The Real Effort Over Gun Control

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Oh, well, if academia says paddling a kid is child abuse, we must all accept it. Cuz they're so reasonable and smart and all.

Articles: Professor Calls for Death Penalty for Climate Change 'Deniers'

uh thats exactly what it means.. Do you think that history is shaped by people whose only forum is on a message board? Its shaped by politicians, theorists and men/women of high stature, not by a carpenter that has an opinion on gay marriage that is going to be taught to my children and their children as intolerant and a benchmark for how history works. Dont use one extreme example of stupidity from a lib professor. I can easily counter that by the myriad of stupid things said by the uneducated.

Uh, actually history is shaped by everyone and, indeed, is shaped by "a carpenter that has an opinion on gay marriage".

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Cosmetics were banned, not the assault weapons themselves. Did it make a bit of difference that detachable stocks or flash suppressors were banned and not high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems?

We get what we get when gun makers and their lackeys in the NRA write legislation.

That's how an "assault weapon" is defined you flippant freakin' retard.

Earlier, you described a rolled up sock as an assault weapon.

The argument coming from the pro gun violence crowd is this: 1)There is no such weapon as an assault weapon, so move on. 2)Guns are fun and I want to keep shooting them. 3)Mass shootings are a part of life. They are not supposed to be seen as tragedies, but merely the actions of the insane. Assault weapons make for glee among us and any attempt to link the advent of the assault weapon to mass shootings is a maniac's task. 4)I hate the Black boy in the White House because my Daddy hated them Black boys and he taught me to hate them too. So, no matter what that Black boy says or does, I say he's a tyrant and I want to keep my AR-15 handy to shot at him and his supports, those mealy mouthed Liberals that Rush has warned us about. 5) Guns are fun!

Hyperbole...much?

 

[LibertyLemming]

Anyone who wants to allow the government to control all the weapons knowing that the government kills more innocent men, women, and children than any mass shooter in his wettest of lustful dreams could do, is a hypocrit. Or a moron. Or not.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Cosmetics were banned, not the assault weapons themselves. Did it make a bit of difference that detachable stocks or flash suppressors were banned and not high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems?

We get what we get when gun makers and their lackeys in the NRA write legislation.

That's how an "assault weapon" is defined you flippant freakin' retard.

Earlier, you described a rolled up sock as an assault weapon.

The argument coming from the pro gun violence crowd is this: 1)There is no such weapon as an assault weapon, so move on.

No one says there is "no such weapon as an assault weapon". I already made clear to you that anything that's used with the intent to kill or injure can be defined as an "assault" weapon.

2)Guns are fun and I want to keep shooting them.

Yeah...so?

3)Mass shootings are a part of life. They are not supposed to be seen as tragedies, but merely the actions of the insane. Assault weapons make for glee among us and any attempt to link the advent of the assault weapon to mass shootings is a maniac's task.

Wrong. Mass killings are a part of life and if it isn't mass shootings, it will be "mass" something else. Further, no one is saying that this isn't a tragedy and, of course it's the actions of the insane. It isn't the actions of law-abiding gun owning American citizens, that much is clear.

4)I hate the Black boy in the White House because my Daddy hated them Black boys and he taught me to hate them too. So, no matter what that Black boy says or does, I say he's a tyrant and I want to keep my AR-15 handy to shot at him and his supports, those mealy mouthed Liberals that Rush has warned us about.

Wow, you're quite the story teller...eh? Considering your clear demented imagination, I think I'm beginning to understand why you have such an aversion to guns. You don't trust yourself around them. Like, a recovering alcoholic doesn't trust himself around alcohol or a smoker trying to stop smoking doesn't trust himself around people who smoke. But, if you don't trust yourself around them? Don't take it out on law-abiding gun owning American citizens. Go get help and stop blaming everyone else for your problems and fallibility.

5) Guns are fun!

For some they can be. So what of it?

 

[beagle9]

While Tim McVeigh did not use an assault weapon, he is firmly in the corner, politically speaking, of the pro gun violence nuts who believe that they can play Army and resist the federal government. There is no denying this. The "Water the tree of freedom with blood" T-shirt and grunting Michigan Militia mindset puts Timmy and Terry in the pocket of those who see no threat from assault weapons. He certainly isn't my political ally.

