous weapons from falling into the wrong hands there answer is:

Nothing...Do nothing...Nothing could be done....and nothing should be done.

Once again showing the deep problem solving skills of some of the righties here.

And, that's the correct response.

A person wanting someone dead is going to find a way to kill that person. A person intent on killing LOTS of people is going to find a way to accomplish that goal.

As much as people want to find a quick fix to end random violent acts, prohibiting access to certain weapons won't deter someone who is truly motivated - and that's a really scary thought.
 
I don't think banning guns and rewriting the consty is going to solve all America's problems. Essentially what caused this was psychological problems, economic hardship; and the failure of the system to stop crazies from getting their hands on guns and shooting up the community. Columbine and now the Colorado shooting show that the system has consistently failed to prevent (and report) problem students before they go wild and endanger the lives of others. Rather than raging at guns, they should be looking at their own communities; why didn't the University do the decent thing and tell the family and the community about this guy, before he shot up the neighborhood?

It would be illegal to do that. It would be a violation of the crazies civil rights.
So the civil rights to shoot up the community are more important than the civil rights of everyone else to life?

Of course. If a crazy person can't acquire hundreds of pounds of ammunition, it's a slippery slope and soon you won't be able to buy a slingshot.
 
So? WHAT does it MEAN?

C'mon CANDY? What does it mean?

You don't KNOW and are called out. YOU don't KNOW. YOU are a LIAR.

Obviously the words "well regulated militia" are there for a reason. If you don't know what the 3 words mean, well, you're beyond help.


The words well regulated militia would mean exactly how the founders understood the words to mean. Well regulated does not mean now what it meant back then.

The second amendment does not say

A militia well regulated by Congress being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

The founders did not want to put the military might and control into the very hands they created the second amendment to prevent in the first place a tyrannical government.
 
And you lack the capacity to carry on a simple discussion. You cannot see beyond your own beliefs, and you probably need notes.
Hypocrite. You can't see beyond your own belief that guns are scary and bad and evil.

I do not think such things about guns, my father was a cop and I grew up around guns. If you read what I say you will see that my opinion of a society where you need guns for protection is not a civilized or desirerable society to live in. People like you oppose my opinion and do not accept that I have a right to sucn an opinion.
Horseshit. You have every right to your opinion.

You don't, however, have the right to immediate and unquestioning acceptance and endorsement of what you say.

If I disagree with you, you are NOT being oppressed. You should accept that.
 
Oppression is a pretty powerful word, but I think that there is very little a freedom of speech and right of opinion in America any more. And both sides of the political spectrum are to blame.
 
Still looking for an answer.

What answer do you want? I have chosen to live and raise my children in an environment where you do not need weapons for protection. Where life is peaceful. You can go ahead living in an environment where you feel that you need weapons and think that you are smarter than me. Most sane people would disagree. Needing guns to provide safety for you and your family IS A PROBLEM.

You have yet to tell us the name of this Utopia you occupy, why is that?

Do you know how to keep a dummy in suspense?
 
So? WHAT does it MEAN?

C'mon CANDY? What does it mean?

You don't KNOW and are called out. YOU don't KNOW. YOU are a LIAR.

Obviously the words "well regulated militia" are there for a reason. If you don't know what the 3 words mean, well, you're beyond help.

It was more than a militia. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.

And that meant the people had the right to self defense to protect thier liberty from enemies foreign and domestic.

The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

Seems YOU are the one that is confused.:eusa_hand:
 
Obviously the words "well regulated militia" are there for a reason. If you don't know what the 3 words mean, well, you're beyond help.
-You- apparently do not know what that reason is...

I'm guessing they wanted regulation of some sort...just throwing that out there.

Funny how you want to focus on the reason they mention for the law, but not the law itself, which states clearly "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The left is always looking to twist the Constitution in favor of oppresive communism....
 
Common sense moment:

If you were a criminal who wanted to shoot up a bunch of people...would you be for or against gun restrictions placed on your future victims? Think about it.
 
Common sense moment:

If you were a criminal who wanted to shoot up a bunch of people...would you be for or against gun restrictions placed on your future victims? Think about it.

Frankly? Criminals wouldn't care. They'll get thier wares 'off the grid'.

Right, but they would prefer their victims to have a great chance of not being armed. They wouldn't care less themselves because anyone can get a gun if they want to.
 
It would be illegal to do that. It would be a violation of the crazies civil rights.
So the civil rights to shoot up the community are more important than the civil rights of everyone else to life?

Of course. If a crazy person can't acquire hundreds of pounds of ammunition, it's a slippery slope and soon you won't be able to buy a slingshot.

And that 'CRAZY PERSON' in Aurora BOUGHT his with Government FUNDS...he wasn't using for it's intended purpose of college.

What a shocker, eh?:eusa_hand:

MORON
 

Forum List

Back
Top