Republicans need to be honest on the 2nd Amendment by saying THIS

[Wildman]

I've asked several times what if any suggestions do the pro gun crowd have to prevent shootings like Oregon...

you really can not be this stupid, or are you?

i suggest people with a little common sense keep an eye open on F.B., U-Tube and other "social media" sites for people who post such as that ******* muslime son-of-a-***** who killed those innocent Christians and report that activity to the proper authorities, recall this: "see something, say something" ??

does that suggestion sound reasonable to you?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I've asked several times what if any suggestions do the pro gun crowd have to prevent shootings like Oregon...

you really can not be this stupid, or are you?

i suggest people with a little common sense keep an eye open on F.B., U-Tube and other "social media" sites for people who post such as that ******* muslime son-of-a-***** who killed those innocent Christians and report that activity to the proper authorities, recall this: "see something, say something" ??

does that suggestion sound reasonable to you?

I remember thinking that CC was a pretty smart guy. Im starting to have doubts.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Mass shootings are collateral damage and an acceptable consequence of freedom to own firearms.

Pretty stupid comment, even from you. Lots of Democrats own guns too but more importantly, the guns have always been with us. So obviously to anyone with a half a brain knows the gun isn't the problem.

If your analytical abilities are limited to what you can feel, then it's all you can come up with I suppose. Nor do you grasp what the freedom to own firearms means, what it means is that government doesn't have the right to take away our ability to defend ourselves, you are bass akwards. I don't have a secret service team following me around, I'll have to take care of the problem myself.

Like I said in the OP some people will be honest and simply say that these things will happen and that's the cost of freedom. Others, like you ****** ass plays pretend every suggestion is stupid while I hide my true ****** feelings behind calling someone names.

So if you have a suggestion let's here it, if not, go **** yourself for being the guy I described in the OP

 

[ClosedCaption]

Ahh, so we're going into the everyone call names. Can I predict these guys or what?

 

[Wildman]

All most all of these mass shooters have one thing in common they all suffer from mental disorders of some type.

that seems a pretty common trait for all demorats, libertards, etc., another thing they have in common is that all the killers are of the libertard persuasion.

OK you liberfools, prove me wrong!!

 

[Misty]

Ahh, so we're going into the everyone call names. Can I predict these guys or what?

You name call all the time. You just did. Lol

 

[Correll]

Mass shootings are collateral damage and an acceptable consequence of freedom to own firearms.

If they said that, it would be so honest and unwavering that ppl would have to be forced to disagree or agree. But instead of being honest they play this game of peekaboo where any and all suggestions for gun control is translated into Republican speak of "Banning guns". Which does nothing to explain what you're FOR.

I've asked several times what if any suggestions do the pro gun crowd have to prevent shootings like Oregon and after so many times it seems as if they don't have suggestions but are more comfortable bring the peanut gallery that boos anyone's suggestions to do anything different than the status quo

Republicans need to be honest that ClosedCaption posts are the price we pay for Freedom of Speech.

 

[Wildman]

So if you have a suggestion let's here it, if not, go **** yourself for being the guy I described in the OP

"lets here it" deffinition: "here" in, at, or to this place or position.
where did you learn English? if any??

 

[ClosedCaption]

Wait, so you guys believe the whole "everything bad done is the fault of mental illness" rap? I remember when bad people were called bad. Nowadays everyone is "crazy"?

There are evil people and there are crazy people.

These mass shootings reflect the latter.

Those people were mentally ill and probably should've been locked up but we can't do that anymore cuz liberals fought for the civil rights of the mental.

These shootings are on liberals shoulders. Wear them with disgrace.

I agree they probably should've been locked up except the part where you show they actually suffered from any sort of mental illness.

Maybe you doing the whole "only a crazy person would..." logic but that's not proof of anything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We need to be able to secure people who are scary for evaluation before they hurt themselves or others.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Ahh, so we're going into the everyone call names. Can I predict these guys or what?

Do what? I just said that youre disappointing me.

 

[NightFox]

Mass shootings are collateral damage and an acceptable consequence of freedom to own firearms.

Except for the fact that your statement is nonsense, mass shootings are the result of the fact that human beings are flawed and capable of acting in violent and immoral ways, the right to bear arms has nothing to do with that. Even if you banned the manufacture, sale and ownership of guns it wouldn't stop these types of crimes since those that commit them would simply go to the black market to obtain their weapons (see: 1920's prohibition and how well that worked out). Passing more gun laws won't stop those willing to commit mass murder (mass murder is ALREADY illegal), all it'll do is add more cost to government and restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Mass shootings are collateral damage and an acceptable consequence of freedom to own firearms.