Then there are those who say that the gun is an inanimate object and poses no threat whatsoever. Perhaps that's true. But consider this: there were no "mass shootings" before the advent of the assault weapon. Gun violence was something dreadful, but never the less understandable before the death toll of such violence reached alarming proportions. Thus the argument that mass shootings must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rings of stupidity. What tool is used in mass shootings? Why the assault weapon, of course. So, does it make sense to ban assault weapons? "No," says the gun nut "That's agenda driven!"

Damn right it's agenda driven! The agenda is to rid society of the plague of mass shootings. And the common thread in all mass shootings? Why it's the assault weapon!

Some think that there is a real chance for the reincarnation of George III and they want to re-enact the American Revolution, or what I call 'play Army'. Some point to the fact that foreign leaders kill hundreds of thousands of their own subjects as a justification for Americans keeping the tools that kill tens of thousands of their fellow Americans. What warped immature mind can make such an argument and make it proudly?

Some say that the American government can become as tyrannical as the governments in China or Iran or North Korea and thus the American people must have assault weapons. Well, our government is not tyrannical, but the bodies of the victims of assault weapons pile up at a staggering rate. Is the perceived fear of American tyranny worth the body count? Is that body count a worse fate than the perceptions of the paranoid and politically insulated?

Some say that an assault weapon is necessary for hunting. Was there no game taken before the ability to fire five shots per second was invented? Is there anything left of the animal slain by such a rapid and sustained rate of fire? Senator Joe Manchin sees the fallacy of this under-thought argument.

Some think that there is a foreign power poised to invade the United States and they want to be prepared just like in the movie Red Dawn. As if the United States has no Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines or National Guard. Does the desire to play Army justify the rivers of tears and blood left after an assault weapon is turned upon innocent Americans?

Run along now. You've once again shown us your opinion is based upon information drawn from up your own ass and not from any research of the actual facts. This is usually the case with the anti-gunnut liberals. As for our govt not being tyrannical right now. Says who? This govt has been tyrannical since 1861 when they used force of arms to compel the Southern states to accept their authority and rule, contrary to the Constitution I might add. Furthermore, there is no difference between those leaders that imposed tyrannical rule over their citizens and our leaders. They are all human, subject to the same frailties, influences, desire for power, evil and corruption that fueled Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc, etc, etc, etc.....ad nauseum. It may be the ONLY thing holding our leaders in check, and not allowing them to impose any more tyranny on us IS the fact that over 80,000,000 of us are well armed.


He came along with a shotgun on his shoulder while a group of children were playing in front of the school. Without warning or provocation, he raised the gun to his shoulder, took deliberate aim, and fired into the crowd of boys.


Although it sounds sadly modern, the account was published in the New York Times more than a century ago.

Dated April 10, 1891, the article described an elderly man firing a shotgun at children playing in front of St. Mary's Parochial School in Newburgh, N.Y.

"None of the children were killed, but several were well filled with lead," the report said.

NEWS: Can Gun Laws Save Lives?

More than a century earlier, on July 26, 1764, a teacher and 10 students were shot dead by four Lenape American Indians in Greencastle, Penn., in what is considered the earliest known U.S. mass school shooting.

Indeed, killing or trying to kill a mass of people is not a modern phenomenon. For as long as there has been history, there have been gruesome mass murders.

"The terms amok, a Malayan word, and berserk, a Norse word, have been used to describe individuals going on killing sprees. Both terms have been around for centuries, which reflects the fact that mass murder is neither a modern nor a uniquely American phenomenon," Grant Duwe, director of research at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, told Discovery News.

PHOTOS: Where Gun Laws Are Most Lenient

Defined as bloody events that occur within a 24-hour period and that involve a minimum of four victims, mass murders have occurred all over the world, in different times, societies and cultures.

Some of the earliest recorded cases include the 1893 killing with guns and swords of 11 people (including an infant) in Osaka, Japan, the 1914 shooting of 7 people in the Italian village of Camerata Cornello, not to mention the case of German spree killer Ernst August Wagner.

