Hillary says NRA needs a "rival" organization of responsible gun owners

[Uncensored2008]

Read post #381. Laws can be changed, as long as guns continue to be used to kill little kids, people in churches, in theaters, at restaurants, at schools and at Universities the tipping point will be reached, and the suggestions I've made will be seen as minor compared to what further horrors may bring.

Remember how the reserve clause was lost by the stubbornness of owners of Major League baseball, that too can happen in terms of the NRA and those so obsessed with their guns.

 

[Rustic]

Finally..will you explain "Reasonable controls," you keep saying strings of words that have "Reasonable," in them but then you don't follow up with actual reasonable controls.............it would be nice if for once you guys did that.

No matter what I say, you would refuse to see reason. It's a waste of time repeating the same things you have been repeatedly told, but chose to ignore. Your willful ignorance is complete,and you are of no use but to laugh at and point out you obvious stupidity. Believe what you will.

So far none of you regressives have been able to articulate what constitutes reasonable controls and show how they will effectively stop criminals from getting guns which is supposedly your only goal, correct?

Instead of making an editorial comment you might go back and read the arguments for licensing and registration.

I doubt it will change your mind, or even be considered, since you and others have expressed dozens and dozens of times that gun control will never work, and that the 2nd A. is absolute; you and others believe that gun control is and always will be unconstitutional.

Yet, you and others seem to feel it is fine and dandy to take the 2nd Right away from those who are mentally ill or have been convicted of a felony to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm. How is that not an infringement on them?

Where in the 2nd A. does it even imply that felons and the mentally ill have lost the right to own a gun. Don't they have the right of self defense?

The arguments, if one could expand the meaning of the term presented by you and the others who oppose gun controls, are not sagacious, that means they are emotion driven and void of keen practical sense.

Federal licensing and registration is first and foremost against existing federal law, they violate privacy, but they are also violations of the 4th and 5th amendments. The supreme court has ruled that criminals who have a gun can not be prosecuted for failing to follow such requirements because of the 5th amendment. So now you run into a 14th amendment argument of equal protection, it they can't compel a criminal to follow such laws, how can they compel a law abiding citizen to do it?

Also rights can be removed by DUE PROCESS, meaning a court order. So anyone adjudicated as a felon, a danger to themselves or others or mentally defective can have their rights taken. Absolutely nothing short of that court order should be allowed to do so.

Considering the above, your arguments don't hold water when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, do they? So stop trying to push more costs and bureaucratic bullshit on law abiding citizens and concentrate on the folks that are actually violating the rights of the law abiding and throw their asses in jail or kill them, I really don't care which and leave us alone to freely go about our lives.

Read post #381. Laws can be changed, as long as guns continue to be used to kill little kids, people in churches, in theaters, at restaurants, at schools and at Universities the tipping point will be reached, and the suggestions I've made will be seen as minor compared to what further horrors may bring.

Remember how the reserve clause was lost by the stubbornness of owners of Major League baseball, that too can happen in terms of the NRA and those so obsessed with their guns.

People kill people, not guns. Dumbass

 

[Uncensored2008]

Funny, I made a type-o. BFD.

That. and a complete blunder on logic....

So, you were an IRS agent?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So far none of you regressives have been able to articulate what constitutes reasonable controls and show how they will effectively stop criminals from getting guns which is supposedly your only goal, correct?

Instead of making an editorial comment you might go back and read the arguments for licensing and registration.

I doubt it will change your mind, or even be considered, since you and others have expressed dozens and dozens of times that gun control will never work, and that the 2nd A. is absolute; you and others believe that gun control is and always will be unconstitutional.

Yet, you and others seem to feel it is fine and dandy to take the 2nd Right away from those who are mentally ill or have been convicted of a felony to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm. How is that not an infringement on them?

Where in the 2nd A. does it even imply that felons and the mentally ill have lost the right to own a gun. Don't they have the right of self defense?

The arguments, if one could expand the meaning of the term presented by you and the others who oppose gun controls, are not sagacious, that means they are emotion driven and void of keen practical sense.

Federal licensing and registration is first and foremost against existing federal law, they violate privacy, but they are also violations of the 4th and 5th amendments. The supreme court has ruled that criminals who have a gun can not be prosecuted for failing to follow such requirements because of the 5th amendment. So now you run into a 14th amendment argument of equal protection, it they can't compel a criminal to follow such laws, how can they compel a law abiding citizen to do it?

