Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Switching Guns for Democracy ~ Class War on the Gun Front

Posted 5 years ago on April 7, 2013, 11:30 p.m. EST by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

What Insurmountable Burden is Gun Control Compared to 12/14 Sandy Hook?

NONE! Oh, background checks (which 90% of Americans want). A burden worse than death!! Worse than death, $~GREED~$ NRA shit slinging costs the Arms Industry BIG BUCK$!! And they're banking on a payoff!!

Why Is the lust for mass murder ease so important? More important than saving lives?

SUBTERFUGE! Duping the masses into buying "freedom" at the gun store, instead of winning it at the Ballot Box! Record sales at gun stores everywhere: where duped, paranoid, lemming, zombies snatch up anything that shoots!!

Aren't the supporters of the Corporate Gun Lobby NRA duped into paranoid hysteria??


The gun is the physical manifestation of diseased and insidious RW-1%-GOP "individualist," anti-government imprinting. The poison pill -- the inanimate Manchurian Candidate -- of and for divide and conquer. "Screw Gubmint, git a gun!"

As Senate Prepares To Take Up Background Checks, NRA Warns Of Outright Gun Confiscation (BS) http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/04/1819961/nra-warns-of-gun-confiscation/

Why expanding background checks would, in fact, reduce gun crime With Congress set to debate the emerging plan to expand background checks, conservatives and Republicans — and even a few red state Democrats — continue to traffic heavily in deliberate misdirection and distortions about the proposal. They are getting widespread media play and are dominating the debate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/03/why-expanding-background-checks-would-in-fact-reduce-gun-crime/

Inside the NRA's Koch-Funded Dark-Money Campaign How the National Rifle Association sold its grassroots firepower to the Kochs, Karl Rove, and conservative donors. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/nra-koch-brothers-karl-rove

60 Minutes: 12/14

"Newtown" is now synonymous with unimaginable tragedy. But many of the families who suffered through it call it something else,"12/14," the December day that they lost a son, daughter, or wife when a dark young man with dark dreams awoke, murdered his mother and drove to Sandy Hook Elementary School.

More from parents of Newtown victims

Nearly four months later, just last week, Connecticut passed a gun control law that expands background checks and limits ammunition magazines to 10 rounds. Tomorrow, these families will push for the same in Washington. They believe that their only chance is to keep the resonance of that date ringing. Something else we noticed about "12/14," add them together, and you get 26, the number of lives lost at Sandy Hook.

At the Newtown town hall we met seven families. They're part of a group called Sandy Hook Promise which works for change and remembrance.

Jimmy Greene: Our daughter, Ana was six years old. And in those six years, can look back and say it was an honor to know her. She taught me about how to love, how to give. She was beautiful and every day I cry.

Francine Wheeler: This is Benjamin Andrew Wheeler. Ben was six years old. He has a brother named Nate. And Nate was hiding when he heard Ben and his classmates and educators get shot.

Mark Barden: And we lost our sweet little Daniel Barden. He was known as the kid that would talk to somebody sitting alone. He was genuinely an old soul.

Nicole Hockley: This is Dylan. I think the picture kind of sums him up perfectly. He was always smiling and always laughing. And he was very pure. Possibly because of his age. He was six. And possibly because he was autistic.

Neil Heslin: I'm Neil Heslin, Jesse Lewis's dad. Jesse was six years old. He was my best friend and my buddy. He'd introduce himself as Jesse and Daddy. He was my whole life.

Bill Sherlach: Mary was the school psychologist at Sandy Hook Elementary School for 18 years and truly believed that that was the place that she was meant to be, doing what she could call "God's work."

Terri Rousseau: Lauren grew up with this idea that she wanted to be a teacher and work with other children. She had a sort of innocence about her, a kind of denial of all the ugly things in the world. We had no idea that some ugly thing would come and take her from us.

Those are memories Terri Rousseau, Mark and Jackie Barden, Nicole Hockley and others wanted state legislators to remember in Hartford.

Mark Barden: The lawmakers are going into their caucuses to discuss the legislation at hand. And the rope is there, I think, just to separate the various lobbyists who want to approach them as they go in there, as a last ditch effort to appeal to their cause. That's where we were.

Mark Barden: And we had a letter that we wanted them to read. And we had pictures of our children to give them a personal connection to why we're asking them to go in there and legislate.

Scott Pelley: Why the photographs?

Nicole Hockley: They need to not just look us in the eyes, but look our children and the lost ones and see those faces, see what's gone and remember this isn't just about political parties. This isn't just about careers. This is about people. And this is about making change to save people. And it's important to remember the people you are doing this for.

Scott Pelley: At one point a woman walked past. And as you were holding your cards of your children out she said, "No, thanks. All set."

Scott Pelley: And kept going by. Probably didn't know who you were.




