PDA

View Full Version : 2nd Amendment Wins AGAIN!!!!


caplovestroyp43
04-17-2013, 11:01 PM
Read on my Facebook page that the background check shit that was in Congress was defeated!!!! :applaudit::applaudit::applaudit:

And Ovomit had a tantrum because it was. Anything that pisses him off makes me three times happier!! :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Thank God, we won this one. :drink:

:tt02::tt02::tt02:

Vis
04-18-2013, 02:31 AM
it wasn't defeated. it was a bipartisan bill supported by the majority of people and it was never brought to a vote because of a filibuster.

And did you thank God that felons and the insane can still get guns without a method for weeding them out? That's right, God is ok with mental patients shooting people as long as they only fuck the opposite sex.

Fire Haley
04-18-2013, 07:42 AM
bitter beer face!

http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/obamgunbillfailure-e1366235238990.jpg

Obama Loses It Over Gun Control Defeat

Childishness and demagoguery are a dangerous mix especially when exhibited by the President of the United States.

President Obama became unhinged following the defeat in the Senate of the universal background check bill put forth by Senators Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin.

Obama said, “All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check. That didn’t make our kids safer.”

Since when do dangerous criminals buy their guns from licensed dealers?

I mean even Dianne Feinstein admitted on the floor of the Senate that a universal background check would not have prevented Newtown.

But all that matters to Obama is that he didn’t get his way. Hell hath no fury like Obama scorned.

http://spectator.org/blog/2013/04/17/obama-loses-it-over-gun-contro

Fire Haley
04-18-2013, 07:46 AM
looks like it tried to outlaw the private sales of firearms

S.649

To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm
are listed in the national instant criminal background check system
and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other
purposes.

Subtitle B--Requiring a Background Check for Every Firearm Sale

SEC. 121. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this subtitle is to extend the Brady Law background check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms.

SEC. 122. FIREARMS TRANSFERS.


``(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s649pcs/pdf/BILLS-113s649pcs.pdf

Vis
04-18-2013, 08:03 AM
looks like it tried to outlaw the private sales of firearms

S.649

To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm
are listed in the national instant criminal background check system
and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other
purposes.

Subtitle B--Requiring a Background Check for Every Firearm Sale

SEC. 121. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this subtitle is to extend the Brady Law background check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms.

SEC. 122. FIREARMS TRANSFERS.


``(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s649pcs/pdf/BILLS-113s649pcs.pdf

''(f) EXCEPTIONS.--Unless prohibited by any other provision of law, subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to any transfer of a firearm between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee, if--
(1) the transfer is a bona fide gift between immediate family members, including spouses, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, and grandchildren;
(2) the transfer occurs by operation of law, or because of the death of another person for whom the unlicensed transferor is an executor or administrator of an estate or a trustee of a trust created in a will;
(3) the transfer is temporary and occurs while in the home of the unlicensed transferee, if--
(A) the unlicensed transferee is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms; and
(B) the unlicensed transferee believes that possession of the firearm is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the unlicensed transferee; [H.R. 137, accessed 4/11/13 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr137ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr137ih.pdf)]




The Gun Control Act of 1968 provides that persons "engaged in the business" of dealing in firearms must be licensed. Although Congress did not originally define the term "engaged in the business," it did so in 1986 as part of the McClure-Volkmer Act (also known as the "Firearms Owners' Protection Act"). That Act defined the term "engaged in the business," as applied to a firearms dealer, as "a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms."
Significantly, however, the term was defined to exclude a person who "makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms."
Consequently, unlicensed sellers may sell firearms without conducting background checks or documenting the transaction in any way. In addition, because federal law does not require private sellers to inspect a buyer's driver's license or any other identification, there is no obligation for such sellers to confirm that a buyer is of legal age to purchase a firearm. As a result, convicted felons, minors and other prohibited purchasers can easily buy guns from unlicensed sellers.
According to a 1999 report issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the current definition of "engaged in the business" often frustrates the prosecution of "unlicensed dealers masquerading as collectors or hobbyists but who are really trafficking firearms to felons or other prohibited persons." A June 2000 ATF report found that unlicensed sellers were involved in about a fifth of the trafficking investigations and associated with nearly 23,000 diverted guns. A national survey of firearm ownership conducted in 1994 determined that 60 percent of all firearm sales in the U.S. involved federally licensed dealers, while the remaining 40 percent of firearms were acquired from unlicensed sellers. [Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, accessed 4/11/13 (http://smartgunlaws.org/private-sales-policy-summary/)]

FanSince72
04-18-2013, 08:12 AM
The Second Amendment didn't "win", the NRA and the gun manufacturers they shill for did.
The "Gun Show Loophole" is the Sacred Cow of the gun industry because it's the only way that the manufacturers can sell their guns to the criminal market (since that's the only viable market left for them) and they protect it at any cost.

I don't know what's more sickening - the fact that the NRA/Gun makers run this country, or that the pro-gun people buy into their bullshit about "Big Brother" and confiscation and that they somehow think this "win" is a good thing.

The thing that actually "won" yesterday was FEAR.
Fear of reality and fear of the truth.

Anyone who is celebrating right now ought to be ashamed of themselves and if they have more than a few brain cells to rub together, they should stop and think about just exactly what it is that they're supporting.

MACH1
04-18-2013, 08:44 AM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/529437_734917159038_242255424_n.jpg

Vis
04-18-2013, 09:10 AM
More than 3,500 deaths by guns since Newtown but so what as long as a certain type of republican gets off on defeating the President on anything. Screw society, this is about keeping score. Sure I don't know what happened during childhood to create people who think like that but one admires their consistency.

Fire Haley
04-18-2013, 09:18 AM
90% support from people who supported it.

It died because the 90% figure is fictional.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/532283_582383131781131_356390997_n.jpg

MACH1
04-18-2013, 09:19 AM
It a wonder when people go to gun shows how they make it out alive with all those guns killing people.

Vis
04-18-2013, 09:21 AM
Eighty-six percent of those questioned in the survey say they support some form of background checks that are not currently required by law for gun sales.

"Some of the proposed additions to the current gun laws are more popular than others," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland, "although every new background check tested in the poll wins support from a majority of the American public."

The 86% figure from the CNN/ORC poll is in line with just about every other national survey released over the past couple of months, which found support for increased background checks hovering around the 90% level. And the CNN survey, along with the previous polls, found no real partisan divide, with very strong support for the checks from Democrats, Republicans, and independents.

The CNN survey's release comes as the Senate plans to vote on Thursday on whether to open debate on gun control legislation that some Republicans have pledged to filibuster.

President Barack Obama on Monday angrily chided lawmakers reluctant to back gun control legislation, saying the overwhelming support for measures like universal background checks among the American people should force action in Congress.

"If our democracy's working the way it's supposed to, and 90% agree on something, in the wake of a tragedy, you would think this would not be a heavy lift," Obama said, saying the Republicans who were vowing to filibuster the bill were, in essence, telling Americans that their "opinion doesn't matter."