Also rights can be removed by DUE PROCESS, meaning a court order. So anyone adjudicated as a felon, a danger to themselves or others or mentally defective can have their rights taken. Absolutely nothing short of that court order should be allowed to do so.

Considering the above, your arguments don't hold water when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, do they? So stop trying to push more costs and bureaucratic bullshit on law abiding citizens and concentrate on the folks that are actually violating the rights of the law abiding and throw their asses in jail or kill them, I really don't care which and leave us alone to freely go about our lives.

Read post #381. Laws can be changed, as long as guns continue to be used to kill little kids, people in churches, in theaters, at restaurants, at schools and at Universities the tipping point will be reached, and the suggestions I've made will be seen as minor compared to what further horrors may bring.

Remember how the reserve clause was lost by the stubbornness of owners of Major League baseball, that too can happen in terms of the NRA and those so obsessed with their guns.

How long have you been an NRA member?

I don't join clubs.

It's not really a "club", it's more of a foundation to preserve and protect our second amendments rights for all law abiding Americans.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No matter what I say, you would refuse to see reason. It's a waste of time repeating the same things you have been repeatedly told, but chose to ignore. Your willful ignorance is complete,and you are of no use but to laugh at and point out you obvious stupidity. Believe what you will.

So far none of you regressives have been able to articulate what constitutes reasonable controls and show how they will effectively stop criminals from getting guns which is supposedly your only goal, correct?

Instead of making an editorial comment you might go back and read the arguments for licensing and registration.

I doubt it will change your mind, or even be considered, since you and others have expressed dozens and dozens of times that gun control will never work, and that the 2nd A. is absolute; you and others believe that gun control is and always will be unconstitutional.

Yet, you and others seem to feel it is fine and dandy to take the 2nd Right away from those who are mentally ill or have been convicted of a felony to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm. How is that not an infringement on them?

Where in the 2nd A. does it even imply that felons and the mentally ill have lost the right to own a gun. Don't they have the right of self defense?

The arguments, if one could expand the meaning of the term presented by you and the others who oppose gun controls, are not sagacious, that means they are emotion driven and void of keen practical sense.

Federal licensing and registration is first and foremost against existing federal law, they violate privacy, but they are also violations of the 4th and 5th amendments. The supreme court has ruled that criminals who have a gun can not be prosecuted for failing to follow such requirements because of the 5th amendment. So now you run into a 14th amendment argument of equal protection, it they can't compel a criminal to follow such laws, how can they compel a law abiding citizen to do it?

Also rights can be removed by DUE PROCESS, meaning a court order. So anyone adjudicated as a felon, a danger to themselves or others or mentally defective can have their rights taken. Absolutely nothing short of that court order should be allowed to do so.

Considering the above, your arguments don't hold water when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, do they? So stop trying to push more costs and bureaucratic bullshit on law abiding citizens and concentrate on the folks that are actually violating the rights of the law abiding and throw their asses in jail or kill them, I really don't care which and leave us alone to freely go about our lives.

Read post #381. Laws can be changed, as long as guns continue to be used to kill little kids, people in churches, in theaters, at restaurants, at schools and at Universities the tipping point will be reached, and the suggestions I've made will be seen as minor compared to what further horrors may bring.

Remember how the reserve clause was lost by the stubbornness of owners of Major League baseball, that too can happen in terms of the NRA and those so obsessed with their guns.

People kill people, not guns. Dumbass

I pity people like you. There are so many like you who also lack cognitive skills, and are desperate for attention; they, like you, seem so desperate for attention they try to be noticed, yet can only muster up foolish comments and call others stupid, morons or a dumbass.

As a good person I decided to give you some attention, I hope calling your attention to your limitations and myopic vision will give you a moment's recognition since negative attention is better than being ignored, as I'm sure you have known for a long time.

 

[Uncensored2008]

 

[Wry Catcher]

Instead of making an editorial comment you might go back and read the arguments for licensing and registration.

I doubt it will change your mind, or even be considered, since you and others have expressed dozens and dozens of times that gun control will never work, and that the 2nd A. is absolute; you and others believe that gun control is and always will be unconstitutional.

Yet, you and others seem to feel it is fine and dandy to take the 2nd Right away from those who are mentally ill or have been convicted of a felony to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm. How is that not an infringement on them?

Where in the 2nd A. does it even imply that felons and the mentally ill have lost the right to own a gun. Don't they have the right of self defense?