NEWS: Gun-Control Petition Demands Congress to Act

In 1913, he stabbed to death his wife and four children in Degerloch, near Stuttgart, then drove to Mühlhausen an der Enz where he opened fire on 20 people, killing at least nine, leaving two animals dead and several buildings burned to the ground.

In 1927, South African farmer Stephanus Swart shot dead at least eight people and injured three others in Charlestown, South Africa, before committing suicide.

In 1938 almost half of the population of the rural village of Kaio, near Tsuyama city in Japan, was murdered as 21-year-old Mutsuo Toi killed 30 people with a shotgun, sword and axe, injured three others and then shot himself to death.

Between 1954 and 1957, William Unek murdered a total of 57 people in two separate spree killings in the Belgian Congo.

He first killed 21 people with an axe, then shot dead ten men, eight women and eight children, slaughtered six more men with the axe, burned two women and a child, and strangled a 15-year-old girl.

NEWS: Advocates Looking to Fill Gun Control Loopholes

More recently in the bloody timeline of shooting sprees, some of the most dramatic incidents include the 1987 Hungerford massacre in England, where gun enthusiast Michael Ryan shot 16 people dead and wounded another 15 before committing suicide, the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Australia, where 28- year-old Martin Bryant killed 35 people and wounded 21 before being caught by police, and the 1996 school shooting in the Scottish town of Dunblane.

There, failed shopkeeper Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school, killing 16 children and a teacher before turning his gun on his mouth.

"I could have been one of those children," tennis player Andy Murray wrote in his autobiography, "Hitting Back."

Britain's highest ranked player, Murray was eight when Hamilton burst into the school and began shooting. He and his 10-year-old brother Jamie escaped the fire by hiding under a desk.

In the United States, two mass murder waves characterized the 20th century. One appeared in the 1920s and 30s and another in the mid-1960s, following a tranquil period in the 1940s and 50s.

The two waves, however, were qualitatively different, according to Duwe.

The author of "Mass Murder in the United States: A History," Duwe researched 909 cases of mass killing that occurred in the United States between 1900 and 1999.

"The first mass murder wave in the 1920s and 30s was comprised mainly of familicides and felony-related massacres, which, then as now, are less likely to garner extensive media coverage," Duwe said.

The second mass murder wave from the mid-1960s through the mid-1990s consisted of a greater number of mass public shootings, similar to the recent Aurora movie theater shooting and Newtown school shooting.

These incidents "have always captured a great deal of interest and concern," Duwe said.

Marked by the 1966 Texas Tower shootings where student Charles Whitman climbed a 27-story tower on the University of Texas campus shooting dead 14 people and wounding 31 others, the mid-1960s do not actually represent the beginning of an unprecedented mass murder wave in the United States.

"Since 1900, the highest mass murder rate was in 1929. Mass public shootings are one of several types of mass murder and generally account for roughly 10-15 percent of all mass killings in the U.S.," Duwe said.

According to the criminologists, the 1990s had the highest number of mass public shootings with a little more than 40 -- an average of a little more than 4 each year.

The number of mass public shootings dropped below 30 in the years between 2000 and 2009.

"This year, however, the U.S. has had at least seven mass public shootings, which is the highest number since 1999," Duwe said.
http://http://news.discovery.com/history/mass-shootings-history-121220.html

It's really easy, just look under the right rocks, and you will find the vermon that usually fits the bill in these cases, and is either looking to do or has done these sorts of things before in character of, but their are those whom would rather us look everywhere but under that rock in which we need to turn over now and take a look see, and so one has to then wonder why is it that they don't want us looking under the right rocks ya reckon, and so they quickly blame the gun as a distraction instead ?

Oh I know why now, it's because it leads right back to a culture that is messed up, and therefore is breeding these types of mentally messed up individuals into our society these days.

Knowing what types of individuals and characters these people are, and what cultures they are therefore indirectly linked to (imho) is paramont now, but their are those whom run the trail cold quickly, because they don't want the links to be made in these cases, in which may link these nut cases back to a culture in which they may be a part of, in which creates these side affects from such a culture or way of thinking these days. That's right, they are side affects of a bad culture or ignorant people, who inadvertentley create creatures in which these cats become as a result of such a culture or way of thinking gone mad these days, and for which many have seen or do give witness to now in America sometimes on a daily basis anymore.