The president made his comments at an event in Connecticut, the state that was the scene last December of a horrific elementary school shooting that left 20 young students and six adults dead. The incident spurred the current push for legislation to deal with gun violence.

According to the poll, 89% of Americans support the background checks already on the books - those required for purchases at gun stores and other businesses that sell guns. Three proposals, covering gun shows, person-to-person sales, and transfers between family members, would add to the existing laws, and 86% of Americans support at least one of those three additional checks.

The most popular is the gun show proposal, which 83% of all Americans support. Seven in ten favor background checks on prospective buyers trying to purchase a gun from another person who is not a gun dealer but owns a gun and wants to sell it. Least popular is a proposal to require background checks for buyers who are purchasing a gun from a family member or receiving it as a gift. Support for that proposal drops to 54% - still a majority, but not as popular as gun show requirements.

Vis
04-18-2013, 09:22 AM
It a wonder when people go to gun shows how they make it out alive with all those guns killing people.

I wonder if your family was slaughtered and they found the gun at the scene if you would like there to be a way to trace it to the killer. Unless of course not being able to made Obama mad.

MACH1
04-18-2013, 09:23 AM
What do all these people have in common?


Mark Pryor (D-AR), Max Baucus (D-MT), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Mark Begich (D-AK), and even (gasp) Harry Reid (D-NV).


They all voted NO.

MACH1
04-18-2013, 09:24 AM
I wonder if your family was slaughtered and they found the gun at the scene if you would like there to be a way to trace it to the killer. Unless of course not being able to made Obama mad.

Yes because we all know criminals follow the law to a T.

Fire Haley
04-18-2013, 09:26 AM
Obama: “The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill” - “It came down to politics.”


This is the reaction of a petulant child that didn't get that cookie he wanted

Democracy works

Vis
04-18-2013, 09:26 AM
What do all these people have in common?


Mark Pryor (D-AR), Max Baucus (D-MT), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Mark Begich (D-AK), and even (gasp) Harry Reid (D-NV).


They all voted NO.


No, you're wrong

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) became emotional on the Senate floor Wednesday as he urged senators to support a gun safety bill that, in part, expands background checks to individuals who purchase guns at gun shows or online. The Senate will consider at least nine amendments to the measure on Wednesday afternoon, including provisions to ban assault weapons and limit the availability of high capacity magazines. Reid — a moderate Democrat who has a ‘B’ rating from the National Rifle Association — tore into conspiracy theorists who use “shameful scare tactics” to claim that requiring more gun buyers to undergo screenings would lead to the creation of a national gun registry. He argued that the amendment offered by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) specifically outlaws a registry “on page 27″ and would strengthen existing prohibitions against federal officials who store the names of gun owners.
“The courage today is to say yes,” Reid said, as he called on his fellow senators to vote their conscience:
Today our decision will determine the decision of our country. Today I choose to vote my conscience, not only is Harry Reid a United States senator but also a a husband, a father, a grandfather and I hope friend of lots and lots of people, I choose to vote my conscience because, if tragedy strikes again, I’m sorry to say, Mr. President, it will, if innocents are gunned down in a classroom, theater or restaurant, I would have trouble living with myself as a senator, as a husband, a fathers, or grandfather and friend, knowing that I didn’t do everything in my power to prevent that incident.

MACH1
04-18-2013, 09:32 AM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/537013_358174537616792_1246305997_n.jpg

Vis
04-18-2013, 09:32 AM
Yes because we all know criminals follow the law to a T.


I can't express how stupid I think that comment is as many times as I've heard it. Murderers don't follow laws against murder but you aren't so far gone that you would repeal murder laws (I assume).

The FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Section has processed firearm background checks since November 30, 1998. Since that time, the experience gained enhances national security and public safety by identifying, developing, and implementing improvements in support of the NICS Section’s mission. Striving to provide effective and efficient service to its customers, highlights of the NICS operations in 2012 include the following:


From the inception of the NICS on November 30, 1998, to December 31, 2012, a total of 160,474,702 transactions have been processed. Of these, 75,880,877 transactions were processed by the NICS Section and 84,593,825 transactions were processed by state users. Of the 19,592,303 background checks processed through the NICS in 2012, a total of 8,725,425 transactions were processed by the NICS Section and 10,866,878 were processed by state users.



From November 30, 1998, to December 31, 2012, the NICS Section has denied a total of 987,578 transactions. Denials issued by the NICS Section in 2012 totaled 88,479.



So what does that info tell the class? It says that the checks aren't onerous but some sales are stopped to people who shouldn't own firearms. The change would have stopped more but still not prevented most people from buying a gun. For me, the new law only had to save one person's life to be worth it. Now that person won't be saved. Throw a party.

MACH1
04-18-2013, 09:39 AM
No, you're wrong

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) became emotional on the Senate floor Wednesday as he urged senators to support a gun safety bill that, in part, expands background checks to individuals who purchase guns at gun shows or online. The Senate will consider at least nine amendments to the measure on Wednesday afternoon, including provisions to ban assault weapons and limit the availability of high capacity magazines. Reid — a moderate Democrat who has a ‘B’ rating from the National Rifle Association — tore into conspiracy theorists who use “shameful scare tactics” to claim that requiring more gun buyers to undergo screenings would lead to the creation of a national gun registry. He argued that the amendment offered by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) specifically outlaws a registry “on page 27″ and would strengthen existing prohibitions against federal officials who store the names of gun owners.
“The courage today is to say yes,” Reid said, as he called on his fellow senators to vote their conscience:
Today our decision will determine the decision of our country. Today I choose to vote my conscience, not only is Harry Reid a United States senator but also a a husband, a father, a grandfather and I hope friend of lots and lots of people, I choose to vote my conscience because, if tragedy strikes again, I’m sorry to say, Mr. President, it will, if innocents are gunned down in a classroom, theater or restaurant, I would have trouble living with myself as a senator, as a husband, a fathers, or grandfather and friend, knowing that I didn’t do everything in my power to prevent that incident.


Fraid not.

Three of those lawmakers — Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Max Baucus of Montana, and Mark Begich of Alaska — face competitive re-election races in deep-red states next year.

The fourth, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-vote-democrats-against-background-checks-2013-4#ixzz2QpFyYr52



The final vote was 54 in favor to 46 opposed with four Republicans joining most Democrats in supporting the compromise. With the outcome obvious, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, cast a "no" vote
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/politics/senate-guns-vote/index.html

Vis
04-18-2013, 09:43 AM
He did vote no. Why? It allows him to bring another cloture vote in the future. You were right.


Now tell me what in the proposed bill would have kept you from buying a gun or what provision you think went too far and why.