The arguments, if one could expand the meaning of the term presented by you and the others who oppose gun controls, are not sagacious, that means they are emotion driven and void of keen practical sense.

Federal licensing and registration is first and foremost against existing federal law, they violate privacy, but they are also violations of the 4th and 5th amendments. The supreme court has ruled that criminals who have a gun can not be prosecuted for failing to follow such requirements because of the 5th amendment. So now you run into a 14th amendment argument of equal protection, it they can't compel a criminal to follow such laws, how can they compel a law abiding citizen to do it?

Also rights can be removed by DUE PROCESS, meaning a court order. So anyone adjudicated as a felon, a danger to themselves or others or mentally defective can have their rights taken. Absolutely nothing short of that court order should be allowed to do so.

Considering the above, your arguments don't hold water when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, do they? So stop trying to push more costs and bureaucratic bullshit on law abiding citizens and concentrate on the folks that are actually violating the rights of the law abiding and throw their asses in jail or kill them, I really don't care which and leave us alone to freely go about our lives.

Read post #381. Laws can be changed, as long as guns continue to be used to kill little kids, people in churches, in theaters, at restaurants, at schools and at Universities the tipping point will be reached, and the suggestions I've made will be seen as minor compared to what further horrors may bring.

Remember how the reserve clause was lost by the stubbornness of owners of Major League baseball, that too can happen in terms of the NRA and those so obsessed with their guns.

How long have you been an NRA member?

I don't join clubs.

It's not really a "club", it's more of a foundation to preserve and protect our second amendments rights for all law abiding Americans.

At one time it branded itself as a gun safety organization. I guess failing in that on a daily basis caused its leadership to change course.

 

[2aguy]

Finally..will you explain "Reasonable controls," you keep saying strings of words that have "Reasonable," in them but then you don't follow up with actual reasonable controls.............it would be nice if for once you guys did that.

No matter what I say, you would refuse to see reason. It's a waste of time repeating the same things you have been repeatedly told, but chose to ignore. Your willful ignorance is complete,and you are of no use but to laugh at and point out you obvious stupidity. Believe what you will.

So far none of you regressives have been able to articulate what constitutes reasonable controls and show how they will effectively stop criminals from getting guns which is supposedly your only goal, correct?

Instead of making an editorial comment you might go back and read the arguments for licensing and registration.

I doubt it will change your mind, or even be considered, since you and others have expressed dozens and dozens of times that gun control will never work, and that the 2nd A. is absolute; you and others believe that gun control is and always will be unconstitutional.

Yet, you and others seem to feel it is fine and dandy to take the 2nd Right away from those who are mentally ill or have been convicted of a felony to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm. How is that not an infringement on them?

Where in the 2nd A. does it even imply that felons and the mentally ill have lost the right to own a gun. Don't they have the right of self defense?

The arguments, if one could expand the meaning of the term presented by you and the others who oppose gun controls, are not sagacious, that means they are emotion driven and void of keen practical sense.

Federal licensing and registration is first and foremost against existing federal law, they violate privacy, but they are also violations of the 4th and 5th amendments. The supreme court has ruled that criminals who have a gun can not be prosecuted for failing to follow such requirements because of the 5th amendment. So now you run into a 14th amendment argument of equal protection, it they can't compel a criminal to follow such laws, how can they compel a law abiding citizen to do it?

Also rights can be removed by DUE PROCESS, meaning a court order. So anyone adjudicated as a felon, a danger to themselves or others or mentally defective can have their rights taken. Absolutely nothing short of that court order should be allowed to do so.

Considering the above, your arguments don't hold water when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, do they? So stop trying to push more costs and bureaucratic bullshit on law abiding citizens and concentrate on the folks that are actually violating the rights of the law abiding and throw their asses in jail or kill them, I really don't care which and leave us alone to freely go about our lives.

Read post #381. Laws can be changed, as long as guns continue to be used to kill little kids, people in churches, in theaters, at restaurants, at schools and at Universities the tipping point will be reached, and the suggestions I've made will be seen as minor compared to what further horrors may bring.

Remember how the reserve clause was lost by the stubbornness of owners of Major League baseball, that too can happen in terms of the NRA and those so obsessed with their guns.

And as long as people in this country use guns 1.5 million times a year to stop violent crime and as long as their are people who understand human history and what out of control governments have done to unarmed people you will have people who fight to protect the right to keep and bear arms.............

