Some Simple FACTS About Disarming Americans

[Valerie]

You just need to dismiss whatever grump posts. The only posters who take him seriously is TM, rdean, and jillian.

Um, I have no interaction with TM or rdean. And a lot more posters of worth take me seriously than take you seriously. And you are absolutely one of the dumb arse conservatives I was talking about...

You are on the exact same level as those two, grump, make no mistake about that.
You get what you give, dude, embrace it.

pffft What do you know about Grump has given to this forum? He has been a highly esteemed member at USMB since 2006. Dr Grump is one of the most intelligent posters among us, so you should take your own advice and embrace that.

 

[Meister]

I still have a right to my opinion as you have yours, Valerie.

 

[Valerie]

I still have a right to my opinion as you have yours, Valerie.

Of course you do, but you are wrong in speaking for everyone as if no one has any respect for Dr Grump. He is a good man and deserves better... Same goes for Jillian. It is not up to YOU to tell others whose respect they need to "earn". You're either respectable or you aren't, but that is always subject to standards of opinion, of course...

 

[Meister]

I still have a right to my opinion as you have yours, Valerie.

Of course you do, but you are wrong in speaking for everyone as if no one has any respect for Dr Grump. He is a good man and deserves better... Same goes for Jillian. It is not up to YOU to tell others whose respect they need to "earn". You're either respectable or you aren't, but that is always subject to standards of opinion, of course...

Again, it comes down to opinion, Valerie. Your opinion of Jillian and Grump are far different than mine. I'm telling nobody whose respect they need to earn.

 

[Valerie]

I still have a right to my opinion as you have yours, Valerie.

Of course you do, but you are wrong in speaking for everyone as if no one has any respect for Dr Grump. He is a good man and deserves better... Same goes for Jillian. It is not up to YOU to tell others whose respect they need to "earn". You're either respectable or you aren't, but that is always subject to standards of opinion, of course...

Again, it comes down to opinion, Valerie. Your opinion of Jillian and Grump are far different than mine. I'm telling nobody whose respect they need to earn.

Yes you have and in this case "you get what you give" is saying as much as well.

It is NOT a matter of opinion that Dr Grump has been a longstanding member of this forum who has been held in high esteem by many many others... Same goes for Jillian. I and many others take them seriously as good people and as posters who have contributed much to this forum. You are apparently blinded by your differing partisan opinions and personal differences to see those FACTS about them...

 

[Meister]

Of course you do, but you are wrong in speaking for everyone as if no one has any respect for Dr Grump. He is a good man and deserves better... Same goes for Jillian. It is not up to YOU to tell others whose respect they need to "earn". You're either respectable or you aren't, but that is always subject to standards of opinion, of course...

Again, it comes down to opinion, Valerie. Your opinion of Jillian and Grump are far different than mine. I'm telling nobody whose respect they need to earn.

Yes you have and in this case "you get what you give" is saying as much as well.

It is NOT a matter of opinion that Dr Grump has been a longstanding members of this forum who has been held in high esteem by many many others... Same goes for Jillian. I and many others take them seriously as good people and as posters who have contributed much to this forum. You are apparently blinded by your differing partisan opinions and personal differences to see those FACTS about them...

And I'm allowed to just like they are, Valerie, there's no difference.

 

[Ringel05]

Of course you do, but you are wrong in speaking for everyone as if no one has any respect for Dr Grump. He is a good man and deserves better... Same goes for Jillian. It is not up to YOU to tell others whose respect they need to "earn". You're either respectable or you aren't, but that is always subject to standards of opinion, of course...

Again, it comes down to opinion, Valerie. Your opinion of Jillian and Grump are far different than mine. I'm telling nobody whose respect they need to earn.

Yes you have and in this case "you get what you give" is saying as much as well.

It is NOT a matter of opinion that Dr Grump has been a longstanding members of this forum who has been held in high esteem by many many others... Same goes for Jillian. I and many others take them seriously as good people and as posters who have contributed much to this forum. You are apparently blinded by your differing partisan opinions and personal differences to see those FACTS about them...

I guess that puts me in the same category even though I have no issues with his politics or facts. As for him being a good man...... from my perspective its up for debate.

 

[Ravi]

I like Grump

 

[Valerie]

I like Grump

Of course, being such a bleeding heart, you like just about everybody!

 

[Ravi]

I like Grump

Of course, being such a bleeding heart, you like just about everybody!

Untrue!