Except for the fact that your statement is nonsense, mass shootings are the result of the fact that human beings are flawed and capable of acting in violent and immoral ways, the right to bear arms has nothing to do with that.

Yeah that too, also they use guns to do it quickly. Those 2 things aren't mutually exclusive.

Even if you banned the manufacture, sale and ownership of guns it wouldn't stop these types of crimes since those that commit them would simply go to the black market to obtain their weapons (see: 1920's prohibition and how well that worked out).

I KNOW. That's why I always ask the pro gun by any means crowd if they have suggestions. I realized after not getting any suggestions that the Staub quo is the best option for them but, for some reason, they refuse to say that.

Passing more gun laws won't stop those willing to commit mass murder (mass murder is ALREADY illegal), all it'll do is add more cost to government and restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.

I agree, just like traffic lights won't stop accidents but no one suggested that traffic lights will stop all accidents. But it prevent them from happening more often, right?

Thats the point

 

[Iceweasel]

Mass shootings are collateral damage and an acceptable consequence of freedom to own firearms.

Pretty stupid comment, even from you. Lots of Democrats own guns too but more importantly, the guns have always been with us. So obviously to anyone with a half a brain knows the gun isn't the problem.

If your analytical abilities are limited to what you can feel, then it's all you can come up with I suppose. Nor do you grasp what the freedom to own firearms means, what it means is that government doesn't have the right to take away our ability to defend ourselves, you are bass akwards. I don't have a secret service team following me around, I'll have to take care of the problem myself.

Like I said in the OP some people will be honest and simply say that these things will happen and that's the cost of freedom. Others, like you ****** ass plays pretend every suggestion is stupid while I hide my true ****** feelings behind calling someone names.

So if you have a suggestion let's here it, if not, go **** yourself for being the guy I described in the OP

...and right on cue, out come the homosexual slurs. The worse insult a liberal can think of. You offered pure unadulterated stupidity, not some reasonable suggestion. Democrats do own guns so it makes no sense to try to say it's a Republican issue. It's a constitutional issue. And people who are targeted aren't collateral damage, you need to look up them big words.

 

[NightFox]

Mass shootings are collateral damage and an acceptable consequence of freedom to own firearms.

Except for the fact that your statement is nonsense, mass shootings are the result of the fact that human beings are flawed and capable of acting in violent and immoral ways, the right to bear arms has nothing to do with that.

Yeah that too, also they use guns to do it quickly. Those 2 things aren't mutually exclusive.

Guns are just a tool so yes they're mutually exclusive, the problem is, was and always will be behavior and until we as a society are ready to admit and address that it will never get any better.

Even if you banned the manufacture, sale and ownership of guns it wouldn't stop these types of crimes since those that commit them would simply go to the black market to obtain their weapons (see: 1920's prohibition and how well that worked out).

I KNOW. That's why I always ask the pro gun by any means crowd if they have suggestions. I realized after not getting any suggestions that the Staub quo is the best option for them but, for some reason, they refuse to say that.

What do you mean "them"? this is about things that affect all of US, it's about dealing with violence in effective ways AND preserving the rights that we ALL have been blessed with, as far as suggestions go you should ask people that have some expertise in behavioral science and mental health since expecting reasonable answers by querying members of an internet message board is an exercise in the pointless.

Passing more gun laws won't stop those willing to commit mass murder (mass murder is ALREADY illegal), all it'll do is add more cost to government and restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.

I agree, just like traffic lights won't stop accidents but no one suggested that traffic lights will stop all accidents. But it prevent them from happening more often, right?
Thats the point

Traffic lights don't/won't prevent accidents from happening more often among the population of people that are willing to completely ignore traffic lights and traffic laws, this is exactly what the call for more gun laws is attempting to assert, that passing more laws will stop people that are perfectly willing to break laws (i.e. prohibitions against murder) from killing people, won't work and will have negative consequences that go beyond infringing upon the god given, constitutionally protected rights that we have all been given.

 

[Iceweasel]

Ahh, so we're going into the everyone call names. Can I predict these guys or what?

LOL. Four minutes after repeatedly calling me a ***!

He went full retard in his own thread.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The homosexual slur attacks, while not excuslively the dominion of the right, is overwhelmingly employed by the right.

So once again the Rushbo "accuse the other side of doing what we do" immediately happens.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Mass shootings are collateral damage and an acceptable consequence of freedom to own firearms.

Pretty stupid comment, even from you. Lots of Democrats own guns too but more importantly, the guns have always been with us. So obviously to anyone with a half a brain knows the gun isn't the problem.

If your analytical abilities are limited to what you can feel, then it's all you can come up with I suppose. Nor do you grasp what the freedom to own firearms means, what it means is that government doesn't have the right to take away our ability to defend ourselves, you are bass akwards. I don't have a secret service team following me around, I'll have to take care of the problem myself.