 

[2aguy]

Cite the law. Then we'll talk.

What laws, we're talking about YOUR proposals, are you senile or just dense? I already know you're a coward, you didn't respond to post 364. So just carry on, you've managed to sway no one but yourself and you're a waste of my time.

Cowards go to the grocery store with a gun, and can't be anywhere without a gun for fear of the boogeyman. Do you sleep with a night light too?

So, without lies and ad hominems you have nothing. Licensing and registration are not fee based in the thousand dollar range, I've said nothing about their costs. Nor did I claim or suggest that to get a license of register a gun would take 6+ months.

Your inference in 364 was wrong, evidence you cannot read with comprehension, or more likely, a lie.

So you think first responders should be disarmed, good to know exactly how big a quack your are. You're dismissed.

First responders have and always have been armed as needed. It's the gun nuts who want to pretend to be Rambo that are the problem.

The Zimmerman Problem.

You mean where a guy is jumped by a thug in training and is forced to kill him to keep from getting his head smashed against the sidewalk?

 

[Rustic]

So far none of you regressives have been able to articulate what constitutes reasonable controls and show how they will effectively stop criminals from getting guns which is supposedly your only goal, correct?

Instead of making an editorial comment you might go back and read the arguments for licensing and registration.

I doubt it will change your mind, or even be considered, since you and others have expressed dozens and dozens of times that gun control will never work, and that the 2nd A. is absolute; you and others believe that gun control is and always will be unconstitutional.

Yet, you and others seem to feel it is fine and dandy to take the 2nd Right away from those who are mentally ill or have been convicted of a felony to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm. How is that not an infringement on them?

Where in the 2nd A. does it even imply that felons and the mentally ill have lost the right to own a gun. Don't they have the right of self defense?

The arguments, if one could expand the meaning of the term presented by you and the others who oppose gun controls, are not sagacious, that means they are emotion driven and void of keen practical sense.

Federal licensing and registration is first and foremost against existing federal law, they violate privacy, but they are also violations of the 4th and 5th amendments. The supreme court has ruled that criminals who have a gun can not be prosecuted for failing to follow such requirements because of the 5th amendment. So now you run into a 14th amendment argument of equal protection, it they can't compel a criminal to follow such laws, how can they compel a law abiding citizen to do it?

Also rights can be removed by DUE PROCESS, meaning a court order. So anyone adjudicated as a felon, a danger to themselves or others or mentally defective can have their rights taken. Absolutely nothing short of that court order should be allowed to do so.

Considering the above, your arguments don't hold water when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, do they? So stop trying to push more costs and bureaucratic bullshit on law abiding citizens and concentrate on the folks that are actually violating the rights of the law abiding and throw their asses in jail or kill them, I really don't care which and leave us alone to freely go about our lives.

Read post #381. Laws can be changed, as long as guns continue to be used to kill little kids, people in churches, in theaters, at restaurants, at schools and at Universities the tipping point will be reached, and the suggestions I've made will be seen as minor compared to what further horrors may bring.

Remember how the reserve clause was lost by the stubbornness of owners of Major League baseball, that too can happen in terms of the NRA and those so obsessed with their guns.

People kill people, not guns. Dumbass

I pity people like you. There are so many like you who also lack cognitive skills, and are desperate for attention; they, like you, seem so desperate for attention they try to be noticed, yet can only muster up foolish comments and call others stupid, morons or a dumbass.

As a good person I decided to give you some attention, I hope calling your attention to your limitations and myopic vision will give you a moment's recognition since negative attention is better than being ignored, as I'm sure you have known for a long time.

Save your pity for our kids and grandkids, they are going to be paying for the stupidity of tax, spend and print policy's of this banana republic.

 

[Rustic]

Federal licensing and registration is first and foremost against existing federal law, they violate privacy, but they are also violations of the 4th and 5th amendments. The supreme court has ruled that criminals who have a gun can not be prosecuted for failing to follow such requirements because of the 5th amendment. So now you run into a 14th amendment argument of equal protection, it they can't compel a criminal to follow such laws, how can they compel a law abiding citizen to do it?

Also rights can be removed by DUE PROCESS, meaning a court order. So anyone adjudicated as a felon, a danger to themselves or others or mentally defective can have their rights taken. Absolutely nothing short of that court order should be allowed to do so.