 

[beagle9]

That's how an "assault weapon" is defined you flippant freakin' retard.

Earlier, you described a rolled up sock as an assault weapon.

The argument coming from the pro gun violence crowd is this: 1)There is no such weapon as an assault weapon, so move on.

No one says there is "no such weapon as an assault weapon". I already made clear to you that anything that's used with the intent to kill or injure can be defined as an "assault" weapon.



Yeah...so?



Wrong. Mass killings are a part of life and if it isn't mass shootings, it will be "mass" something else. Further, no one is saying that this isn't a tragedy and, of course it's the actions of the insane. It isn't the actions of law-abiding gun owning American citizens, that much is clear.

4)I hate the Black boy in the White House because my Daddy hated them Black boys and he taught me to hate them too. So, no matter what that Black boy says or does, I say he's a tyrant and I want to keep my AR-15 handy to shot at him and his supports, those mealy mouthed Liberals that Rush has warned us about.

Wow, you're quite the story teller...eh? Considering your clear demented imagination, I think I'm beginning to understand why you have such an aversion to guns. You don't trust yourself around them. Like, a recovering alcoholic doesn't trust himself around alcohol or a smoker trying to stop smoking doesn't trust himself around people who smoke. But, if you don't trust yourself around them? Don't take it out on law-abiding gun owning American citizens. Go get help and stop blaming everyone else for your problems and fallibility.

5) Guns are fun!

For some they can be. So what of it?

Don't cha just love how he links ((Pro-Gun)) with ((Violence Crowd))..

This cat don't fool anyone ya know, oh and he is a racist also..

 

[YoungRepublican]

Define "beating". Never said "beating", as I would define "beating", is a response to a problem. I said paddle his everloving ass. If you define that as a "beating" then, you're a pussified bawl baby who would resort to, at best, a "time out" as punishment for a child and, you're part of the problem. And, who said anything about "beating the wuss out of a kid"? You're making shit up.

Im saying that the abuse of children, leads to children becoming parents who abuse their children, which leads to ultra violent children. Its simple sociology that all acadmeics agree on.

Again, define "abuse". And, not necessarily do children who are abused become parents who abuse their children. In fact, is this something you're admitting for yourself? You claimed earlier that your father abused you. So, presuming you have children and you can correct me if you don't have children, do you abuse your children?

It is indeed a fact that children who are abused are greater risks for being abusive parents. And I would never lay a finger on my child, I find it disgusting. My definition of abuse is laying a hand on your defenseless child that you are supposed to protect.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Oh, well, if academia says paddling a kid is child abuse, we must all accept it. Cuz they're so reasonable and smart and all.

Articles: Professor Calls for Death Penalty for Climate Change 'Deniers'

uh thats exactly what it means.. Do you think that history is shaped by people whose only forum is on a message board? Its shaped by politicians, theorists and men/women of high stature, not by a carpenter that has an opinion on gay marriage that is going to be taught to my children and their children as intolerant and a benchmark for how history works. Dont use one extreme example of stupidity from a lib professor. I can easily counter that by the myriad of stupid things said by the uneducated.

Uh, actually history is shaped by everyone and, indeed, is shaped by "a carpenter that has an opinion on gay marriage".

No, it isnt. no one really cares what they have to say and rightfully so. Gay marriage isnt a debate, its already won. In 30 years you will be the equivalent of anti civil rights protestors and everyone will remember you that way. Nice legacy your leaving, huh?

 

[LibertyLemming]

Guns rights and gay rights and the right to wear all denim are all fancy names for one thing; human rights. People should be free to do as they please. You punish those who harm others or their property and leaven people who create no victim alone.

 

[Nosmo King]

That's how an "assault weapon" is defined you flippant freakin' retard.

Earlier, you described a rolled up sock as an assault weapon.

The argument coming from the pro gun violence crowd is this: 1)There is no such weapon as an assault weapon, so move on.

No one says there is "no such weapon as an assault weapon". I already made clear to you that anything that's used with the intent to kill or injure can be defined as an "assault" weapon.