Like I said in the OP some people will be honest and simply say that these things will happen and that's the cost of freedom. Others, like you ****** ass plays pretend every suggestion is stupid while I hide my true ****** feelings behind calling someone names.

So if you have a suggestion let's here it, if not, go **** yourself for being the guy I described in the OP

...and right on cue, out come the homosexual slurs. The worse insult a liberal can think of. You offered pure unadulterated stupidity, not some reasonable suggestion. Democrats do own guns so it makes no sense to try to say it's a Republican issue. It's a constitutional issue. And people who are targeted aren't collateral damage, you need to look up them big words.

Boo hoo..you call names and then want better tratment. **** off ******. Now make any other post crying about it.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Mass shootings are collateral damage and an acceptable consequence of freedom to own firearms.

If they said that, it would be so honest and unwavering that ppl would have to be forced to disagree or agree. But instead of being honest they play this game of peekaboo where any and all suggestions for gun control is translated into Republican speak of "Banning guns". Which does nothing to explain what you're FOR.

I've asked several times what if any suggestions do the pro gun crowd have to prevent shootings like Oregon and after so many times it seems as if they don't have suggestions but are more comfortable bring the peanut gallery that boos anyone's suggestions to do anything different than the status quo

I am not Republican, nor Democrat, Libertarian, Independent, etc. Rumor has it that I am God (I started that rumor). The 2nd amendment has to do with protecting the country, not in a militia form, but in the fact that we are such a large country with quite a few borders. Our military and police cannot possibly protect this country from the evils that lurk beyond the border. Remember when the Constitution was written that we had not really ventured into the west but the framers knew there be injuns lurking. (No offense to any Native Americans--I love you man) We are armed and every bloomin' nation knows it. To attempt an invasion of any kind means going up against the military and police, and about 275 million people with a weapon of some sort. 9/11, thus far, has been the worse anyone has ever been able to do to this country inside our borders. If you want the country to ban guns, start learning a second language now, I suggest Russian. It may not be Russia who invades... oh, who am kidding, anyone who invades the US will backed by Russia if not Russia itself.
I'll give you some homework... and note that I have a ruler so if you refuse, I will slap your hand something fierce, then I'll spank your little bottom. You might like that.
Compare mass shootings pre-1960 to now. I will give you one clue to go by... around 1963ish, hospitals started turning out mentally ill people because Medicaid does not cover it for hospital stays. States started making it harder to have people committed. No one wants to pay taxes for someone else's medical bills. There are about 50 million diagnosed people in the US with a mental disorder--some are self-inflicted so unfortunately no one really realizes someone has snapped except the spouse as she/he is getting killed. Okay? Go for it.

You're the one that needs to do the homework!!!! Your last paragraph is full of CRAP! First Medicaid/Medicare didn't get signed into law until 1965, vice your claim of existing pre 1963ish, and both programs did not even start until July 1, 1966! Your BS about Medicare not covering the mentally ill around that time is blatantly FALSE!

Second, Ronnie Raygun took office as the new Calif. Gov. in 1967 and later that year he signed into law the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act which essentially abolished involuntary hospitalization in the State. That Act put many mentally ill literally, out on the street. I remember that vividly, because Sacramento was my home of record back then and when I got home for some leave after my last deployment in late '67 it was all over the news!

Before you start to speak with such authority you should get your facts straight first!

 

[Iceweasel]

Mass shootings are collateral damage and an acceptable consequence of freedom to own firearms.

Pretty stupid comment, even from you. Lots of Democrats own guns too but more importantly, the guns have always been with us. So obviously to anyone with a half a brain knows the gun isn't the problem.

If your analytical abilities are limited to what you can feel, then it's all you can come up with I suppose. Nor do you grasp what the freedom to own firearms means, what it means is that government doesn't have the right to take away our ability to defend ourselves, you are bass akwards. I don't have a secret service team following me around, I'll have to take care of the problem myself.

Like I said in the OP some people will be honest and simply say that these things will happen and that's the cost of freedom. Others, like you ****** ass plays pretend every suggestion is stupid while I hide my true ****** feelings behind calling someone names.

So if you have a suggestion let's here it, if not, go **** yourself for being the guy I described in the OP

...and right on cue, out come the homosexual slurs. The worse insult a liberal can think of. You offered pure unadulterated stupidity, not some reasonable suggestion. Democrats do own guns so it makes no sense to try to say it's a Republican issue. It's a constitutional issue. And people who are targeted aren't collateral damage, you need to look up them big words.

Boo hoo..you call names and then want better tratment. **** off ******. Now make any other post crying about it.

I didn't ask for better "tratment", whatever the **** that is. You need to learn to read. Puke less, read more.