Considering the above, your arguments don't hold water when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, do they? So stop trying to push more costs and bureaucratic bullshit on law abiding citizens and concentrate on the folks that are actually violating the rights of the law abiding and throw their asses in jail or kill them, I really don't care which and leave us alone to freely go about our lives.

Read post #381. Laws can be changed, as long as guns continue to be used to kill little kids, people in churches, in theaters, at restaurants, at schools and at Universities the tipping point will be reached, and the suggestions I've made will be seen as minor compared to what further horrors may bring.

Remember how the reserve clause was lost by the stubbornness of owners of Major League baseball, that too can happen in terms of the NRA and those so obsessed with their guns.

How long have you been an NRA member?

I don't join clubs.

It's not really a "club", it's more of a foundation to preserve and protect our second amendments rights for all law abiding Americans.

At one time it branded itself as a gun safety organization. I guess failing in that on a daily basis caused its leadership to change course.

We don't need some little worthless gun safety club... Good riddance

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Repeal the Second Amendment: it's obsolete and unnecessary

A very logical and sane article.

An effort to try and remove all guns from the people was tried before.


Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.” A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.

The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, had forbidden town meetings from taking place more than once a year. When he dispatched the Redcoats to break up an illegal town meeting in Salem, 3000 armed Americans appeared in response, and the British retreated. Gage’s aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.

Military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder.


The American Revolution against British Gun Control

 

[2aguy]

Repeal the Second Amendment: it's obsolete and unnecessary

A very logical and sane article.

An effort to try and remove all guns from the people was tried before.


Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.” A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.

The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, had forbidden town meetings from taking place more than once a year. When he dispatched the Redcoats to break up an illegal town meeting in Salem, 3000 armed Americans appeared in response, and the British retreated. Gage’s aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.

Military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder.


The American Revolution against British Gun Control

Had the civilian population in Europe been as well armed as we are today it would have made Germany's invasions far too hard to maintain.....but after defeating the pathetically led armies of the European Nations....the civilian populations were unarmed and defenseless in the face of German monsters.....

 

[Nosmo King]

Gun show loophole? No fly no buy? Universal back ground checks?. Are you selling the lie that the NRA supports these measures?

The NRA supports background checks for the sale of guns by dealers (commercials gun sales.)

Denying rights to those on Obama's enemies list is the definition of tyranny. Who will you Communists put in charge of maintaining the list, Louis Lerner?

Then you would support the elimination of no fly lists altogether. Every suspected terrorist gets a boarding pass.

 

[OKTexas]

Federal licensing and registration is first and foremost against existing federal law, they violate privacy, but they are also violations of the 4th and 5th amendments. The supreme court has ruled that criminals who have a gun can not be prosecuted for failing to follow such requirements because of the 5th amendment. So now you run into a 14th amendment argument of equal protection, it they can't compel a criminal to follow such laws, how can they compel a law abiding citizen to do it?

Also rights can be removed by DUE PROCESS, meaning a court order. So anyone adjudicated as a felon, a danger to themselves or others or mentally defective can have their rights taken. Absolutely nothing short of that court order should be allowed to do so.

Considering the above, your arguments don't hold water when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, do they? So stop trying to push more costs and bureaucratic bullshit on law abiding citizens and concentrate on the folks that are actually violating the rights of the law abiding and throw their asses in jail or kill them, I really don't care which and leave us alone to freely go about our lives.

Cite the law. Then we'll talk.

What laws, we're talking about YOUR proposals, are you senile or just dense? I already know you're a coward, you didn't respond to post 364. So just carry on, you've managed to sway no one but yourself and you're a waste of my time.

Cowards go to the grocery store with a gun, and can't be anywhere without a gun for fear of the boogeyman. Do you sleep with a night light too?

So, without lies and ad hominems you have nothing. Licensing and registration are not fee based in the thousand dollar range, I've said nothing about their costs. Nor did I claim or suggest that to get a license of register a gun would take 6+ months.

Your inference in 364 was wrong, evidence you cannot read with comprehension, or more likely, a lie.

So you think first responders should be disarmed, good to know exactly how big a quack your are. You're dismissed.

First responders have and always have been armed as needed. It's the gun nuts who want to pretend to be Rambo that are the problem.

So you're one of those who propagates the LIE that the police are first responders. Then what do you call the people who call the police?