 

[Valerie]

I like Grump

Of course, being such a bleeding heart, you like just about everybody!

Untrue!

I said "just about"!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So...if anyone tried to take your guns away, the people would rise up and shoot and kill anyone who tried to take away their weapons?

Why is a gun more important than a human life?

Many have fought and died for our rights.

Why?

If rights aren't important.

Did they die in vain?

 

[Dr Grump]

lol. I was born and raised on the lower east side of Manhattan scrote and have traveled around the world twice, visiting, I'm sure, the capitals of more nations than you could even name, and the only slack jawed morons I see here are the head up their ass liberals like you.

Whaddya want a Kewpie doll?

BTW, if you wanna take a bet on visiting capitals and naming them, name the stakes. I'll kick your arse from Manhattan to Monrovia (yeah, that's right, toddle off and look up that last one)....

You are aware that Manhattan isn't the capital of anything right slick? As for Monrovia, thankfully I've never had the misfortune of visiting Liberia, though I have been in numerous other African nations.

No!! You're kidding!
I would argue it is the Financial capital of the world......at the moment...

 

[GeoLaureate8]

People complain about bullies. Why don't the fists get the blame instead of the bully? "Headline: Two Fists Were Used in Violent Bully Rampage Who Beat Up 3 Kids. Bully a Victim of Own Fists."

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Well, you'd be wrong, as usual. Plant I work in employs 8 engineers. All of whom would look at you like you were some kind of retard if you starting saying shit like the Dinosaurs are extinct because Noah didn't have room for them on the Ark.

WOW! You have 8 engineers that work at your plant, I notice you said nothing about them being your friends by the way..............and there's how many engineers in the world?..............and you're close enough to the ones that work at your plant that they discussed their religious beliefs with you?

We've had a lot of interesting lunchtime discussions about religion, politics, the news, and so on... so, yeah. A couple of them are my buddies, a couple others, not so much.

Sorry, man, the only people who believe in creationism are retards and religious fanatics...

Because it's just so damned absurd it shouldn't be taken seriously.

[
Yeah right. By the way moron, nothing about Christian cretionism says anything about dinosaurs becoming extint because they wouldn't fit on the Ark. Seems you know as much about Christian beliefs as you do about so much you bloviate on...........not a damn thing.

Some creationists claim EXACTLY that.

Now, the one creationist I did meet at work tried to tell me that the world is only 6000 years old, and that Carbon14 dating was misleading about the age of dinosaur bones. (Not that they use C14 to date dinosaur fossils... C14 can only tell the age of something within the last half million years or so.

You know? I hear and read all this crap about science and how anyone who disagrees with something is "denying science" and about how no one is qualified to speak of some given matter and other such nonsense but, really, what were the qualifications of Charles Darwin, the one who started all this BS about evolution? Let's take a look, shall we?

Childhood and education

Charles Robert Darwin was born in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England on 12 February 1809 at his family home, The Mount. He was the fifth of six children of wealthy society doctor and financier Robert Darwin, and Susannah Darwin (née Wedgwood). He was the grandson of Erasmus Darwin on his father's side, and of Josiah Wedgwood on his mother's side.

Both families were largely Unitarian, though the Wedgwoods were adopting Anglicanism. Robert Darwin, himself quietly a freethinker, had baby Charles baptised in November 1809 in the Anglican St. Chad's Church, Shrewsbury, but Charles and his siblings attended the Unitarian chapel with their mother. The eight-year-old Charles already had a taste for natural history and collecting when he joined the day school run by its preacher in 1817. That July, his mother died. From September 1818 he joined his older brother Erasmus attending the nearby Anglican Shrewsbury School as a boarder.

Darwin spent the summer of 1825 as an apprentice doctor, helping his father treat the poor of Shropshire, before going to the University of Edinburgh Medical School with his brother Erasmus in October 1825. He found lectures dull and surgery distressing, so neglected his studies. He learned taxidermy from John Edmonstone, a freed black slave who had accompanied Charles Waterton in the South American rainforest, and often sat with this "very pleasant and intelligent man".

In Darwin's second year he joined the Plinian Society, a student natural history group whose debates strayed into radical materialism. He assisted Robert Edmond Grant's investigations of the anatomy and life cycle of marine invertebrates in the Firth of Forth, and on 27 March 1827 presented at the Plinian his own discovery that black spores found in oyster shells were the eggs of a skate leech. One day, Grant praised Lamarck's evolutionary ideas. Darwin was astonished by Grant's audacity, but had recently read similar ideas in his grandfather Erasmus' journals. Darwin was rather bored by Robert Jameson's natural history course which covered geology including debate between Neptunism and Plutonism. He learned classification of plants, and assisted with work on the collections of the University Museum, one of the largest museums in Europe at the time.

