Republicans Response to Colorado Shooting: Cant do nothing

[NoNukes]

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.

I'm sorry -- when you can respond to the actual issue I posted, rather than try to misdirect the conversation with red herring, let us all know.

Thank you for proving my point. Several points, actually.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And you lack the capacity to carry on a simple discussion. You cannot see beyond your own beliefs, and you probably need notes.

I'm sorry -- when you can respond to the actual issue I posted, rather than try to misdirect the conversation with red herring, let us all know.

Thank you for proving my point. Several points, actually.

If your point is that you cannot effectively respond to what I actually said, then yes, I proved it.

 

[daveman]

Yes it does. In 200+ years since the 2nd Amendment has been enacted, we have managed to get rocket propelled grenades out of school cafeterias and churches. Maybe in the next 600, we may actually stop the belt-fed weapons.

It's a slippery slope.

Slippery because some people erroneously believe that by handing away their Rights and Freedoms they will magically become safe... When reality (countless examples) have proven the exact opposite will happen.

Yes, I forgot to add that we'll be going after the cyanide laced, armor piercing, nuclear tipped rounds next.

If you had facts and logic on your side, you wouldn't have to rely on hyperemotionalism.

However...

 

[candycorn]

Slippery because some people erroneously believe that by handing away their Rights and Freedoms they will magically become safe... When reality (countless examples) have proven the exact opposite will happen.

Yes, I forgot to add that we'll be going after the cyanide laced, armor piercing, nuclear tipped rounds next.

Sarcasm does not have a place when you are talking about destroying people's Rights and Freedoms.

Please refer to the amendment that protects mag sizes.

 

[candycorn]

You have gone after armor piercing.

The left named them cop killer bullets.

However I can still say hiding behind that car will not help................

Oh my mistake. Any movement on getting cyanide laced bullets off of the street? Obviously, that is what the framers wanted everyone to have.

Last I checked cyanide is illegal in its own right. But then facts and reality are not your strong suit are they?

So how about defending the US Government for buying 450 million rounds of hollow point ammo?

Nothing to defend since it didn't happen. Reading comprehension doesn't appear to be your strong point.

 

[daveman]

I vote, so I Have the same say that as you.

You vote? Legally?

Yes, legally, same as you.

Good. My vote cancels out yours. Because you consistently get it wrong.

 

[candycorn]

You have gone after armor piercing.

The left named them cop killer bullets.

However I can still say hiding behind that car will not help................

Oh my mistake. Any movement on getting cyanide laced bullets off of the street? Obviously, that is what the framers wanted everyone to have.

And obviously you're so qualified to speak on what the founders intended since you've NEVER read the US Constitution one single time in your life, have never seriously studied history, and probably couldn't name 5 facts about 5 framers without Googling...

I, however, can tell you exactly what the founders intended. And they intended us to be well armed. It was no accident that they used the phrase "the right to bear ARMS". Notice they didn't say muskets? Notice they didn't say guns? They said the right to bear ARMS. As in any and all weapons.

Arms dealers deal in a lot more than just hand guns my friend. The issue is not what the framers intended, the issue is the same issue as always - which is the liberal is too ******* lazy to take personal responsibility for anything. They don't want to take responsibility for their own safety, so instead they would just rather outlaw everything, never mind that criminals don't obey the law (that's what makes them criminals) and so you are only disarming the law abiding citizen.

You left out the "well regulated militia" part. Apparently reading the entire amendment is too much to ask.

 

[daveman]

30 years ago. there were a lot fewer guns, and gun-related violent crime rate was higher.
30 years later, there are a lot more guns, and gun-related violent crime rate is lower.
What problem, guns?

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.

And insisting innocent people give up their right to self-protection to assuage your hurt feelings is a problem...for you, at least. Because it's simply not going to happen.

You moved. Whoopie. So stop telling the rest of us who stayed how to run our lives.

 

[daveman]

Living in an environment where you need to be armed to be safe is a problem.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, I forgot to add that we'll be going after the cyanide laced, armor piercing, nuclear tipped rounds next.

Sarcasm does not have a place when you are talking about destroying people's Rights and Freedoms.

Please refer to the amendment that protects mag sizes.

The second does so, it stipulates via Court rulings that a weapon must be of use, in use or usable by the military. That means AK-47 with at least 30 round magazine, AR-15 with at least 30 round magazine and any other semi automatic rifle with at least a 30 round magazine. But then this has been explained to you several times.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh my mistake. Any movement on getting cyanide laced bullets off of the street? Obviously, that is what the framers wanted everyone to have.

And obviously you're so qualified to speak on what the founders intended since you've NEVER read the US Constitution one single time in your life, have never seriously studied history, and probably couldn't name 5 facts about 5 framers without Googling...

I, however, can tell you exactly what the founders intended. And they intended us to be well armed. It was no accident that they used the phrase "the right to bear ARMS". Notice they didn't say muskets? Notice they didn't say guns? They said the right to bear ARMS. As in any and all weapons.