 

[OKTexas]

Federal licensing and registration is first and foremost against existing federal law, they violate privacy, but they are also violations of the 4th and 5th amendments. The supreme court has ruled that criminals who have a gun can not be prosecuted for failing to follow such requirements because of the 5th amendment. So now you run into a 14th amendment argument of equal protection, it they can't compel a criminal to follow such laws, how can they compel a law abiding citizen to do it?

Also rights can be removed by DUE PROCESS, meaning a court order. So anyone adjudicated as a felon, a danger to themselves or others or mentally defective can have their rights taken. Absolutely nothing short of that court order should be allowed to do so.

Considering the above, your arguments don't hold water when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, do they? So stop trying to push more costs and bureaucratic bullshit on law abiding citizens and concentrate on the folks that are actually violating the rights of the law abiding and throw their asses in jail or kill them, I really don't care which and leave us alone to freely go about our lives.

Cite the law. Then we'll talk.

What laws, we're talking about YOUR proposals, are you senile or just dense? I already know you're a coward, you didn't respond to post 364. So just carry on, you've managed to sway no one but yourself and you're a waste of my time.

Cowards go to the grocery store with a gun, and can't be anywhere without a gun for fear of the boogeyman. Do you sleep with a night light too?

So, without lies and ad hominems you have nothing. Licensing and registration are not fee based in the thousand dollar range, I've said nothing about their costs. Nor did I claim or suggest that to get a license of register a gun would take 6+ months.

Your inference in 364 was wrong, evidence you cannot read with comprehension, or more likely, a lie.

So you think first responders should be disarmed, good to know exactly how big a quack your are. You're dismissed.

Police, deputies and agents are a special class, its members have been vetted by background checks, most have passed written and oral psychological evaluations, were trained in the classroom on use of force policies and on the range in the safe and proper use of deadly force. And still some of them **** up.

Civilians, not vetted are the ones I suggested are the cowards who feel the need to carry a gun whenever they are out in public. Most people could figure that out, only idiots or liars would suggest I meant first responders.

You've been dismissed, STFU!

 

[BULLDOG]

First responders have and always have been armed as needed. It's the gun nuts who want to pretend to be Rambo that are the problem.

How many of these law abiding gun carrying Rambo's kill someone each day in America? Compare that number to the number of illegal gun holders that kill someone each day in the inner cities of America.

One will never justify the other.

Your concession is duly noted.

Now fetch!!


good boy!

You'll grab at anything to feel like you're adequate, won't you? I think you need to find out what concession means. You have never received that from me.

Your refusal to answer the question posed is a definite concession, which is synonymous with copout.

You talk a big game but when challenged you get back under the porch with all the other little puppies.

You say these so called "Rambo's" are the problem.

Explain how a law abiding citizen open carrying a legally owned firearm is the problem.

Go ahead, "make my day".

Won't take your bait. You've shown that facts mean nothing to you,so you're just another unreachable RWNJ. Go ahead and spout your crap, and I'll just point out the more ridiculous points you try to make.

 

[BULLDOG]

Cite the law. Then we'll talk.

What laws, we're talking about YOUR proposals, are you senile or just dense? I already know you're a coward, you didn't respond to post 364. So just carry on, you've managed to sway no one but yourself and you're a waste of my time.

Cowards go to the grocery store with a gun, and can't be anywhere without a gun for fear of the boogeyman. Do you sleep with a night light too?

So, without lies and ad hominems you have nothing. Licensing and registration are not fee based in the thousand dollar range, I've said nothing about their costs. Nor did I claim or suggest that to get a license of register a gun would take 6+ months.

Your inference in 364 was wrong, evidence you cannot read with comprehension, or more likely, a lie.

So you think first responders should be disarmed, good to know exactly how big a quack your are. You're dismissed.

First responders have and always have been armed as needed. It's the gun nuts who want to pretend to be Rambo that are the problem.

So you're one of those who propagates the LIE that the police are first responders. Then what do you call the people who call the police?

Police aren't first responders? You are dumb, aren't you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Instead of making an editorial comment you might go back and read the arguments for licensing and registration.

I doubt it will change your mind, or even be considered, since you and others have expressed dozens and dozens of times that gun control will never work, and that the 2nd A. is absolute; you and others believe that gun control is and always will be unconstitutional.

Yet, you and others seem to feel it is fine and dandy to take the 2nd Right away from those who are mentally ill or have been convicted of a felony to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm. How is that not an infringement on them?

Where in the 2nd A. does it even imply that felons and the mentally ill have lost the right to own a gun. Don't they have the right of self defense?

