If Barrett was a Dem nominee, left would lose their minds if Pubs treated her the way Dems did during the hearing

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,455
Reaction score
13,715
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Yes, you want only the cops you claim are murdering black people to have guns. You've mentioned that.

Note you never did say how you were going to take guns from criminals. So far you've only tried to disarm victims
Actually, it's pretty easy to take guns from Criminals... Hold the gun industry financially responsible for gun crimes.
You can bet, they will control the sale of guns the way they control the sale of anything else they can be held liable for.

You see, the reason why the gun laws are so lax and it's so easy for criminals to get them is the gun industry wants it that way. You can't get someone to chuck out hundreds of bucks for something they don't need unless they are scared.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,707
Reaction score
12,038
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
Yes, you want only the cops you claim are murdering black people to have guns. You've mentioned that.

Note you never did say how you were going to take guns from criminals. So far you've only tried to disarm victims
Actually, it's pretty easy to take guns from Criminals... Hold the gun industry financially responsible for gun crimes.
You can bet, they will control the sale of guns the way they control the sale of anything else they can be held liable for.

You see, the reason why the gun laws are so lax and it's so easy for criminals to get them is the gun industry wants it that way. You can't get someone to chuck out hundreds of bucks for something they don't need unless they are scared.
That's just a different way to ban guns. Obviously gun companies have no control over guns than car companies can control how you drive. This is just a back door way to just make them illegal and shut them down.

Again, you're advocating just what I said, taking guns from honest citizens.

Still looking for your plan to take them from criminals
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,512
Reaction score
40,422
Points
2,190
Dems treated Barrett better than Republicans treated Garland
Nobody gives a flying fuck about Garland. His nomination went as far as it could. A nice cordial no thanks.

Can you imagine the left today if Sotomayor was asked if she ever sexually assaulted someone? Holy shit you’d lose your fucking minds. And you’re the party of rape.
The ghost of Merrick Garland hangs over Republicans. republicans know what they did and now just want it to go away.

Let’s just make up and pretend it didnt happen.

But that act and the hypocrisy of rushing through the Barrett nomination has permanently burned all bridges between the parties.

Dems will not forget.
The Democrats were absolutely vicious and disgusting and rude and mansplaining and accusatory and just awful to Barrett.

If the parties were flipped, the M5M would have lost their Goddamn minds and would have called the Republicans every name in the book.

But she is conservative, and she is Catholic....so ots ok to treat her like shit.
Those lyin cheatin scum bastard dems wouldn't even give her a hearing. SO UNFAIR#MAGA
How is not giving Garland a hearing "cheating"?

what procedures or laws were broken?
No laws

A sitting President was denied the chance to fill a Supreme Court vacancy for the first time.
It caused bad blood and a rift between the parties that will not be easily settled


There are also no laws against adding seats to the courts or ending the Senate filibuster.

We shall see how Dems react to the Republican power play.
Fake news. The President doesn't get to "fill" a SCOTUS vacancy. They only get to make a nomination, which Obama did.

You really don't understand our system of government, do you?
And Republicans said they would not confirm anyone Obama nominated. McConnell pronounced it before Scalias body was even cold
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,707
Reaction score
12,038
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
Dems treated Barrett better than Republicans treated Garland
Nobody gives a flying fuck about Garland. His nomination went as far as it could. A nice cordial no thanks.

Can you imagine the left today if Sotomayor was asked if she ever sexually assaulted someone? Holy shit you’d lose your fucking minds. And you’re the party of rape.
The ghost of Merrick Garland hangs over Republicans. republicans know what they did and now just want it to go away.

Let’s just make up and pretend it didnt happen.

But that act and the hypocrisy of rushing through the Barrett nomination has permanently burned all bridges between the parties.

Dems will not forget.
The Democrats were absolutely vicious and disgusting and rude and mansplaining and accusatory and just awful to Barrett.

If the parties were flipped, the M5M would have lost their Goddamn minds and would have called the Republicans every name in the book.

But she is conservative, and she is Catholic....so ots ok to treat her like shit.
Those lyin cheatin scum bastard dems wouldn't even give her a hearing. SO UNFAIR#MAGA
How is not giving Garland a hearing "cheating"?

what procedures or laws were broken?
No laws

A sitting President was denied the chance to fill a Supreme Court vacancy for the first time.
It caused bad blood and a rift between the parties that will not be easily settled


There are also no laws against adding seats to the courts or ending the Senate filibuster.