Arms dealers deal in a lot more than just hand guns my friend. The issue is not what the framers intended, the issue is the same issue as always - which is the liberal is too ******* lazy to take personal responsibility for anything. They don't want to take responsibility for their own safety, so instead they would just rather outlaw everything, never mind that criminals don't obey the law (that's what makes them criminals) and so you are only disarming the law abiding citizen.

You left out the "well regulated militia" part. Apparently reading the entire amendment is too much to ask.

Sorry retard the Courts have ruled that the right to bear arms is independent of the States right to have a militia. As was intended by the Founders. Do try to keep up.

 

[candycorn]

And obviously you're so qualified to speak on what the founders intended since you've NEVER read the US Constitution one single time in your life, have never seriously studied history, and probably couldn't name 5 facts about 5 framers without Googling...

I, however, can tell you exactly what the founders intended. And they intended us to be well armed. It was no accident that they used the phrase "the right to bear ARMS". Notice they didn't say muskets? Notice they didn't say guns? They said the right to bear ARMS. As in any and all weapons.

Arms dealers deal in a lot more than just hand guns my friend. The issue is not what the framers intended, the issue is the same issue as always - which is the liberal is too ******* lazy to take personal responsibility for anything. They don't want to take responsibility for their own safety, so instead they would just rather outlaw everything, never mind that criminals don't obey the law (that's what makes them criminals) and so you are only disarming the law abiding citizen.

You left out the "well regulated militia" part. Apparently reading the entire amendment is too much to ask.

Sorry retard the Courts have ruled that the right to bear arms is independent of the States right to have a militia. As was intended by the Founders. Do try to keep up.

Just reciting the part of the 2nd amendment that you guys always overlook....feel free to pick up a copy of the Constitution.

 

[candycorn]

Sarcasm does not have a place when you are talking about destroying people's Rights and Freedoms.

Please refer to the amendment that protects mag sizes.

The second does so, it stipulates via Court rulings that a weapon must be of use, in use or usable by the military. That means AK-47 with at least 30 round magazine, AR-15 with at least 30 round magazine and any other semi automatic rifle with at least a 30 round magazine. But then this has been explained to you several times.

Sorry but the 2nd amendment doesn't mention anything of the sort.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Just reciting the part of the 2nd amendment that you guys always overlook....feel free to pick up a copy of the Constitution.

No overlook. SCOTUS affirmed. State incorporated.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Please refer to the amendment that protects mag sizes.

The second does so, it stipulates via Court rulings that a weapon must be of use, in use or usable by the military. That means AK-47 with at least 30 round magazine, AR-15 with at least 30 round magazine and any other semi automatic rifle with at least a 30 round magazine. But then this has been explained to you several times.

Sorry but the 2nd amendment doesn't mention anything of the sort.

The court clarified what it means several times, just in the last 70 years. But then reality facts and the truth evade you don't they? The 2nd says ARMS. The Courts have ruled that means firearms and have stipulated what firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Specifically those arms in use, of use or previously used by the military that are of use to a Militia. And they stipulated that the right to bear arms is independent of the States right to form a militia. It is an individual right.

That means any semi automatic of sufficient power to qualify for military use to INCLUDE a 30 round magazine, is protected.

Now you might be able to sell that the 100 round drum is not covered but I suspect you will have trouble with even a 60 round magazine if it feeds well and does not have a jamming problem like the 100 does.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Please refer to the amendment that protects mag sizes.

The second does so, it stipulates via Court rulings that a weapon must be of use, in use or usable by the military. That means AK-47 with at least 30 round magazine, AR-15 with at least 30 round magazine and any other semi automatic rifle with at least a 30 round magazine. But then this has been explained to you several times.

Sorry but the 2nd amendment doesn't mention anything of the sort.

The first amendment doesn't mention face book computers or any telephone either, neither were they in use when the Constitution was written so I guess the 1st and 4th do not apply to them? Using your logic.

 

[The T]

Please refer to the amendment that protects mag sizes.

The second does so, it stipulates via Court rulings that a weapon must be of use, in use or usable by the military. That means AK-47 with at least 30 round magazine, AR-15 with at least 30 round magazine and any other semi automatic rifle with at least a 30 round magazine. But then this has been explained to you several times.

Sorry but the 2nd amendment doesn't mention anything of the sort.

So? WHAT does it MEAN?

 

[The T]

The second does so, it stipulates via Court rulings that a weapon must be of use, in use or usable by the military. That means AK-47 with at least 30 round magazine, AR-15 with at least 30 round magazine and any other semi automatic rifle with at least a 30 round magazine. But then this has been explained to you several times.

Sorry but the 2nd amendment doesn't mention anything of the sort.

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.

 

[GuyPinestra]

30 years ago. there were a lot fewer guns, and gun-related violent crime rate was higher.
30 years later, there are a lot more guns, and gun-related violent crime rate is lower.
What problem, guns?

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?

 

[hipeter924]

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?