This neglect of medical studies annoyed his father, who shrewdly sent him to Christ's College, Cambridge, for a Bachelor of Arts degree as the first step towards becoming an Anglican parson. As Darwin was unqualified for the Tripos, he joined the ordinary degree course in January 1828. He preferred riding and shooting to studying. His cousin William Darwin Fox introduced him to the popular craze for beetle collecting; Darwin pursued this zealously, getting some of his find published in Stevens' Illustrations of British entomology. He became a close friend and follower of botany professor John Stevens Henslow and met other leading naturalists who saw scientific work as religious natural theology, becoming known to these dons as "the man who walks with Henslow". When his own exams drew near, Darwin focused on his studies and was delighted by the language and logic of William Paley's Evidences of Christianity. In his final examination in January 1831 Darwin did well, coming tenth out of 178 candidates for the ordinary degree.

Darwin had to stay at Cambridge until June. He studied Paley's Natural Theology, which made an argument for divine design in nature, explaining adaptation as God acting through laws of nature. He read John Hershel's new book, which described the highest aim of natural philosophy as understanding such laws through inductive reasoning based on observation, and Alexander von Humboldt's Personal Narrative of scientific travels. Inspired with "a burning zeal" to contribute, Darwin planned to visit Tenerife with some classmates after graduation to study natural history in the tropics. In preparation, he joined Adam Sedgwick's geology course, then traveled with him in the summer for a fortnight, in order to map strata in Wales.

So, lets see, his qualifications were; sitting with a freed slave who was a "very pleasant and intelligent man".

An ordinary degree in Bachelor of Arts studies.

Some experience as an apprentice doctor.

His cousin William Darwin Fox introduced him to the popular craze for beetle collecting and Darwin pursued this zealously, getting some of his find published in Stevens' Illustrations of British entomology.

He was a man who "walk[ed] with Henslow".

He discovered that black spores found in oyster shells were the eggs of a skate leech. And, he learned classification of plants, and assisted with work on the collections of the University Museum, one of the largest museums in Europe at the time.

So, really, does anyone want to explain to me where it is this guy's scientific qualifications were so overwhelming as to be the last word on where it is human beings originated? This guy strikes me as essentially being pretty much a nobody and why it is the scientific community embraced him so much seems somewhat laughable. If this guy were to be around today and we knew nothing about him from the past, he'd probably be laughed out of the scientific community. I see no qualifications which make him such a brilliant scientist as to be taken as the last word on the origins of human kind.

 

[skookerasbil]

So...if anyone tried to take your guns away, the people would rise up and shoot and kill anyone who tried to take away their weapons?

Why is a gun more important than a human life?

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD


Some people in here. How the **** do they even navigate life being so naive?

 

[JimBowie1958]

"Why is a gun more important than a human life?"

Guns aren't. But freedom and the US Constitution are. Many lives were spent to obtain and keep them.

Please tell me - because from the gun nuts here, they don't seem to be showing much sympathy toward the dead kids, just about the thought of their guns being taken away.

This is how liberal gun grabbers see the issue ( from actual conversations):

pro-gun argument: guns allow us to defend ourselves, are protected under the constitution, enable the defense of our Republic, and allow for obtaining some food in emergency.

anti-gun argument: we should ban all guns to show that we are sensitive and care about little kids massacred in a school

pro-gun: how would that help anyone?

anti-gun: it would show sensitivity and sympathy

pro-gun: So, you think we can ban all guns when we cant ban anything else like drugs, moonshine or child porn?

anti-gun: we wouldnt get all of them but it would at least be an attempt to do something for the sake of those little kids that were killed

pro-gun: So no one could legally own guns, but you admit that criminals would still own guns?

anti-gun: Well, yes, but the kids would feel safer at school

pro-gun: then why not place guards at the schools?

anti-gun: because that might make the little tykes scared and distract them from learning

pro-gun: you do realize that you havent given one substantial answer, any reason, any effective suggestion in this whole discussion, right?

anti-gun: showing you care is substantial

pro-gun: not if it is going to make me and my family defenseless to any criminal out there.

anti-gun: but being a victim shows you care more about those around you than just yourself

pro-gun: **** that bullshit

 

[JimBowie1958]

Um, I have no interaction with TM or rdean. And a lot more posters of worth take me seriously than take you seriously. And you are absolutely one of the dumb arse conservatives I was talking about...