We shall see how Dems react to the Republican power play.
Fake news. The President doesn't get to "fill" a SCOTUS vacancy. They only get to make a nomination, which Obama did.

You really don't understand our system of government, do you?
And Republicans said they would not confirm anyone Obama nominated. McConnell pronounced it before Scalias body was even cold
Right.

President nominates

Senate confirms.

Just like Democrats tried to filibuster Alito, Renquist (for chief) and they did filibuster Gorsuch. They couldn't vote them down.

You get it ... when Democrats do it ...
 

Gary Lee

Active Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2020
Messages
193
Reaction score
120
Points
43
The Democrats were absolutely vicious and disgusting and rude and mansplaining and accusatory and just awful to Barrett.

If the parties were flipped, the M5M would have lost their Goddamn minds and would have called the Republicans every name in the book.

But she is conservative, and she is Catholic....so ots ok to treat her like shit.
They already lost their minds when Trump was elected in 2016. Pitiful bunch, especially that evil witch Pelosi.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,512
Reaction score
40,422
Points
2,190
Barrett got a Senate hearing and a floor vote

Mitch told Obama he would not consider anyone he nominated because..........Ready?

He wanted the people to decide who makes the pick
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,455
Reaction score
13,715
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
That's just a different way to ban guns. Obviously gun companies have no control over guns than car companies can control how you drive. This is just a back door way to just make them illegal and shut them down.
Quite the contrary, car companies do a lot to make sure that they are safer.... and background check people before they buy them. We have licensing, insurance and strict regulation. I would love to have guns regulated like cars.

The problem is, every time we have a mass shooting, we find out two things.

1) Everyone in the shooter's life knew he was crazy.
2) He was still able to easily get a high-powered gun and lots of ammo.

Now imagine if we held the gun makers responsible... that they had to convince 12 jurors they weren't negligent.

You betcha a few times of doing that, they'd create background checks far better than the one the government established after they watered it down.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,707
Reaction score
12,038
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
That's just a different way to ban guns. Obviously gun companies have no control over guns than car companies can control how you drive. This is just a back door way to just make them illegal and shut them down.
Quite the contrary, car companies do a lot to make sure that they are safer.... and background check people before they buy them. We have licensing, insurance and strict regulation. I would love to have guns regulated like cars.
How have car companies stopped hit and runs? What bull shit. You're talking about car companies making them safer for the drivers. Totally different subject

The problem is, every time we have a mass shooting, we find out two things.

1) Everyone in the shooter's life knew he was crazy.
2) He was still able to easily get a high-powered gun and lots of ammo.
And you have no plan to stop them. You're only taking guns from law abiding citizens

Now imagine if we held the gun makers responsible... that they had to convince 12 jurors they weren't negligent.

You betcha a few times of doing that, they'd create background checks far better than the one the government established after they watered it down.
They aren't negligent any more than a car company is negligent for a hit and run.

Again, all you're doing is shutting them down one way over another. Obviously gun companies can't control where their guns go, it's just totally stupid.

And again you show repeatedly you're a liar about your experience with guns. You think the danger is from law abiding citizens and that the goal in defense is to start shooting people. Total ignorance, you have obviously no experience with guns at all
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
101,495
Reaction score
35,941
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
So does this mean we need to eliminate rope, sky scrapers, etc... ?
Asking for a friend
Naw, man, if you want to off yourself, no one will want to stop you.

We can do very fine without guns... or maybe just limit who can own them... like any sensible country does.
Have you considered moving oversees ?

The Right needs to set up a service to help all the Leftists who promise to leave the country to pack.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
101,495
Reaction score
35,941
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
That's just a different way to ban guns. Obviously gun companies have no control over guns than car companies can control how you drive. This is just a back door way to just make them illegal and shut them down.
Quite the contrary, car companies do a lot to make sure that they are safer.... and background check people before they buy them. We have licensing, insurance and strict regulation. I would love to have guns regulated like cars.
How have car companies stopped hit and runs? What bull shit. You're talking about car companies making them safer for the drivers. Totally different subject

The problem is, every time we have a mass shooting, we find out two things.

1) Everyone in the shooter's life knew he was crazy.
2) He was still able to easily get a high-powered gun and lots of ammo.
And you have no plan to stop them. You're only taking guns from law abiding citizens

Now imagine if we held the gun makers responsible... that they had to convince 12 jurors they weren't negligent.

You betcha a few times of doing that, they'd create background checks far better than the one the government established after they watered it down.
They aren't negligent any more than a car company is negligent for a hit and run.