Fire Haley
04-18-2013, 09:49 AM
''(f) EXCEPTIONS.--Unless prohibited by any other provision of law, subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to any transfer of a firearm between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee, if--
(1) the transfer is a bona fide gift between immediate family members, including spouses, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, and grandchildren;
(2) the transfer occurs by operation of law, or because of the death of another person for whom the unlicensed transferor is an executor or administrator of an estate or a trustee of a trust created in a will;
(3) the transfer is temporary and occurs while in the home of the unlicensed transferee, if--
(A) the unlicensed transferee is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms; and
(B) the unlicensed transferee believes that possession of the firearm is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the unlicensed transferee; [H.R. 137, accessed 4/11/13 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr137ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr137ih.pdf)


Ok, so it basically goes after non FFL gun show sales, and Armslist/backpage advertised sales

The loophole being the attendees of the gunshow can walk across the street to the waffle house parking lot and conduct the transaction there instead of the show

Vis
04-18-2013, 09:55 AM
Ok, so it basically goes after non FFL gun show sales, and Armslist/backpage advertised sales

The loophole being the attendees of the gunshow can walk across the street to the waffle house parking lot and conduct the transaction there instead of the show


So you're against it because it doesn't do enough?

MACH1
04-18-2013, 10:05 AM
He did vote no. Why? It allows him to bring another cloture vote in the future. You were right.


Now tell me what in the proposed bill would have kept you from buying a gun or what provision you think went too far and why.

Because it does absolutely nothing. It would or will not prevent crazies or criminals from doing anything. The lawmakers even admitted to as much.

I'm all for the craziness check and keeping guns away from criminals. But not by infringing on my rights as a lawful person. Fixing the "gun show loophole" wouldn't be a bad thing either. All the other bullshit does nothing to solve any of the problems.

Fire Haley
04-18-2013, 10:10 AM
So you're against it because it doesn't do enough?

It's dead - try again

Fire Haley
04-18-2013, 10:19 AM
spot on!!!!

Gun Law Voted Down and Liberals Are Upset !

tF0rl8eNxVY

fer522
04-18-2013, 10:28 AM
You think these dumbasses voted no because they care about your rights? They don't give a fuck about you or your rights the only thing they care about is the money and losing the support from the NRA. :noidea:

Fire Haley
04-18-2013, 10:40 AM
You think these dumbasses voted no because they care about your rights? They don't give a fuck about you or your rights the only thing they care about is the money and losing the support from the NRA. :noidea:

Elections have consequences

Vote all the gun grabbers out next year! - that's the plan - they better run and hide, Lord Obama won't be able to protect them from the voters wrath either

Lokki
04-18-2013, 10:52 AM
A background check is not going to prevent a criminal from getting a firearm any more than needing a PHD to legally sell drugs (pharmacist) prevents a drug dealer from selling drugs.

It all sounds fine and dandy, but all that it hurts are the law abiding citizens. Drugs have been illegal for years, but they still come across the border and in on boats or any other way that the drug cartels bring them into the US. Just like law abiding citizens now can't even buy good cold medicines in the pharmacy without either a prescription or getting it from behind the counter. Then it is tracked how much you buy.

The proposed law will do nothing to slow down the criminals. It just hurts the law-abiding citizens. I'm not a "gun nut", and I don't mind getting background checked if I do go buy a gun, but I'm not delusional enough to think that the law would make everything better. Criminals are criminals because they break laws. They aren't going to all of the sudden change their minds and turn in the guns that were bought illegally and then go buy some at a sports store so that they can have a background check and a receipt for it.

Lokki
04-18-2013, 10:54 AM
Just like piracy with software. All of this DRM put in place to "protect" the software from pirates just hinders the people that actually purchase the product. The pirates still hack the software and get it out there within 24-48 hours of the software being released.

Bane
04-18-2013, 11:19 AM
90% support from people who supported it.

It died because the 90% figure is fictional.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/532283_582383131781131_356390997_n.jpg

90% of the time any politician opens his or her mouth, he or she is lying. Picking on a single politician for that is pretty ignorant, to say the least. Bush lied, Clinton lied, daddy Bush lied, Reagan lied, etc.

Yes because we all know criminals follow the law to a T.

Should we just end all laws then? Since criminals won't follow those either, why have them?

Lokki
04-18-2013, 11:26 AM
Should we just end all laws then? Since criminals won't follow those either, why have them?

No, but they need to stop trying to pass laws for their agenda when it stems from a tragedy.

I don't recall reading anything about the guns from the Newton killings being purchases illegally, nor the theater shootings in Colorado. The guns are to blame in these tragedies instead of the people that carried them out.

Look at the tragedy in Boston. The guy who made the bomb is being blamed there, not the bomb itself.

Wait, what?

Ban all pressure cookers! Background checks to buy pressure cookers! Where is the outrage?

Fire Haley
04-18-2013, 11:30 AM
90% of the time any politician opens his or her mouth, he or she is lying. Picking on a single politician for that is pretty ignorant, to say the least. Bush lied

hahahahah



Bu bu bu bu bu bu bu sssssshhhhhhhh!


Obama lied - people died (Benghazi)

"What difference does it make?"

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Clinton-Benghazi-G1-620x362.jpeg

Bane
04-18-2013, 11:39 AM
No, but they need to stop trying to pass laws for their agenda when it stems from a tragedy.

I don't recall reading anything about the guns from the Newton killings being purchases illegally, nor the theater shootings in Colorado. The guns are to blame in these tragedies instead of the people that carried them out.

Look at the tragedy in Boston. The guy who made the bomb is being blamed there, not the bomb itself.

Wait, what?

Ban all pressure cookers! Background checks to buy pressure cookers! Where is the outrage?

That is a horrendously misguided way to look at it.

Nobody worth half of a brain is blaming the actual gun, but many recognize it as a tool that maximizes effect while minimizing effort. Guns are meant for solely one thing: destroying whatever they're pointed at.

Pressure cookers, on the other hand, are made for cooking. Comparing the two is absolutely ridiculous, considering it's not a tool created solely for the intent of destroying anything. Predicting that someone would have taken a cooking tool to blow up a group of people is nearly impossible.

And don't get me wrong: I like guns. My family owns guns. I've fired them a number of times, and I find it fun. And on top of it all, I'm not even advocating that some complete gun ban is possible nor going to work. However, I'm not delusional enough to think that guns don't help sick people make bad situations even worse, and that something needs to be done. I'm not an expert on the matter, so I don't know what exactly will work and what won't, but it's highly likely that neither are any of you, or just about anyone else who is parading around forums screaming for their beloved guns not to be touched.

The romance novel we're writing about men and their guns in this country is disturbing.

Bane
04-18-2013, 11:46 AM
hahahahah



Bu bu bu bu bu bu bu sssssshhhhhhhh!


Obama lied - people died (Benghazi)

"What difference does it make?"

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Clinton-Benghazi-G1-620x362.jpeg

Really? Pick out Bush, of all people, and then use the Benghazi argument?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-28/news/ct-oped-1028-page-20121028_1_benghazi-al-qaida-affiliate-ansar-al-sharia

Lokki
04-18-2013, 11:52 AM
Predicting that someone would have taken a cooking tool to blow up a group of people is nearly impossible.

Actually a lot of the bombing in the middle East is done like that. It just hasn't happened here until Monday.