Yeah...so?



Wrong. Mass killings are a part of life and if it isn't mass shootings, it will be "mass" something else. Further, no one is saying that this isn't a tragedy and, of course it's the actions of the insane. It isn't the actions of law-abiding gun owning American citizens, that much is clear.

4)I hate the Black boy in the White House because my Daddy hated them Black boys and he taught me to hate them too. So, no matter what that Black boy says or does, I say he's a tyrant and I want to keep my AR-15 handy to shot at him and his supports, those mealy mouthed Liberals that Rush has warned us about.

Wow, you're quite the story teller...eh? Considering your clear demented imagination, I think I'm beginning to understand why you have such an aversion to guns. You don't trust yourself around them. Like, a recovering alcoholic doesn't trust himself around alcohol or a smoker trying to stop smoking doesn't trust himself around people who smoke. But, if you don't trust yourself around them? Don't take it out on law-abiding gun owning American citizens. Go get help and stop blaming everyone else for your problems and fallibility.

5) Guns are fun!

For some they can be. So what of it?

You're not even admitting the existence of assault weapons, let alone how damaging they are when turned loose on the innocents of America. How responsible is that? "Nothing to see here, folks! Just 20 or 30 people shot dead. But if they weren't mowed down by a lone gunman with an assault weapon, they would have been mowed down by something else. so no need to concern yourself with methodology. I never do!"

And your love of guns (what is it? Ap penis extension? Something that makes a big "BOOM!"? The ultimate toy for someone who has yet to grow up and realize that such toys have deadly consequences) has made you spin deaths to the point of trivializing them. A mass shooting is possible only with a weapon capable of creating such havoc. But your love of such weapons has made you oblivious to their consequences. What a shame. What a poorly thought out argument you make. I'll tell you what. Make that argument at the funerals of the next batch of kids shot to death in their schools by someone who took the AR-15 out of Daddy's house and down the road to the school.

 

[9thIDdoc]

You're not even admitting the existence of assault weapons, let alone how damaging they are when turned loose on the innocents of America. How responsible is that? "Nothing to see here, folks! Just 20 or 30 people shot dead. But if they weren't mowed down by a lone gunman with an assault weapon, they would have been mowed down by something else. so no need to concern yourself with methodology. I never do!"

Would you please stop with all the weepy-eyed horseshit about the "innocents of America" like you are the only one who cares about them. Other Americans-yes, even some who happen to disagree with you-deserve better than that from you. For that matter so do those innocents you claim to be so concerned about. If you actually care try coming up with ideas to improve things instead of what has been tried and tried and tried and have failed and failed and failed. Laws-including bans-haven't, and won't work. Face it. Get over it. Becoming histerical and assuming the fetal position isn't helping. Man up, you'll feel better.

Nobody is trivializing mass murder. By far the prefered weapon for mass murder worldwide is explosives/inflamibles although chemical and biological agents have shown considerable potential.
Your so-called "assault weapons" are indeed quite deadly just as they were designed and intended to be. But they are no more so than a host of other firearms like the ones we fought WWI, WWII and Korea with or even many other hunting weapons for that matter.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Im saying that the abuse of children, leads to children becoming parents who abuse their children, which leads to ultra violent children. Its simple sociology that all acadmeics agree on.

Again, define "abuse". And, not necessarily do children who are abused become parents who abuse their children. In fact, is this something you're admitting for yourself? You claimed earlier that your father abused you. So, presuming you have children and you can correct me if you don't have children, do you abuse your children?

It is indeed a fact that children who are abused are greater risks for being abusive parents.

It is indeed a "fact" according to whom?

And I would never lay a finger on my child, I find it disgusting.

But didn't you say that you believed you were abused by your father? How can it be that you would never lay a finger on your child if you say you were abused and that children who are abused are greater risks for being abusive parents? Aren't you proving those statistics wrong?

My definition of abuse is laying a hand on your defenseless child that you are supposed to protect.