Again, all you're doing is shutting them down one way over another. Obviously gun companies can't control where their guns go, it's just totally stupid.

And again you show repeatedly you're a liar about your experience with guns. You think the danger is from law abiding citizens and that the goal in defense is to start shooting people. Total ignorance, you have obviously no experience with guns at all

More often then not, there are simple questions that destroy the Liberal worldview, and stop 'em dead in their propaganda tracks.
In this case...."which are the gun laws that criminals will obey?"
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,455
Reaction score
13,715
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
How have car companies stopped hit and runs? What bull shit. You're talking about car companies making them safer for the drivers. Totally different subject
Well, they won't sell one to a person who has lost his license, to start with. So there's that.... They also push for a lot of laws to make driving safer, increased road safety, and so on.

Unlike the Gun industry, that sells ever more dangerous guns to ever more dangerous people.

And you have no plan to stop them. You're only taking guns from law abiding citizens
I've just laid out my plan... Hold Gun makers responsible, limit who can get guns.

"Law-abiding Citizens" are only law abiding until they aren't. Most gun deaths are domestic violence and suicide, not crooks shooting people.

Again, all you're doing is shutting them down one way over another. Obviously gun companies can't control where their guns go, it's just totally stupid.
Again, look at the marketing... Do you think THIS ad was designed for a person who is mentally stable?

1603548972028.png


And again you show repeatedly you're a liar about your experience with guns. You think the danger is from law abiding citizens and that the goal in defense is to start shooting people. Total ignorance, you have obviously no experience with guns at all
Again, 11 years in the army, and my MOS was 76Y. You should look that up, as to what the duties of a 76Y include.

Actually, the danger IS from law abiding citizens...

How is it the UK has only 500 homicides a year, and we have 16,000, most of them with guns? Because a gun turns a domestic dispute into a domestic tragedy.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
54,237
Reaction score
11,514
Points
2,040
Suicides, and that's them just choosing the easiest method, not having a gun won't stop them. Most other gun crime is criminal on criminal.

One out of sixteen is a useless number is 99% of them are justified by the stupidity of the criminals resisting the police.
Yet, oddly cops in the UK kill only a handful of people a year... Hmmmm...

Speaking of the UK, when they UK banned coal gas (used in suicides by sticking your head in an oven) with natural gas, the suicide rate in the UK went down.

Yes, you eliminate a method of suicide, the suicide rate goes down.
Correlation does not equal causation.

and you can still kill yourself sticking your head into an oven.
 

Missouri_Mike

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
17,070
Reaction score
5,986
Points
350
How have car companies stopped hit and runs? What bull shit. You're talking about car companies making them safer for the drivers. Totally different subject
Well, they won't sell one to a person who has lost his license, to start with. So there's that.... They also push for a lot of laws to make driving safer, increased road safety, and so on.

Unlike the Gun industry, that sells ever more dangerous guns to ever more dangerous people.

And you have no plan to stop them. You're only taking guns from law abiding citizens
I've just laid out my plan... Hold Gun makers responsible, limit who can get guns.

"Law-abiding Citizens" are only law abiding until they aren't. Most gun deaths are domestic violence and suicide, not crooks shooting people.

Again, all you're doing is shutting them down one way over another. Obviously gun companies can't control where their guns go, it's just totally stupid.
Again, look at the marketing... Do you think THIS ad was designed for a person who is mentally stable?

View attachment 405996

And again you show repeatedly you're a liar about your experience with guns. You think the danger is from law abiding citizens and that the goal in defense is to start shooting people. Total ignorance, you have obviously no experience with guns at all
Again, 11 years in the army, and my MOS was 76Y. You should look that up, as to what the duties of a 76Y include.

Actually, the danger IS from law abiding citizens...

How is it the UK has only 500 homicides a year, and we have 16,000, most of them with guns? Because a gun turns a domestic dispute into a domestic tragedy.
There’s no requirement to have a license to buy a car. WTF are you talking about?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,707
Reaction score
12,038
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
That's just a different way to ban guns. Obviously gun companies have no control over guns than car companies can control how you drive. This is just a back door way to just make them illegal and shut them down.
Quite the contrary, car companies do a lot to make sure that they are safer.... and background check people before they buy them. We have licensing, insurance and strict regulation. I would love to have guns regulated like cars.
How have car companies stopped hit and runs? What bull shit. You're talking about car companies making them safer for the drivers. Totally different subject

The problem is, every time we have a mass shooting, we find out two things.