And don't get me wrong: I like guns. My family owns guns. I've fired them a number of times, and I find it fun. And on top of it all, I'm not even advocating that some complete gun ban is possible nor going to work. However, I'm not delusional enough to think that guns don't help sick people make bad situations even worse, and that something needs to be done. I'm not an expert on the matter, so I don't know what exactly will work and what won't, but it's highly likely that neither are any of you, or just about anyone else who is parading around forums screaming for their beloved guns not to be touched.

If the sick people didn't have guns, then they would just turn to something else; pipe bombs, pressure cooker bombs, Uhaul trucks like in OKC, etc. Society is too quick to drug up anyone that shows signs of depression, or ADHD, or some other mental condition. Then they shove them off to the side and forget about them. Some of the side effects of those medicines are worse than what they are treating. There is always some scape goat and then a knee-jerk overreaction. The gun bill is just another knee-jerk overreaction.

Fire Haley
04-18-2013, 12:17 PM
Really? Pick out Bush, of all people, and then use the Benghazi argument?



YOU picked out Bush

I told you why that's a joke when the shoe's on the other foot

FanSince72
04-18-2013, 12:22 PM
He did vote no. Why? It allows him to bring another cloture vote in the future



Precisely.

I'm surprised that all of the pro-gun folks who pride themselves on their military smarts can't recognize a tactical retreat when they see one.

Bane
04-18-2013, 01:25 PM
Actually a lot of the bombing in the middle East is done like that. It just hasn't happened here until Monday.

Even if that happened a couple more times here, how are we going to effectively ban utensils that were not designed for slaughter? Shall we take out ovens, as well? Those can burn down houses easily. As can matches and lighters. But, no, those have far more harmless and practical uses, and accounting for someone's misuse of these objects is, again, nearly impossible. These aren't deadly weapons, like guns. They shouldn't be treated as such.

If the sick people didn't have guns, then they would just turn to something else; pipe bombs, pressure cooker bombs, Uhaul trucks like in OKC, etc. Society is too quick to drug up anyone that shows signs of depression, or ADHD, or some other mental condition. Then they shove them off to the side and forget about them. Some of the side effects of those medicines are worse than what they are treating. There is always some scape goat and then a knee-jerk overreaction. The gun bill is just another knee-jerk overreaction.

So give them something that requires little to no work or skill that, again, can give maximal results with minimal effort, just because they might put the time and work in to learn how to make, buy all the numerous supplies for , and create some sort of detonation device for bombs?

That's like saying, "We're not going to even try curing your cancer, because you're going to die of unrelated cardiac arrest anyway." Life doesn't work like that. We have the ability to take action and, at the very least, try to fix the problem.

But, since other problems might arise, we might as well let this problem keep going, right?

Bane
04-18-2013, 01:32 PM
YOU picked out Bush

I told you why that's a joke when the shoe's on the other foot

... What? Read my post, dude. Are you delusional, or incapable of reading? I in no way singled out Bush, I simply included him in a list (that wasn't exhaustive) of politicians (not choosing any political meaning) who have probably lied every goddamned time they've held a conference, gave a speech, were near a camera, etc.

But, if you want to get into the details, you can read the article, and take in mind that Bush did an absolute truckload of lying and self-serving all to get thousands upon thousands of our own killed. Yet, you use your own political bias to cloud the fact that Bush sent thousands of our young men and women to die for a costly war (that is still destroying our economy), while Obama's "lies" (that were likely either blown way out of proportion or entirely falsified by word of one of the biggest airheads and most delusional morons to step foot in Washington D.C.) yielded far larger consequences than anything Bush did, right?

Thought not.

Fire Haley
04-18-2013, 01:34 PM
Emotional Obama vows gun control ‘without Congress’

“Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities,” Obama insisted.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2527519?slideout=1

-----------------------------

Impeach this tin-pot dictator wannabe

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003593009/613417703_obama_dictator_answer_3_xlarge.jpeg

Fire Haley
04-18-2013, 01:50 PM
... What? Read my post, dude. Are you delusional, or incapable of reading? I in no way singled out Bush, I simply included him in a list (that wasn't exhaustive) of politicians (not choosing any political meaning) who have probably lied every goddamned time they've held a conference, gave a speech, were near a camera, etc.
.

yeah yeah yeah

then you go off on another Bush spiel

this is about OBAMA

get it?

talk about Obama

get it?

thought not

MACH1
04-18-2013, 01:59 PM
Should we just end all laws then? Since criminals won't follow those either, why have them?

Should we just pick and choose which ones we should enforce like with immigration?

Bane
04-18-2013, 02:03 PM
yeah yeah yeah

then you go off on another Bush spiel

this is about OBAMA

get it?

talk about Obama

get it?

thought not

Oh, so, "Talk about Obama, call Obama on his bullshit, but as soon as my statements are called for their bullshit, IT'S ALL ABOUT OBAMA!"

Don't start fights, and then back into a corner and flip on troll-mode when you're proven to be spouting ignorant garbage.

You say all this like I'm all Pro-Obama. I'm not. It's just ridiculous that serious discussions like this one constantly have ignorant, bias-driven, and B.S.-laden ranting. Especially when you're not prepared to back it up.

Bane
04-18-2013, 02:06 PM
Should we just pick and choose which ones we should enforce like with immigration?

When have I ever said that immigration laws shouldn't be enforced?

MACH1
04-18-2013, 02:07 PM
When have I ever said that immigration laws shouldn't be enforced?

When has anyone said we should drop all laws?

Bane
04-18-2013, 02:13 PM
When has anyone said we should drop all laws?

Although not verbatim, what else can we expect from a statement like this one?

Yes because we all know criminals follow the law to a T.

If we should just not pass laws because we know criminals won't follow them, then why have laws? Criminals won't follow them anyway, right?

Fire Haley
04-18-2013, 02:15 PM
Reid to shelve gun bill

(CNN) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will set aside proposed gun legislation on Thursday without a final vote following the defeat a day earlier of major provisions sought by President Barack Obama and Democrats in the aftermath of the Newtown school massacre, CNN has learned.

A Senate Democratic leadership aide said Reid can bring up the package of gun proposals again if circumstances change and he believes he has the votes for key provisions to pass, particularly a measure to expand background checks on gun buyers.

In a major defeat for supporters of tougher gun laws

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/18/reid-to-shelve-gun-bill/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_politicalticker+%28 Blog%3A+Political+Ticker%29

------------------

meanwhile, our infantile prez rages on


Obama Continues His Gun Rant in an Email to Supporters

“Yesterday, 45 senators chose to ignore their constituents and stand with the gun lobby.”‘


http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/04/18/obama-continues-his-gun-rant-in-an-email-to-supporters/

---------------------------


“Yesterday, 45 senators chose to ignore their constituents and stand with the Constitution”‘

There, fixed it.

MACH1
04-18-2013, 02:15 PM
Although not verbatim, what else can we expect from a statement like this one?



If we should just not pass laws because we know criminals won't follow them, then why have laws? Criminals won't follow them anyway, right?