Yeah...figures. And, you're part of the problem. I've got to wonder if you're anything like the mother of a kid I knew when I was younger. She let her kid walk all over her, even allowing him to threaten to hit her if she didn't let him do what he wanted to do.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

uh thats exactly what it means.. Do you think that history is shaped by people whose only forum is on a message board? Its shaped by politicians, theorists and men/women of high stature, not by a carpenter that has an opinion on gay marriage that is going to be taught to my children and their children as intolerant and a benchmark for how history works. Dont use one extreme example of stupidity from a lib professor. I can easily counter that by the myriad of stupid things said by the uneducated.

Uh, actually history is shaped by everyone and, indeed, is shaped by "a carpenter that has an opinion on gay marriage".

No, it isnt. no one really cares what they have to say and rightfully so. Gay marriage isnt a debate, its already won. In 30 years you will be the equivalent of anti civil rights protestors and everyone will remember you that way. Nice legacy your leaving, huh?

Sure they care. Those who agree with them care and whether you care or not is irrelevant. And, sure gay marriage is a debate and it's not already won. Further, "and everyone will remember [me] that way"? But, but, but...didn't you just get through saying that no one really cares what they have to say? Or, I have to say? Why would they remember me that way if they don't care what I have to say? You contradict yourself. If they didn't care what I have to say, they aren't going to remember me for anything...duh! If they remember me some particular given way, then that must mean they cared what I had to say.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Earlier, you described a rolled up sock as an assault weapon.

The argument coming from the pro gun violence crowd is this: 1)There is no such weapon as an assault weapon, so move on.

No one says there is "no such weapon as an assault weapon". I already made clear to you that anything that's used with the intent to kill or injure can be defined as an "assault" weapon.



Yeah...so?



Wrong. Mass killings are a part of life and if it isn't mass shootings, it will be "mass" something else. Further, no one is saying that this isn't a tragedy and, of course it's the actions of the insane. It isn't the actions of law-abiding gun owning American citizens, that much is clear.



Wow, you're quite the story teller...eh? Considering your clear demented imagination, I think I'm beginning to understand why you have such an aversion to guns. You don't trust yourself around them. Like, a recovering alcoholic doesn't trust himself around alcohol or a smoker trying to stop smoking doesn't trust himself around people who smoke. But, if you don't trust yourself around them? Don't take it out on law-abiding gun owning American citizens. Go get help and stop blaming everyone else for your problems and fallibility.

5) Guns are fun!

For some they can be. So what of it?

You're not even admitting the existence of assault weapons, let alone how damaging they are when turned loose on the innocents of America. How responsible is that?

Why do you feel such an overwhelming need to keep lying? I've said repeatedly that anything that is used to kill or injure someone, is an "assault" weapon. So, stop lying and claiming I'm not even admitting the existence of assault weapons. Continuing to tell bold-faced lies isn't going to help you.

"Nothing to see here, folks! Just 20 or 30 people shot dead.

Who's saying "Nothing to see here, folks! Just 20 or 30 people shot dead"...again? No one is saying any such thing...liar. Do you make this shit up or, do you have professional fiction writers writing your stuff for you?

But if they weren't mowed down by a lone gunman with an assault weapon, they would have been mowed down by something else. so no need to concern yourself with methodology. I never do!"

More made up bullshit. Again, hyperbole...much?

And your love of guns (what is it? Ap penis extension? Something that makes a big "BOOM!"? The ultimate toy for someone who has yet to grow up and realize that such toys have deadly consequences) has made you spin deaths to the point of trivializing them.

More hyperbole.

A mass shooting is possible only with a weapon capable of creating such havoc.

You just so happen, yet, to educate yourself on what a "mass shooting" is?

But your love of such weapons has made you oblivious to their consequences.

Guns don't create "consequences". People do. Again, guns are inanimate objects and do absolutely nothing in and of themselves. They don't have minds in order to create "consequences". The "consequences" in a gun, in and of itself, is just to sit there looking like a gun. Nothing more.

What a shame. What a poorly thought out argument you make.

Is this opposed to the lying hyperbolic argument you try and make?

I'll tell you what. Make that argument at the funerals of the next batch of kids shot to death in their schools by someone who took the AR-15 out of Daddy's house and down the road to the school.

