arma virumque cano (et alia)
It's not like he tried an "assault weapon" ban that failed to pass the senate. No, I must have imagined that.
Yeah, and that would have brought the jack-booted government thugs to your neighborhood, right?
You're taking the phrase "coming for your guns" too literally. It means going after gun rights. Just like when we say we want government to stay out of our bodies, that doesn't limit itself to forced penetration.
Sorry, but your side uses the expression loosely or strictly depending on the context.
But but but but OBAMA!!! is going to be the cry of conservatives for decades and the claim is, of course, Obama didn't get yer guns becausse of the Super-Duper NRA
"But but but but OBAMA!!! is going to be the cry of conservatives for decades" Seems only fair. How long has everything been Bush's fault so far?
No reply from the coward
"Everything"Like what?" Well, I know that one of you annonymi blamed Bush for thousands of dead soldiers and civilians. But I've found a more expansive list.Oil PricesSolyndraAfghanistan Iran The EconomyThe DeficitThe DebtUnemploymentThe BP Gulf Oil Spill Decline of the nuclear stockpileThe Election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.)Anti-Americanism The Financial Crisishttp://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/03/23/president-obamas-hall-blame/
Correct, all things Bush did and why he will go down as one of Americas worst presidents and why he is considered a war criminal in many countries and would be arrested if he set foot in many countries.
He is now well into his second term. Eventually he'll need to start taking responsibility for the failures of his administration. If not, then the citizens will assign responsibility, to the detriment of his party.
We must assign mistakes to the one (party) who made them, or we will never learn and hopefully not make the same mistakes again. Obama has made plenty of mistakes, but they are not the mistakes Bush made, which have effects years after he left office.We are bankrupt because of Republicans mistake of cutting taxes before they cut programs. Now we have no money to pay the governments responsibilities, not to mention the continuing costs of up keep for the greatest nation on Earth. Yes, I blame Republicans for our financial depression.
You could have gotten away with this poster in his first term. But second term? Give me a break.
What part is not true now that was then?
He didn't push gun control in his first term. For the 2012 elections, the left argued that all he did was sign two pro-gun bills- and they had a point to a degree, because Obama was silent on guns. They still try and make the same arguments now, which is absurd.
You're still a buncha dupes. No one is coming for your guns.
Mikeb, you keep saying that, but every demand and action from your side speak otherwise.
Cheese and Rice, Mike, what makes you think I and millions of others gun rights supporters only draw the line at door to door confiscations? Have you not been paying attention to any of our discussions?
More lies from the paranoid gun loons.What bill is Obama pushing that calls for the ban and confiscation of guns? Lying criminal cowards
The "Assault Weapons BAN"
TS, what are you doing now, puffing out your chest and making macho threats. You and millions won't wait for door to door confiscations? What are you gonna do?
Whoa there, slow down, Mike. I’m not making any threats. You’ve been hanging around Steve too long. By “draw the line” I mean where I start opposing your measure. Yes, confiscation orders are worse than bans on sales with a promise that you keep what you have, but I still oppose bans on sales. Even still, grandfather clauses are confiscation orders for your heirs, and a whole lot of people care as much if not more so for the rights of their children as their own. So the whole, “you can’t buy this, you can’t but that, but no one is going to knock on your door” is hardly some kind of consolation.
The assault weapons ban is something Republicans passed, because Reagan wanted it. It took years (after Reagan left office) to get it passed, then it expired. So why are Republicans voting against a gun ban they pushed and supported for years?
That ban showed no negative effects on the right for Americans to buy and own guns for hunting, or self defense.
Perhaps because after being in force for ten years, there was no documented reduction of crime. "A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes." The committee noted that the study's authors said the guns were used criminally with relative rarity before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Expiration_and_effect_on_crime
ss, you do know there are other studies and reports that say the exact opposite, right?
As was stated in the source I used, the use of rifles in homicides are is rare when compared to handguns. The rarity, while a good thing in that being shot by a rifle is much worse than a handgun, makes it a challenge to determine whether the law had any real effect in accomplishing its purpose.
No SS,The bill expired because there was a sunset clause in the bill, not because some survey made Republicans change their mind. They changed their mind because of politics.
Mike, which study are you referring to that said "the exact opposite"? Sarge's example showed the relationship of he AWB to violent crime. Do you have an example for violent crime? The only one I've seen by your side says there was a drop in "assault weapons" showing up at crime scenes. That does not address whether it was necessary to ban them in the first place or whether or not removing the bayonet lug from an AR-15 will save lives. To that point, if a bayonet lugless AR-15 showed up at a crime scene after 1994 it doesn't count as an "assault weapon" in that study because the gun was compliant with 1994 regulations. Your side made a big deal about "loopholes" and manufacturers not following the spirit of a stupid law, so to claim success on this metric rings hollow.
TS, you can do your own homework. Of course if you can't find anything at all from my side except some nonsense about the bayonet lug, I guess you win the argument. Bravo.