Or the government refuses to enforce them, right?

Bane
04-18-2013, 02:17 PM
Or the government refuses to enforce them, right?

I want them to start enforcing immigration laws. But, since you want to dance around the subject and not have a serious conversation, I guess that ends that.

Fire Haley
04-18-2013, 02:29 PM
Oh, so, "Talk about Obama, call Obama on his bullshit, but as soon as my statements are called for their bullshit, IT'S ALL ABOUT OBAMA!"

Don't start fights, and then back into a corner and flip on troll-mode when you're proven to be spouting ignorant garbage.

You say all this like I'm all Pro-Obama. I'm not. It's just ridiculous that serious discussions like this one constantly have ignorant, bias-driven, and B.S.-laden ranting. Especially when you're not prepared to back it up.

blah blah balh

what's the title of this thread?


your childish attempts to turn this into some kind of general us vs. them "argument" is beneath you, go start your own thread if you want to indulge in hysterics


or stick to the topic like everyone else is doing

Lokki
04-18-2013, 02:31 PM
Even if that happened a couple more times here, how are we going to effectively ban utensils that were not designed for slaughter? Shall we take out ovens, as well? Those can burn down houses easily. As can matches and lighters. But, no, those have far more harmless and practical uses, and accounting for someone's misuse of these objects is, again, nearly impossible. These aren't deadly weapons, like guns. They shouldn't be treated as such.

So give them something that requires little to no work or skill that, again, can give maximal results with minimal effort, just because they might put the time and work in to learn how to make, buy all the numerous supplies for , and create some sort of detonation device for bombs?


Guns have valid uses too, hunting, law enforcement, Secret Service, etc. The guns themselves don't kill the people, it's the people using them. Anything can be used to kill someone. You can easily stab someone with a knife or slice an artery. My point is where is it going to stop? I've stated before, I'm no "gun lover", I just think that all of this effort is better spent elsewhere. Like maybe to pass a damn budget or work on this economy some more.

While they piss and moan over gun control, my pay is in limbo because I'm a federal employee who is possibly losing up to 20% of my pay for several months. They haven't passed a budget since 2009. They have been too concerned about putting health care reform into place, banning guns, and every other little agenda. In return, my department has been downsized. I haven't had a cost of living increase or true raise in years. I also get the privilege of doing the work of 2-3 people because we are short handed. The politicians (Republican and Democrat) get to take all of their vacations and live like kings from lobbyist money and not give 2 shits about those of us that actually do something meaningful for the US.

If Obama put as much effort into the budget or the economy as he has into health care and gun bans, then the US would be in much better shape than it currently is.

Fire Haley
04-18-2013, 02:32 PM
you notice whenever the libs are losing they try to change the subject

MACH1
04-18-2013, 02:40 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/58178_185758801576685_1957602330_n.jpg

MACH1
04-18-2013, 02:52 PM
This is where that 90% number comes from. A whopping total of 1,110 people that isn't very specific on the demographic and 1,110 adults isn't what you would call 90% of the population now is it.

This poll was conducted by telephone from January 11-15, 2013 among 1,110 adults nationwide.

Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups may be higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57564386-10391739/9-in-10-back-universal-gun-background-checks/?pageNum=2

The_Joker
04-18-2013, 03:10 PM
I'm a liberal, I'm pro-gun, and I think you're all idiots for dividing yourselves instead of wanting a meaningful discussion.

Why is America so divided...

The_Joker
04-18-2013, 03:19 PM
you notice whenever the libs are losing they try to change the subject

I love how you say "the libs" as if we're not even Americans.

This is the attitude that is destroying America.

MACH1
04-18-2013, 03:22 PM
I'm a liberal, I'm pro-gun, and I think you're all idiots for dividing yourselves instead of wanting a meaningful discussion.

Why is America so divided...

Thats what obaaama does best.

The_Joker
04-18-2013, 03:23 PM
Thats what obaaama does best.

As if conservatives haven't had their fair share of idiots.

*Cough*W, Romney, Santorum, Palin*Cough*

Reagan would take a piss on the GOP (and Dems for that matter) if he saw them today.

Fire Haley
04-18-2013, 03:28 PM
I'm a liberal, I'm pro-gun,...

Cool. How many guns do you own and what kind?

The_Joker
04-18-2013, 03:34 PM
Cool. How many guns do you own and what kind?

Too young, though I'd like an AR15, MP5 and a M1911

Vis
04-18-2013, 03:35 PM
Pro gun in responsible hands people are for adequate screening of felons and psychos. Apologies to all SF psychos and felons.

Fire Haley
04-18-2013, 06:35 PM
here's your psycho....thinks he's God and about the Constitution



Obama: Senators decided protecting kids 'wasn't worth it'

WASHINGTON --A visibly infuriated President Barack Obama surrounded himself with tear-stained parents of Connecticut school shooting victims Wednesday after the Senate voted down a measure designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and declared it a "pretty shameful day for Washington."

He said a minority of senators decided "it wasn't worth it" to protect the nation's children.

The Senate, which is controlled by the president's own party, handed him a stinging first defeat for his second term by voting down a bipartisan compromise to expand background checks for gun buyers.

http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2020802398_apusobamaguncontrol.html

-----------------------


no means no, Barry

now go sit in the corner until we tell you it's OK to come out

The_Joker
04-18-2013, 07:39 PM
here's your psycho....thinks he's God and about the Constitution



Obama: Senators decided protecting kids 'wasn't worth it'

WASHINGTON --A visibly infuriated President Barack Obama surrounded himself with tear-stained parents of Connecticut school shooting victims Wednesday after the Senate voted down a measure designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and declared it a "pretty shameful day for Washington."

He said a minority of senators decided "it wasn't worth it" to protect the nation's children.

The Senate, which is controlled by the president's own party, handed him a stinging first defeat for his second term by voting down a bipartisan compromise to expand background checks for gun buyers.

http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2020802398_apusobamaguncontrol.html

-----------------------


no means no, Barry

now go sit in the corner until we tell you it's OK to come out

He's not ours unless you own up and call W yours.

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 07:36 AM
Lemme clear things up

Liberal =/= Anti-gun

Liberal =/= Democrat

Liberal =/= Obama fanboy

Vis
04-19-2013, 08:10 AM
here's your psycho....thinks he's God and about the Constitution





I'm sorry, your right to invoke the Constitution ended with the latest bigoted rant about deporting American citizens based on religion.

Vis
04-19-2013, 08:11 AM
Lemme clear things up

Liberal =/= Anti-gun

Liberal =/= Democrat

Liberal =/= Obama fanboy


What does liberal mean to you? Are you a Green?

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 08:22 AM
What does liberal mean to you? Are you a Green?

"Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values."

I'm sorry, your right to invoke the Constitution ended with the latest bigoted rant about deporting American citizens based on religion.

He said what now?!

Vis
04-19-2013, 09:05 AM
"Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values."





Do you hold any opinions or values or are you saying you're a blank slate?

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 09:17 AM
Do you hold any opinions or values or are you saying you're a blank slate?