There you go again, thinking you're going to use kids' deaths as tools to push your anti-gun agenda, thinking you can target the emotions of your opponent and compel them to kiss your ass and agree with you. You're really quite the piece of stool...huh? Give it a rest.

 

[beagle9]

uh thats exactly what it means.. Do you think that history is shaped by people whose only forum is on a message board? Its shaped by politicians, theorists and men/women of high stature, not by a carpenter that has an opinion on gay marriage that is going to be taught to my children and their children as intolerant and a benchmark for how history works. Dont use one extreme example of stupidity from a lib professor. I can easily counter that by the myriad of stupid things said by the uneducated.

Uh, actually history is shaped by everyone and, indeed, is shaped by "a carpenter that has an opinion on gay marriage".

No, it isnt. no one really cares what they have to say and rightfully so. Gay marriage isnt a debate, its already won. In 30 years you will be the equivalent of anti civil rights protestors and everyone will remember you that way. Nice legacy your leaving, huh?

Another Lib all dressed up in Republican garb...well, well, well isn't this special...What's this the new buzz on the net, being someone that your not?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Uh, actually history is shaped by everyone and, indeed, is shaped by "a carpenter that has an opinion on gay marriage".

No, it isnt. no one really cares what they have to say and rightfully so. Gay marriage isnt a debate, its already won. In 30 years you will be the equivalent of anti civil rights protestors and everyone will remember you that way. Nice legacy your leaving, huh?

Another Lib all dressed up in Republican garb...well, well, well isn't this special...What's this the new buzz on the net, being someone that your not?

Isn't it somewhat interesting how "gay marriage" suddenly popped up out of the blue when we were discussing the gun issue? Sometimes some folks just can't seem to stay on topic and have to veer off on to some other kind of weird tangent. I've got to wonder why it seems YR thinks "gay marriage" has anything to do with the gun debate.

 

[beagle9]

No, it isnt. no one really cares what they have to say and rightfully so. Gay marriage isnt a debate, its already won. In 30 years you will be the equivalent of anti civil rights protestors and everyone will remember you that way. Nice legacy your leaving, huh?

Another Lib all dressed up in Republican garb...well, well, well isn't this special...What's this the new buzz on the net, being someone that your not?

Isn't it somewhat interesting how "gay marriage" suddenly popped up out of the blue when we were discussing the gun issue? Sometimes some folks just can't seem to stay on topic and have to veer off on to some other kind of weird tangent. I've got to wonder why it seems YR thinks "gay marriage" has anything to do with the gun debate.

It is a tactic used when losing the argument or debate, and it also serves as a distraction or deflection if only temporary in it's affectiveness, but desperation always leads to desperate actions on these characters part right ? LOL

 

[Nosmo King]

Another Lib all dressed up in Republican garb...well, well, well isn't this special...What's this the new buzz on the net, being someone that your not?

Isn't it somewhat interesting how "gay marriage" suddenly popped up out of the blue when we were discussing the gun issue? Sometimes some folks just can't seem to stay on topic and have to veer off on to some other kind of weird tangent. I've got to wonder why it seems YR thinks "gay marriage" has anything to do with the gun debate.

It is a tactic used when losing the argument or debate, and it also serves as a distraction or deflection if only temporary in it's affectiveness, but desperation always leads to desperate actions on these characters part right ? LOL

Sort of like the tactic of claiming there are no such things as assault weapons as anything can be used as a weapon during an assault.

 

[LibertyLemming]

the only tactic on this board is the advocating of control and force. leave people alone

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Isn't it somewhat interesting how "gay marriage" suddenly popped up out of the blue when we were discussing the gun issue? Sometimes some folks just can't seem to stay on topic and have to veer off on to some other kind of weird tangent. I've got to wonder why it seems YR thinks "gay marriage" has anything to do with the gun debate.

It is a tactic used when losing the argument or debate, and it also serves as a distraction or deflection if only temporary in it's affectiveness, but desperation always leads to desperate actions on these characters part right ? LOL

Sort of like the tactic of claiming there are no such things as assault weapons as anything can be used as a weapon during an assault.

Who's saying there are no such things as assault weapons? Apparently you have actually no inclination whatsoever to learn how to read...do you? I presume you flunked third grade?