Let's see, how am I enriching gun manufacturers when I buy a Mosin-Nagant or a Carcano because I like historical firearms? And if I buy a used gun, which many of mine are, I'm only enriching the gun manufacturers if the original owner uses my money to buy something new in the box.But here's the real point: The more guns Americans own, the less chance gun control advocates have of disarming us.
Disarmament and confiscation is not the aim of main stream gun control supporters. Fewer dead people is. You only listen to the extremest, because you are an extremest. You always talk in terms of "sides" and "slave states" and "infringements on your rights" other extremest garbage. Solutions will not be found on either "side" of the extremest argument. As more people die needlessly from gun shot, the more the majority will turn against guns, not to ban them, but control deadly, stupid, negligent, needless death.
If the movement wants to convince the country that they are interested in bans (that control will suffice), then maybe they shouldn't try and ban stuff.Constant attempts at banning "assault weapons" and magazines over ever changing capacity limits have undermined that the movement is only interested in controlling access, training, etc.
Sally, you're laboring under the delusion that we trust gun control people. You can call things sensible and common sense all you want, but you're fooling no one who wasn't already fooled.
Part of the mendacious bullshit you guys love to play with is your various meanings for the word ban. In some arguments it means total removal of all guns in civilian hands accomplished by swat-like government oppressors. Other times, ban simply means any single item that is disallowed.
No Greg, you are laboring under the idea that you are a good person. you are not and that has been proven. So go fuck yourself.
Ah, now we're back to the part where Mike says the "Assault Weapons BAN" isn't a ban.
TS,How fucking stupid are you, I said the aim of gun control is not a ban, confiscation, or any other extreme measure. I see you are a scum bag just like Greg
Sally once again demonstrates the typical attitude of the gun control crowd. Disagree with them, and here's the response. No wonder they lose so often.
Ad hominem doesn't become you "Sally."
"Part of the mendacious bullshit you guys love to play with is your various meanings for the word ban." Heller and McDonald overturned bans on handguns in DC and Chicago, and also allowed in its language rules and restrictions that fall short of a ban. Chicago's ban on gun stores in the city has also recently been ruled unconstitutional. You have fairly recently stated that you believe in the future with the President's hoped for Supreme Court appointments in the future that Heller and McDonald will be overturned. Wouldn't that suggest that you are looking forward to allowing guns to be banned again?
Well Sally, I’m not stupid enough to believe that the gun control movement has no interest in any bans just because you said they don’t. Especially when just nine months ago they tried to pass an “assault weapon” ban in the Senate. And the states of New York, Connecticut, and Colorado all enacted various bans, and several more states had failed attempts at bans including California, which save for a veto would have banned almost all semi-automatic rifles ever made (even though many were hunting guns that they swore they weren’t after in the past). And I am not so stupid to believe you over the gun control groups and politicians that officially list various bans as part of their agenda .Also, I’m not stupid enough to believe that you are a separate commentator from the one I call Steve.
"Wouldn't that suggest that you are looking forward to allowing guns to be banned again?"CERTAIN guns should be banned, yes. Automatic weapons are, in effect. Do you object to that? My point is that you guys use the word ban too loosely. In TS's last comment he had it right finally, using expressions like "in any bans" and "various bans." These might better be called restrictions, but when used like that we all know what you mean. When you say we want gun bans, you know very well you're talking about total civilian disarmament carried out by the government swat teams. That's when you slip into the bullshit realm.
No, Mikeb, we're on to your crew. You don't see owning and carrying guns as rights. So there's nothing in your philosophy that would prevent a total ban. You may not be pushing that right now, but it's not off the table. And when I add up all the proposals that you will admit to, the composite is a de facto ban.
Greg seems to think that calling me names after my first comment here means I have a bad attitude. Fuck you. Be a jack ass (and you are the biggest jack ass on this site) get treated like a jack ass. Only a jack ass would insult a stranger and then expect royal treatment. As I said before you have earned your moniker of ass hole lying coward criminal, and will be treated as such.
TS,Since you agree with everything Greg says you are a lying ass hole also. Your criminal paranoia makes you believe only one person, Steve, believes this way. Yes, you are stupid enough. You agree with Greg and think I'm Steve. What a dumb shit.
Greg, the teacher responsible for passing the dumbest students in the nation can't add up anything but paranoid garbage. Typical for a criminal thinking lying ass hole.
Sally, it’s pretty obvious when you make identical points to Steve using identical language, and fixate on the same things (like Arkansas schools, agreement with Greg = crime, etc.). On top of that you have tells, like how you separate “ass” and “hole” into two words instead of just saying “asshole” like everyone else does. This tell goes back to Kevin, Jim, Anonymous, both Steves, and you. If you are not Steve, you are pretending to be Steve.
Because I agree with Steve, that means I am Steve.Another statement that shows what a lying dumb fuck you are.I guess that means you, Greg, and SS are the same person because you believe the same things. Now I'm six different guys? Laughable and normal coming from a paranoid idiot like you.Time to set up your guns the government is coming to invade your house. You are mentally sick with paranoia. There is medical help for you.