The arguments, if one could expand the meaning of the term presented by you and the others who oppose gun controls, are not sagacious, that means they are emotion driven and void of keen practical sense.

Federal licensing and registration is first and foremost against existing federal law, they violate privacy, but they are also violations of the 4th and 5th amendments. The supreme court has ruled that criminals who have a gun can not be prosecuted for failing to follow such requirements because of the 5th amendment. So now you run into a 14th amendment argument of equal protection, it they can't compel a criminal to follow such laws, how can they compel a law abiding citizen to do it?

Also rights can be removed by DUE PROCESS, meaning a court order. So anyone adjudicated as a felon, a danger to themselves or others or mentally defective can have their rights taken. Absolutely nothing short of that court order should be allowed to do so.

Considering the above, your arguments don't hold water when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, do they? So stop trying to push more costs and bureaucratic bullshit on law abiding citizens and concentrate on the folks that are actually violating the rights of the law abiding and throw their asses in jail or kill them, I really don't care which and leave us alone to freely go about our lives.

Read post #381. Laws can be changed, as long as guns continue to be used to kill little kids, people in churches, in theaters, at restaurants, at schools and at Universities the tipping point will be reached, and the suggestions I've made will be seen as minor compared to what further horrors may bring.

Remember how the reserve clause was lost by the stubbornness of owners of Major League baseball, that too can happen in terms of the NRA and those so obsessed with their guns.

People kill people, not guns. Dumbass

I pity people like you. There are so many like you who also lack cognitive skills, and are desperate for attention; they, like you, seem so desperate for attention they try to be noticed, yet can only muster up foolish comments and call others stupid, morons or a dumbass.

As a good person I decided to give you some attention, I hope calling your attention to your limitations and myopic vision will give you a moment's recognition since negative attention is better than being ignored, as I'm sure you have known for a long time.

Save your pity for our kids and grandkids, they are going to be paying for the stupidity of tax, spend and print policy's of this banana republic.

Nah, the kids will be okay in terms of the debt, some day the voters will wise up and elect fiscally responsible representatives, not fiscally conservative myopic representatives. I save my pity for my grand kids who will suffer from polluted air, water and soil - the product of right wing fools who vote the plutocrat ticket - people like you.

 

[Rustic]

Federal licensing and registration is first and foremost against existing federal law, they violate privacy, but they are also violations of the 4th and 5th amendments. The supreme court has ruled that criminals who have a gun can not be prosecuted for failing to follow such requirements because of the 5th amendment. So now you run into a 14th amendment argument of equal protection, it they can't compel a criminal to follow such laws, how can they compel a law abiding citizen to do it?

Also rights can be removed by DUE PROCESS, meaning a court order. So anyone adjudicated as a felon, a danger to themselves or others or mentally defective can have their rights taken. Absolutely nothing short of that court order should be allowed to do so.

Considering the above, your arguments don't hold water when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, do they? So stop trying to push more costs and bureaucratic bullshit on law abiding citizens and concentrate on the folks that are actually violating the rights of the law abiding and throw their asses in jail or kill them, I really don't care which and leave us alone to freely go about our lives.

Read post #381. Laws can be changed, as long as guns continue to be used to kill little kids, people in churches, in theaters, at restaurants, at schools and at Universities the tipping point will be reached, and the suggestions I've made will be seen as minor compared to what further horrors may bring.

Remember how the reserve clause was lost by the stubbornness of owners of Major League baseball, that too can happen in terms of the NRA and those so obsessed with their guns.

People kill people, not guns. Dumbass

I pity people like you. There are so many like you who also lack cognitive skills, and are desperate for attention; they, like you, seem so desperate for attention they try to be noticed, yet can only muster up foolish comments and call others stupid, morons or a dumbass.

As a good person I decided to give you some attention, I hope calling your attention to your limitations and myopic vision will give you a moment's recognition since negative attention is better than being ignored, as I'm sure you have known for a long time.

Save your pity for our kids and grandkids, they are going to be paying for the stupidity of tax, spend and print policy's of this banana republic.

Nah, the kids will be okay in terms of the debt, some day the voters will wise up and elect fiscally responsible representatives, not fiscally conservative myopic representatives. I save my pity for my grand kids who will suffer from polluted air, water and soil - the product of right wing fools who vote the plutocrat ticket - people like you.

Cry me a river... Save a whale poach a Rino