I'm willing to adapt. I'm sure the KKK loves and holds onto their values. Doesn't mean it's right.

Vis
04-19-2013, 09:28 AM
I'm willing to adapt. I'm sure the KKK loves and holds onto their values. Doesn't mean it's right.


Adapt to what? The group you're in? The loudest voice? Simple contrarianism?

How often can you change your stance in, say, a week?

Are you pro-choice?

Are you for marriage equality?

Do you believe in science on evolution, global warming, the age of the universe?

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 10:02 AM
Adapt to what? The group you're in? The loudest voice? Simple contrarianism?

How often can you change your stance in, say, a week?

Are you pro-choice?

Are you for marriage equality?

Do you believe in science on evolution, global warming, the age of the universe?

Whatever makes logical fucking sense. Yes, I am all of those. "Conservative" is just a word for sheep who follow the old ways mindlessly. Traditions can be good, can be bad. You have to weed out the bad ones, like, I dunno, racism or sexism, but hold onto others, like your constitutional rights.

Savvy?

Vis
04-19-2013, 10:06 AM
Whatever makes logical fucking sense. Yes, I am all of those. "Conservative" is just a word for sheep who follow the old ways mindlessly. Traditions can be good, can be bad. You have to weed out the bad ones, like, I dunno, racism or sexism, but hold onto others, like your constitutional rights.

Savvy?


Was I in cross examination mode?

SteelersCanada
04-19-2013, 10:08 AM
Whatever makes logical fucking sense. Yes, I am all of those. "Conservative" is just a word for sheep who follow the old ways mindlessly. Traditions can be good, can be bad. You have to weed out the bad ones, like, I dunno, racism or sexism, but hold onto others, like your constitutional rights.

Savvy?

It's really not. Not all Conservatives agree with the current path the Republicans are on and the views expressed by the current OP.

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 10:09 AM
Was I in cross examination mode?

You tell me.

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 10:10 AM
It's really not. Not all Conservatives agree with the current path the Republicans are on and the views expressed by the current OP.

"Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion." - Conservative

"Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values" - Liberal

I side with the latter, no shame. I just happen to think the 2nd amendment is a tradition to hold onto.

SteelersCanada
04-19-2013, 10:14 AM
"Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion." - Conservative

"Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values" - Liberal

I side with the latter, no shame.

Go back and read what I wrote. Your vague and oversimplified definition of conservatism might apply to the current Republicans, but again, this doesn't apply to all of us. For example, there's a large section of the population that are Pro-choice and pro-marriage equality conservatives that want to distance themselves from people like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

Lumping in all conservatives with each other is not only unfair, it's ignorant.

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 10:16 AM
Go back and read what I wrote. Your vague and oversimplified definition of conservatism might apply to the current Republicans, but again, this doesn't apply to all of us. For example, there's a large section of the population that are Pro-choice and pro-marriage equality conservatives that want to distance themselves from people like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

Lumping in all conservatives with each other is not only unfair, it's ignorant.

I thought It'd be only fair considering that Obama is now a liberal champion. Sure can dish but can't take.

Vis
04-19-2013, 10:19 AM
I thought It'd be only fair considering that Obama is now a liberal champion. Sure can dish but can't take.


Are you under 20?

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 10:24 AM
90% of the time any politician opens his or her mouth, he or she is lying. Picking on a single politician for that is pretty ignorant, to say the least. Bush lied, Clinton lied, daddy Bush lied, Reagan lied, etc.

This. I'm no Obama fan, but you conservatives have a hard on for him or something. You can't fucking shut up about Obama this, Obama that.

Sure he sucks, but you wanna know who sucks more?

90% of Republicans *cough*Santorum*cough*

SteelersCanada
04-19-2013, 10:59 AM
I thought It'd be only fair considering that Obama is now a liberal champion. Sure can dish but can't take.

I don't know what this means.

Vis
04-19-2013, 11:01 AM
I don't know what this means.


It means the right hangs Obama on every liberal so he can hang Palin on you

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 11:02 AM
It means the right hangs Obama on every liberal so he can hang Palin on you

Exactly. Obama isn't even a liberal, he's just... Obama. If anything he's conservative compared internationally.

SteelersCanada
04-19-2013, 11:08 AM
It means the right hangs Obama on every liberal so he can hang Palin on you

This is why we can't have nice things.

MACH1
04-19-2013, 11:09 AM
Exactly. Obama isn't even a liberal, he's just... Obama. If anything he's conservative compared internationally.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

More like socialist.

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 11:14 AM
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

More like socialist.

http://p.twimg.com/A10hFZxCcAA-GtI.jpg:large

What does that make FDR then? He was one of the greatest presidents, and he was WAY more "socialist" than Obama.

MACH1
04-19-2013, 11:18 AM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WTM_NMcdJ30/UCEgnhle16I/AAAAAAAAEk4/0S6VtcwqePg/s1600/Arguing+with+a+liberal.jpg

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 11:21 AM
Hey, here's an idea: address my point instead of crying those typical conservative crocodile tears.

MACH1
04-19-2013, 11:30 AM
Hey, here's an idea: address my point instead of crying those typical conservative crocodile tears.

Is FDR president now? Has nothing to do with the messiah.

Anyways back on topic.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQ3_oVZ_WFECZqLoxUCMGA_nTt3UOnt oGVzurFJ3UO6RVFiO5HYg

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 11:30 AM
How to argue like a conservative:

1. Ignore anything that goes against your mindset.

2. Blame Obama. For everything.

3. Call everyone you don't like socialist.

Am I right or am I right?

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 11:30 AM
Is FDR president now? Has nothing to do with the messiah.

Anyways back on topic.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQ3_oVZ_WFECZqLoxUCMGA_nTt3UOnt oGVzurFJ3UO6RVFiO5HYg

I already stated I am against gun control for the most part. You started playing dirty, you finish it.

SteelersCanada
04-19-2013, 11:47 AM
How to argue like a conservative:

1. Ignore anything that goes against your mindset.

2. Blame Obama. For everything.

3. Call everyone you don't like socialist.

Am I right or am I right?

You're making yourself look foolish, Quack. C'mon, we both know you're better than this.

Conservative ≠ tea party.

Also, there's a vast difference between gun control and gun regulation.

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 11:52 AM
You're making yourself look foolish, Quack. C'mon, we both know you're better than this.

Conservative ≠ tea party.

Also, there's a vast difference between gun control and gun regulation.

Then how about telling MACH1 to shut his trap. All he can do is "Obama this, Socialism that, Liberals suck this much" blah blah blah. I expected more from an admin, but it's all he can do.

MACH1
04-19-2013, 12:33 PM
Obama and the word conservative in the same sentence. Thats some funny shit right there.

And yes some liberals suck balls.

Hopefully when you grow up you'll learn the error of your ways.

Back on topic.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQvtPa1ta4kfbPJZR_P-c43P5f52OX3apPXeE7mOqi55XA5EcAo

Vis
04-19-2013, 12:50 PM
You're making yourself look foolish, Quack. C'mon, we both know you're better than this.