No, it's not because you agree with Steve, it’s because you speak exactly like Steve using identical language with the same fixations with the word “lie”, the same nuances, the same grammatical errors, the same use of one sentence paragraphs, the same hostility, etc.
Dear Sally/Steve/Anonymous, please lighten up. Greg is a pain in the ass with his repetitious tenacity but YOU are just too much. Knock it the fuck off. I'm sick of hearing it, and we're on the same side. You think you can do that?
I'd rather you block me than I stop calling a liar, a liar. I can't read your blog and ignore his lies, or his ass hole treatment of people. Why don't you tell him that's not the way to speak to your readers? I'm not one to allow proven lies to go unchallenged. Why allow a criminal thinker space vto post his criminal thinking and lies?
Check back. Steve was the one who told me Greg's moniker was "lying criminal coward." He then added ass hole (spelled that way) because of what Greg said to me. So I use it, because Greg deserves it. So do you Mr. Paranoid. You and SS and Greg must be the same person since you all say the same thing.
"You and SS and Greg must be the same person since you all say the same thing." Nonsense, Greg and TS are much more learned than me.
Sarge, I'd say that we all play our parts You're often the voice of wisdom now that Texas Colt Carry isn't coming around any more.
and ss has the best sense of humor.
You all have a "male" sense of humor since none of you think it was out of line for Greg to insult me having never talked with me before. The same dismissive attitude you have about guns. No wonder 33,000 people die every year from gun shot. Even anti gun people are dismissive towards women, which is why we will never change women being victims in society. Unless of course, I get a gun and kill you for dissing me.
I guess I don't believe I've been played for a sucker. Firearms hold their value quite well if given proper care. It could be worse, I could be one of the 2,400 odd owners of a hybrid car called the Fisker Karma. They have a car that while becoming an instant collector's item because after expending all of the government's money, the manufacturer has shut down.
Is it merely a lie because you disagree with it, or because it is not factual? IS it a lie because it goes against your uneducated opinions, or because it is not factual?Remember, Justice William O. DOuglas, who was actually on the court at the time of US v. Miller described the decision this way:"The police problem is an acute one not because of the Fourth Amendment, but because of the ease with which anyone can acquire a pistol. A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment, which reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, “must be interpreted and applied” with the view of maintaining a “militia.”“The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia – civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” Id., at 178-179."Personally, I would accept one of the longest sitting justices opinion on a decision made when he was a justice over your opinions.Especially, Greg "but I want it to be this way" Camp's.Wishing doesn't make it true.
Laci, as I've said to you many times, our rights aren't created by the Constitution. The duty of that document and of the law in general is to defend our rights.But you've been shown plenty of sources that see an individual right protected by the Second Amendment. You have been shown time and time again that Heller and McDonald don't require any restrictions, and you've been shown the notion of common usage applied to firearms.Fortunately, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting doesn't work in court. Could that be why you've retired?
Why was Douglas commenting on the fact that the gun was a sawed-off shotgun? Why does that matter? Why was he not simply questioning whether or not Miller had the proper relationship with the militia? What if the gun in question HAD a reasonable relationship for the preservation of a well-regulated militia (like a Thompson)?These are questions I have asked dozens of times, and that you seem incapable of answering. They poke big holes in your argument.
And let's also note that a shotgun is a weapon used by the "militia," and debating barrel lengths is rather silly.
Ha! Laci the Silly Little Pervert citing U.S. v. Miller as if it's Holy Writ--a case that was decided without the benefit of defense counsel. That's what Silly Little Perverts love--victimizing the defenseless.
Greg's silly observation that rights come from God; and we wonder why the kids he teaches are the dumbest in the nation. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
Sally: "Greg, the teacher responsible for passing the dumbest students in the nation..."Fixating on the same things, using the same language. Do you notice how Flying Junior, Grung_e_Genes, and MikeB aren’t fixated on repeating lines about Arkansas school testing scores? Because they are different people with unique ideas.
?? Using the same prove facts that show a guy to be an ass hole lying criminal coward means there is only one person saying those things. You are laughable. Yes, attack the messenger, deny the proven message.
I’m curious, why do you type “ass [space] hole”? Is it a regional thing?
Anonymous, I've never said that our rights come from God. I don't believe that they do. I see our rights as a product of our ability to choose. But as always, you have to lie about me.
You said it months ago when we had the same conversation. I guess you changed your mind. Good to see you can learn something.
No, Anonymous, I never said that our rights come from God. But I don't disrespect those who hold that view.
Another denial from the criminal lying coward. Just like he denies he ever said "revenge is justice." Your words are in black and white print on this blog.Next lie.
Anonymous, it should be a simple matter for you to provide a link to any comment of mine that claims God as the origin of our rights--except that I didn't say that.
As I said before, play your childish cowardly link games with Steve. You want to deny your own words, go ahead, it only proves me correct.
Anonymous, you have proved nothing until you show where I said what you claim I said.
I'm not playing your childish game, go play with Steve. It's enough for me that your words are in print posted on this blog, yet, you deny them. You LOSE.
One thing is for sure, Sally is not a female.
One thing for sure, you have never had a female.