1) Everyone in the shooter's life knew he was crazy.
2) He was still able to easily get a high-powered gun and lots of ammo.
And you have no plan to stop them. You're only taking guns from law abiding citizens

Now imagine if we held the gun makers responsible... that they had to convince 12 jurors they weren't negligent.

You betcha a few times of doing that, they'd create background checks far better than the one the government established after they watered it down.
They aren't negligent any more than a car company is negligent for a hit and run.

Again, all you're doing is shutting them down one way over another. Obviously gun companies can't control where their guns go, it's just totally stupid.

And again you show repeatedly you're a liar about your experience with guns. You think the danger is from law abiding citizens and that the goal in defense is to start shooting people. Total ignorance, you have obviously no experience with guns at all

More often then not, there are simple questions that destroy the Liberal worldview, and stop 'em dead in their propaganda tracks.
In this case...."which are the gun laws that criminals will obey?"
Yep. Joe proves he's a liar, yet again. He says he has all sorts of experience with guns. But then he thinks guns are useless as protection and that the goal of a gun defense is to start shooting people. Every gun owner I know prays we never shoot anyone. The goal of defense is to NOT shoot people. Shooting someone is the last resort.

But Joe ONLY measures how many people you kill defending yourself. He literally thinks that's the goal, to kill the bad guy
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
101,495
Reaction score
35,941
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
That's just a different way to ban guns. Obviously gun companies have no control over guns than car companies can control how you drive. This is just a back door way to just make them illegal and shut them down.
Quite the contrary, car companies do a lot to make sure that they are safer.... and background check people before they buy them. We have licensing, insurance and strict regulation. I would love to have guns regulated like cars.
How have car companies stopped hit and runs? What bull shit. You're talking about car companies making them safer for the drivers. Totally different subject

The problem is, every time we have a mass shooting, we find out two things.

1) Everyone in the shooter's life knew he was crazy.
2) He was still able to easily get a high-powered gun and lots of ammo.
And you have no plan to stop them. You're only taking guns from law abiding citizens

Now imagine if we held the gun makers responsible... that they had to convince 12 jurors they weren't negligent.

You betcha a few times of doing that, they'd create background checks far better than the one the government established after they watered it down.
They aren't negligent any more than a car company is negligent for a hit and run.

Again, all you're doing is shutting them down one way over another. Obviously gun companies can't control where their guns go, it's just totally stupid.

And again you show repeatedly you're a liar about your experience with guns. You think the danger is from law abiding citizens and that the goal in defense is to start shooting people. Total ignorance, you have obviously no experience with guns at all

More often then not, there are simple questions that destroy the Liberal worldview, and stop 'em dead in their propaganda tracks.
In this case...."which are the gun laws that criminals will obey?"
Yep. Joe proves he's a liar, yet again. He says he has all sorts of experience with guns. But then he thinks guns are useless as protection and that the goal of a gun defense is to start shooting people. Every gun owner I know prays we never shoot anyone. The goal of defense is to NOT shoot people. Shooting someone is the last resort.

But Joe ONLY measures how many people you kill defending yourself. He literally thinks that's the goal, to kill the bad guy

I believe you misunderstand ErroneousJoe.

He doesn't 'think' anything.

He's the sort who not only walks around with a cloud over his head, he tries to sow the same sort of negativity on all those around him.

Really a sad sort.
 
Last edited:

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,707
Reaction score
12,038
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
How have car companies stopped hit and runs? What bull shit. You're talking about car companies making them safer for the drivers. Totally different subject
Well, they won't sell one to a person who has lost his license, to start with. So there's that.... They also push for a lot of laws to make driving safer, increased road safety, and so on.

Unlike the Gun industry, that sells ever more dangerous guns to ever more dangerous people.

And you have no plan to stop them. You're only taking guns from law abiding citizens
I've just laid out my plan... Hold Gun makers responsible, limit who can get guns.

"Law-abiding Citizens" are only law abiding until they aren't. Most gun deaths are domestic violence and suicide, not crooks shooting people.

Again, all you're doing is shutting them down one way over another. Obviously gun companies can't control where their guns go, it's just totally stupid.
Again, look at the marketing... Do you think THIS ad was designed for a person who is mentally stable?

View attachment 405996

And again you show repeatedly you're a liar about your experience with guns. You think the danger is from law abiding citizens and that the goal in defense is to start shooting people. Total ignorance, you have obviously no experience with guns at all
Again, 11 years in the army, and my MOS was 76Y. You should look that up, as to what the duties of a 76Y include.