Conservative ≠ tea party.

Also, there's a vast difference between gun control and gun regulation.


Mach1 = teaparty

Bayz101
04-19-2013, 01:01 PM
Then how about telling MACH1 to shut his trap. All he can do is "Obama this, Socialism that, Liberals suck this much" blah blah blah. I expected more from an admin, but it's all he can do.

Dude, you're rocking a "Liberal Atheist" signature and you get all worked up when someone who doesn't support Obama's presidency fucks with ya? REALLY?

Ya'll need to remember this is a Steelers forum. Outside of the Locker Room not very many give a shit what you think about politics, and shit needs to remain civil in here. It's already a lightly monitored forum to begin with, and if you can't handle more than one point of view i'm sorry to inform you that you'll be mad 99% of the time. :noidea:

Now, as for me. I'm not interested in discussing political beliefs, so you guys carry on. Just please keep it clean. I've read the entire thread. I know whats going on.

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 01:03 PM
Dude, you're rocking a "Liberal Atheist" signature and you get all worked up when someone who doesn't support Obama's presidency fucks with ya? REALLY?

1. You're obviously not paying attention, as I've said over and over I'm not an Obama fan.

2. It's ok for MACH to have a signature basically saying he hates liberals, but it's not ok for me to have one saying that I am liberal? Makes sense.

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 01:04 PM
Obama and the word conservative in the same sentence. Thats some funny shit right there.

And yes some liberals suck balls.

Hopefully when you grow up you'll learn the error of your ways.

Maybe if Republicans grew some we wouldn't be in Iraq/Afghanistan right now.

Vis
04-19-2013, 01:05 PM
1. You're obviously not paying attention, as I've said over and over I'm not an Obama fan.

2. It's ok for MACH to have a signature basically saying he hates liberals, but it's not ok for me to have one saying that I am liberal? Makes sense.


To Mach's credit, he doesn't mind going at it because of his misguided fascist tendencies.

Bayz101
04-19-2013, 01:08 PM
I didn't say it wasn't okay to have a signature like so, I said having such a signature and expecting NOT to get fucked with is silly. You guys can argue each other beliefs all you want, just keep the knee-jerks comments and insults in the shed. That's all I really care about.

Fire Haley
04-19-2013, 01:12 PM
He said what now?!

Comrade Vis is having a hissy fit because I called out his beloved "religion of peace" radical Muslim jihadist mad-dog terrorists as being unfit for U.S. citizenship.

Buddha Bus
04-19-2013, 01:16 PM
7pdWAcK6Eh8

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 01:18 PM
Comrade Vis is having a hissy fit because I called out his beloved "religion of peace" radical Muslim jihadist mad-dog terrorists as being unfit for U.S. citizenship.

If you're implying all Muslims are terrorists, you're not bright.

If Vis is implying terrorists still deserve citizenship, he's not bright.

Fire Haley
04-19-2013, 01:23 PM
If you're implying all Muslims are terrorists, you're not bright..

perhaps

but at least I have a plan



Confirmed - they are Muslims, with bombs strapped to them.
.
Shut down our borders and round up every single Muslim male and deport them all immediately

End immigration permanently from all Muslim countries.

End immigration from all countries for 5 years, minimum.

Nuke Mecca, just to be sure.

Vis
04-19-2013, 01:24 PM
Comrade Vis is having a hissy fit because I called out his beloved "religion of peace" radical Muslim jihadist mad-dog terrorists as being unfit for U.S. citizenship.


Lying about me again.

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 01:32 PM
perhaps

but at least I have a plan



Confirmed - they are Muslims, with bombs strapped to them.
.
Shut down our borders and round up every single Muslim male and deport them all immediately

End immigration permanently from all Muslim countries.

End immigration from all countries for 5 years, minimum.

Nuke Mecca, just to be sure.

:wtf:

MACH1
04-19-2013, 01:34 PM
To Mach's credit, he doesn't mind going at it because of his misguided fascist tendencies.

Love you too. :flap:

Fire Haley
04-19-2013, 01:43 PM
Lying about me again.

well, maybe the Comrade part

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 01:46 PM
Love you too. :flap:

Have any spare fish?

Vis
04-19-2013, 01:53 PM
well, maybe the Comrade part


And my thoughts on any religion

MACH1
04-19-2013, 01:56 PM
Have any spare fish?

I do but they're not free anymore, need to spread your wealth.

Fire Haley
04-19-2013, 02:06 PM
And my thoughts on any religion

I've never asked


Muslims, Christians, Jews - they're all the same to me - all reading out of the same dusty old book anyway

'Vengeful Gods', 'listen to me or you die forever' - yadayadayada


I prefer the olde gods........all us good shamans do

Vis
04-19-2013, 02:08 PM
I've never asked


Muslims, Christians, Jews - they're all the same to me - all reading out of the same dusty old book anyway

'Vengeful Gods', 'listen to me or you die forever' - yadayadayada


I prefer the olde gods........all us good shamans do

No, you presumed.

Fire Haley
04-19-2013, 02:10 PM
No, you presumed.

I suspected

a zebra can't change it's spots

Vis
04-19-2013, 02:12 PM
I suspected

a zebra can't change it's spots


Never suspect I would apologize for a religion.

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 02:16 PM
I do but they're not free anymore, need to spread your wealth.

Not sure you'd approve, that's socialist.

Fire Haley
04-19-2013, 02:19 PM
Here's the deal: If a crazed punk shoots up a school it is the fault of the NRA, law abiding gun owners and white people in general.


If a Muslim bombs or shoots up hundreds of people in public, it is only the fault of the specific bomber/shooter and not any reflection on the 7th century savagery that is Islam.



That is what you're trying to tell me and I reject it.

Vis
04-19-2013, 02:24 PM
Here's the deal: If a crazed punk shoots up a school it is the fault of the NRA, law abiding gun owners and white people in general.


If a Muslim bombs or shoots up hundreds of people in public, it is only the fault of the specific bomber/shooter and not any reflection on the 7th century savagery that is Islam.


Both are the the fault of the loss of reason either through bad chemicals or abdication. But you agree with preventing radical islamists access to greater weapons to the extent possible. I think the same reasoning should be applied to crazed punks

MACH1
04-19-2013, 02:27 PM
Not sure you'd approve, that's socialist.

:doh:

Says the person who said obama is conservative.

Fire Haley
04-19-2013, 02:36 PM
It's going to be getting dark soon.....mad bomber terrorists still on the loose

I bet everybody in Boston will wish they had an AK-47 in their house tonight

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 02:44 PM
:doh:

Says the person who said obama is conservative.

Compared to other world leaders, and FDR, yes, he is conservative.

cloppbeast
04-19-2013, 03:26 PM
Pro gun in responsible hands people are for adequate screening of felons. Apologies to all SF psychos and felons.

Are you naive enough to think background checks will keep guns out of the hands of crazies and felons?