You are on the exact same level as those two, grump, make no mistake about that.
You get what you give, dude, embrace it.

pffft What do you know about Grump has given to this forum? He has been a highly esteemed member at USMB since 2006. Dr Grump is one of the most intelligent posters among us, so you should take your own advice and embrace that.

From Dr Grumps sig:
"Religion attacks us in our deepest integrity by saying we wouldn't be able to make a moral decision without it, and that a supernatural dictatorship is our only hope. That makes us all into serfs. And chess and Tantric sex and Chinese food are pointless if you must enjoy them as a serf.'' Christopher Hitchens.

That has to be one of the dumbest quotes in the history of mankind, and I cant recall much of anyting from Grump that wasnt either an unsupported assertion, emotional blather, or just plain ole smartassed bile.

IF you can present an intelligent comment the man has EVER made, it would be of great interest to me.

Thus far from my perspective he is hardly worth the time to look up his posts as he never seems to add anything of enough substance to make it worth the time and trouble.

 

[jtpr312]

Here's the freaking facts.
1. The govt may or may not ban certain types of weapons. Best you go get one now while you still can if you want one.

2. The vast majority of legal gun owners will not turn in any guns if the govt goes along with the proposals of many of the socialist democrats who are calling for confiscation or mandatory sales to the govt.

3. People will still be able to purchase firearms, like they are still able to purchase coke, heroin and meth, all of which have been banned for decades, in EVERY town, city and suburb in this nation.

4. The govt doesn't have the balls or the resources to force gun owners to turn in their weapons so don't worry about it. If they try to do so, pray you aren't among the first few hundred that they attempt to disarm and end up having to kill before the outcry stops their illegal, immoral and un-Constitutional actions.

5. The govt has been trying to disarm the street gangs around this nation for decades. Last I checked the street gangs have over 1.4 million members, most of whom are armed, this according to the DOJ. How much more successful do you think they will be in disrarming John Q. Public? Their track record sucks.

6. The govt. may wish to order a national firearms registry. Do not comply or comply, the choice is yours, but the smart money says step one; registry, step two; see #2 because confiscation follows registry. As we where shown during Katrina most recently.

7. Gun bans will be no more effective in keeping people "safer" than were drunk driving bans, 10,839 deaths last year, or dope bans over 35,000 deaths a year, have been. Scumbags will still posses and use firearms in a criminal way, just like scumbags continue to drive drunk and use and sell dope.


With all that said, it's no big deal. If the socialists attempt to abridge your constitutional rights, the ONLY choice you need make is whether you will be sheeple and allow them to, or whether you will stand like free men and women and resist their tyranny.

 

[JimBowie1958]

lol. I was born and raised on the lower east side of Manhattan scrote and have traveled around the world twice, visiting, I'm sure, the capitals of more nations than you could even name, and the only slack jawed morons I see here are the head up their ass liberals like you.

Whaddya want a Kewpie doll?

BTW, if you wanna take a bet on visiting capitals and naming them, name the stakes. I'll kick your arse from Manhattan to Monrovia (yeah, that's right, toddle off and look up that last one)....

You are aware that Manhattan isn't the capital of anything right slick? As for Monrovia, thankfully I've never had the misfortune of visiting Liberia, though I have been in numerous other African nations.

Facts dont matter to libtards. It is likely enough for Grump that he thinks it is a capitol in his own mind, his own fantasy about the world around him, and so he could not possibly care less if Manhatten is an actual capitol or not.

And dont ever expect him or any libtard to actually admit that they have been wrong or mistaken about anything. The hubris of infallibility is one of the cornerstones of libtardism, which is kind of like a religion to them and why they all seem to agree with each other so much. They have abandoned any requirement to think for themselves and instead subscribe to leftwing ideology that does their thinking for them and tells them what is right and what is good; no need to critique it at all, in fact they vociferously discourage that among their own number.

During the OWS movement, if a person was saying something that someone disagreed with they would holler out 'MIND CHECK!' and others would pick up the chant and shout down the speaker till they gave up, I kid you not. Standard libtardism these days.

Check out this whole video, but an example of what I iam refering to happens at 8:40
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZlp3eGMNI]Occupy Atlanta Silences Civil Rights Hero John Lewis! - YouTube[/ame]