Actually, the danger IS from law abiding citizens...

How is it the UK has only 500 homicides a year, and we have 16,000, most of them with guns? Because a gun turns a domestic dispute into a domestic tragedy.
Last paragraph is a single cause fallacy.

There is no way that gun companies could track the guns they sell or even do their own background checks on gun owners. You know that, you're lying. Your goal is to shut them down by burying them with lawsuits over actions they had nothing to do with.

And you have offered zero plan to keep guns from criminals. You're just babbling. You are actually arguing that cops who want to murder us and criminals should have guns be we shouldn't, we're safer that way. Load of crap.

And you know all about guns, but they can't be used properly for self defense. More of your stupid shit. As is your belief that the goal of self defense is shooting people, which couldn't be more wrong
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,455
Reaction score
13,715
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Yep. Joe proves he's a liar, yet again. He says he has all sorts of experience with guns. But then he thinks guns are useless as protection and that the goal of a gun defense is to start shooting people. Every gun owner I know prays we never shoot anyone. The goal of defense is to NOT shoot people. Shooting someone is the last resort.
You know what, Guy, all I see from you gun nuts is you all WANKING about wanting to shoot people, about thinking a mutant like Geo. Zimmerman won the superbowl when he did.

The reality- DGU's are a myth.... According to the FBI, there are only 200 cases of DGU's by Civilians that result in a body on teh floor. But the National Rampage Association would have you think that there are a million DGU's a year.

That means, 99.9998% of the time, a criminal backed down, and a racist with a gun was able to contain his wank fantasy of shooting him a darkie. It's just not plausible.

There is no way that gun companies could track the guns they sell or even do their own background checks on gun owners. You know that, you're lying. Your goal is to shut them down by burying them with lawsuits over actions they had nothing to do with.
Sure they can. Guns have serial numbers... They can be tracked and traced. They can be matched by ballistics.

Oh, I really don't care if they go out of business or not... I'm concerned about their irresponsible thinking that saw Adam Lanza's mom as someone who needed enough guns to fight off the Zombies.

And you know all about guns, but they can't be used properly for self defense. More of your stupid shit. As is your belief that the goal of self defense is shooting people, which couldn't be more wrong
As stated, given the Gun Wank fantasies I hear every day on here, you guys couldn't show that much restraint.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,707
Reaction score
12,038
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
Yep. Joe proves he's a liar, yet again. He says he has all sorts of experience with guns. But then he thinks guns are useless as protection and that the goal of a gun defense is to start shooting people. Every gun owner I know prays we never shoot anyone. The goal of defense is to NOT shoot people. Shooting someone is the last resort.
You know what, Guy, all I see from you gun nuts is you all WANKING about wanting to shoot people, about thinking a mutant like Geo. Zimmerman won the superbowl when he did.

The reality- DGU's are a myth.... According to the FBI, there are only 200 cases of DGU's by Civilians that result in a body on teh floor. But the National Rampage Association would have you think that there are a million DGU's a year.

That means, 99.9998% of the time, a criminal backed down, and a racist with a gun was able to contain his wank fantasy of shooting him a darkie. It's just not plausible.

There is no way that gun companies could track the guns they sell or even do their own background checks on gun owners. You know that, you're lying. Your goal is to shut them down by burying them with lawsuits over actions they had nothing to do with.
Sure they can. Guns have serial numbers... They can be tracked and traced. They can be matched by ballistics.

Oh, I really don't care if they go out of business or not... I'm concerned about their irresponsible thinking that saw Adam Lanza's mom as someone who needed enough guns to fight off the Zombies.

And you know all about guns, but they can't be used properly for self defense. More of your stupid shit. As is your belief that the goal of self defense is shooting people, which couldn't be more wrong
As stated, given the Gun Wank fantasies I hear every day on here, you guys couldn't show that much restraint.
The only one talking about shooting people is you, Joe. Fail
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,707
Reaction score
12,038
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
You know what, Guy, all I see from you gun nuts is you all WANKING about wanting to shoot people

...

As stated, given the Gun Wank fantasies I hear every day on here, you guys couldn't show that much restraint.
Actually, the only wank doing that is you, Joe. No one else has talked about any gun fantasies, just you. No one else has talked about shooting people, just you. No one else has stated your aim in using a gun for self defense is to actually shoot someone, just you. Everyone else has said our goal is to not shoot people.

You have some serious projection going on there, Holmes. Sounds like you need some serious therapy. I hope you're on a no gun list somewhere
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top