If the historical case studies if alcohol, drugs, ext. haven't made an impression I doubt I can. Criminals don't care about the law. Why do u think a guy willing to kill somebody will not buy a gun because it's illegal?

Bottom line: bad guys will get guns the same way the always have. Buy them illegal or steal them. And they still won't have to pass a background check. But the non violent pot head who wants to buy a hunting rifle won't be allowed to because he got caught with a gram when he was 22.

Your sincere plight for safety won't work. Sorry.

Vis
04-19-2013, 04:45 PM
Are you naive enough to think background checks will keep guns out of the hands of crazies and felons?

If the historical case studies if alcohol, drugs, ext. haven't made an impression I doubt I can. Criminals don't care about the law. Why do u think a guy willing to kill somebody will not buy a gun because it's illegal?

Bottom line: bad guys will get guns the same way the always have. Buy them illegal or steal them. And they still won't have to pass a background check. But the non violent pot head who wants to buy a hunting rifle won't be allowed to because he got caught with a gram when he was 22.

Your sincere plight for safety won't work. Sorry.

Are you naive enough to think a strawman argument would impress anyone?

It doesn't have to stop all crazies it just has to stop one. Maybe it stops that bipolar guy from getting a gun during a downturn and killing his wife. The next day he's back on his meds and the wife lives. I've got that one on my side of the argument. What do the background checks do to hurt you (would you fail it?) more than the one crazy stopped helps the world?

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 04:57 PM
Are you naive enough to think a strawman argument would impress anyone?

It doesn't have to stop all crazies it just has to stop one. Maybe it stops that bipolar guy from getting a gun during a downturn and killing his wife. The next day he's back on his meds and the wife lives. I've got that one on my side of the argument. What do the background checks do to hurt you (would you fail it?) more than the one crazy stopped helps the world?

This. As long as background checks are not infringing your rights (mind you Vis, there is always that danger) there should be no issues.

Vis
04-19-2013, 05:04 PM
This. As long as background checks are not infringing your rights (mind you Vis, there is always that danger) there should be no issues.

What right would be infringed? That's a vague concern. Get specific. There are people who cannot legally buy a gun. There has to be a way to determine that at the point of sale. I have 2. Check my background, I'm allowed.

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 05:08 PM
What right would be infringed? That's a vague concern. Get specific. There are people who cannot legally buy a gun. There has to be a way to determine that at the point of sale. I have 2. Check my background, I'm allowed.

4th amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The government can and has betrayed this (PATRIOT act, ect.)

cloppbeast
04-19-2013, 05:24 PM
Are you naive enough to think a strawman argument would impress anyone?

It doesn't have to stop all crazies it just has to stop one. Maybe it stops that bipolar guy from getting a gun during a downturn and killing his wife. The next day he's back on his meds and the wife lives. I've got that one on my side of the argument. What do the background checks do to hurt you (would you fail it?) more than the one crazy stopped helps the world?

It doesnt really hurt me or bother me at all. You made the fuss about it. I wanted to point out it was a little over-zeollous, which I did quite effectively. All of the sudden you changed your borometer of success to preventing one incidenct, hypothetical incident.

I get it though. Who could really argue against background checks? But I hope you don't expect an end to all gun violence to result.

Nevertheless, i'm sure there was a bunch more crap in the bill I could shoot downt. (pun intended)

The_Joker
04-19-2013, 06:19 PM
It doesnt really hurt me or bother me at all. You made the fuss about it. I wanted to point out it was a little over-zeollous, which I did quite effectively. All of the sudden you changed your borometer of success to preventing one incidenct, hypothetical incident.

I get it though. Who could really argue against background checks? But I hope you don't expect an end to all gun violence to result.

Nevertheless, i'm sure there was a bunch more crap in the bill I could shoot downt. (pun intended)

Background checks are a good, healthy debate. The "assault weapons" ban on the other hand...

One of the few things Clinton did that I think was idiocy.

caplovestroyp43
04-19-2013, 09:06 PM
Compared to other world leaders, and FDR, yes, he is conservative.

What a load of jack shit that is! Conservatives DO NOT believe in gay marriage or abortion, 2 things this jack hole whatever you want to call him (I won't acknowledge him as president) does support.

He's about as conservative as I am liberal...which is horseshit!!!

Vis
04-20-2013, 03:38 AM
4th amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The government can and has betrayed this (PATRIOT act, ect.)


Yes, but what has that to do with the bill in question?

Vis
04-20-2013, 03:41 AM
What a load of jack shit that is! Conservatives DO NOT believe in gay marriage or abortion, 2 things this jack hole whatever you want to call him (I won't acknowledge him as president) does support.

He's about as conservative as I am liberal...which is horseshit!!!

Cheney, that damn liberal.

Vis
04-20-2013, 03:46 AM
It doesnt really hurt me or bother me at all. You made the fuss about it. I wanted to point out it was a little over-zeollous, which I did quite effectively. All of the sudden you changed your borometer of success to preventing one incidenct, hypothetical incident.

I get it though. Who could really argue against background checks? But I hope you don't expect an end to all gun violence to result.

No one does. That's idiotic. And when you argue against a position that no one has, that's the definition of a strawman. And yes, you knocked that strawman down. That's the beauty of that particular fallacy - so easy to appear effective.

Nevertheless, i'm sure there was a bunch more crap in the bill I could shoot downt. (pun intended)

You mean if you actually read it and had a clue?

.............................

The_Joker
04-20-2013, 07:59 AM
What a load of jack shit that is! Conservatives DO NOT believe in gay marriage or abortion, 2 things this jack hole whatever you want to call him (I won't acknowledge him as president) does support.

He's about as conservative as I am liberal...which is horseshit!!!

If you don't support gay marriage, you got some issues to work out with yourself.

Fire Haley
04-22-2013, 06:22 AM
Boston attack suspects not licensed to own firearms

The two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings were not licensed to have the firearms they used in several shootouts with police on Friday, Reuters reported Sunday night.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/295189-report-bombing-suspects-not-licensed-to-own-guns#ixzz2R9aLSDwS

------------------------

I am shocked, shocked, I tell you.

Criminals break laws? I’m amazed!

So I guess we need to expand the universal background check to private sales to terrorists



https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/404734_515184988516878_1663383608_n.jpg

caplovestroyp43
04-28-2013, 08:18 AM
If you don't support gay marriage, you got some issues to work out with yourself.

No, YOU'RE the one that has issues. It's an abomination and detestible according to the Word of God. I am an American and if I choose not to support it, I will NOT do it and I don't care what anyone says! I know right from wrong...seems like you may not have learned that yet.

:mad:

The_Joker
04-28-2013, 09:05 AM
No, YOU'RE the one that has issues. It's an abomination and detestible according to the Word of God. I am an American and if I choose not to support it, I will NOT do it and I don't care what anyone says! I know right from wrong...seems like you may not have learned that yet.

:mad:

I wipe my ass with your "Word of God"

*Spits on your bigoted views*

Galax Steeler
04-28-2013, 09:09 AM
It is time to let this thread go doing nothing but spinning wheels