Read the Rules
[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

I know, The Gun Nuts Are Crazy!!

[-] 3 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 5 years ago

No, that was not my point. While I may be "going against my tribe" on this issue, since I generally lean left, I have to take issue on this one. Did you read the article? What do you say to this excerpt? .......

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661) Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

No Guns ~ No shot people!!!

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 5 years ago

So you would feel better if more were people were stabbed, strangled or poisoned, as long as on one was shot? Your ok with just the police and the military having guns?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

NOT Funny Asshole, we have 26 slaughtered in seconds Asshole!!

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 5 years ago

Funny how you can only counter statistical fact with emotionalism (ad hom) This does not answer the questions raised. Why does Russia, with very few guns, have 4 times the murder rate? That might lead a rational person to consider the possibility that reducing gun ownership might not solve the problem.

[-] 0 points by justiceforzim (-17) 5 years ago

I think you've been around long nough to know you are not engaging w a rational person. Ever hear of Sybil? VQ,WSmith,Bensdad,Repubsrproblem, Inclusionman,

[-] 3 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 5 years ago

Hard to keep up with the the the socks.


[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

Guns have nothing to with communism, socialism or the made-up concept of "class".

People should be treated like people regardless of how much Stuff they do or do not have.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

Unfair senate representation is the problem


[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

Senators represent the state governments, not the people. The great compromise was to allow for a popularly elected house and a state appointed senate. Allowing for senators to be directly elected by the people complicated this system.

Representative democracy has many many flaws of which this is only one.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

Senators are elected by, and represent the people. (should anyway).

The state picking sens is less direct, so less desirable.

The flaw is that low population states get disproportionately more representation. As the graph illustrates.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

The flaw is that I cannot speak on the floor of the senate and have MY voice heard directly and clearly.

Writing my congressmen weekly has been a futile and pointless act, as he refuses to represent MY positions along with others who disagree with him.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

The flaw is that low population states get disproportionately more representation. As the graph illustrates.

Further direct democracy where eventually no representative is necessary would be preferable and I think a logical evolution.

The path to that evolution is not backwards towards less representation. by taking away the peoples right to choose their senators and giving that right to states we would absolutely be going in the opposite direction.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Abso- fucking -lutely, People come way before stupid dangerous hobbies!!!!

[+] -4 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

I agree, guns ownership and manufacture should be outlawed, but it still has nothing to with Class.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Everything to do with class!

Why should the the people waging Class War agaisnt us be bothered with armed confrontation when we are SOOOOOO WILLLLLLING to do it ourselves, as long as we have our fucking guns!?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

Class was a concept made up by communists to justify violence.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Social class: (or simply "class"), as in a class society, is a set of concepts in the social sciences and political theory centered on models of social stratification in which people are grouped into a set of hierarchical social categories,[1] the most common being the upper, middle, and lower classes.

Class is an essential object of analysis for sociologists, political scientists, anthropologists, and social historians. However, there is not a consensus on the best definition of the term "class", and the term has different contextual meanings. In common parlance, the term "social class," is usually synonymous with "socio-economic class," defined as: "people having the same social, economic, or educational status," e.g., "the working class"; "an emerging professional class."[2]

The term "class" is etymologically derived from the Latin classis, which was used by census takers to categorize citizens by wealth, in order to determine military service obligations.[3]

In the late 18th century, the term "class" began to replace classifications such as estates, rank, and orders as the primary means of organizing society into hierarchical divisions. This corresponded to a general decrease in significance ascribed to hereditary characteristics, and increase in the significance of wealth and income as indicators of position in the social hierarchy. WIKI

You're welcome

[-] 2 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

Wikipedia isn't a great source.

Class first came about as a concept by Karl Marx and his fellow socialist. KMarx believed that workers were being oppressed by the rich upper classes andbelieved that the workers were entitled to own the "means of production" instead of the upper class.

Class as a concept is just like race. Both are made up to further an agenda. Communists want to put it out there so that workers will be mad enough to violent revolt and take over. The capitalists want class so that can keep the proles in "their place".

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

You're an idiot


[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

GUNS – Facts & numbers & opinion & solution

FACTS: There is little difference between a gun owner and a gun buyer
There is no difference between a gun owned and a gun bought
The constitution does give some people the right to “bear some arms”
More Americans ( in absolute numbers & per capita ) are killed by guns than in almost any other country ( USA 11,000+; England 35 )
Almost no hunters hunt with semi-automatic weapons

“Assault weapon” is a term well defined in law but not well understood
Legislatures & courts ( including SCOTUS ) have set numerous limits on the 2nd amendment’s right to “bear arms”
Just like legislatures & courts ( including SCOTUS ) have set numerous limits on the 1st amendment’s right to “free speech” [ no “fire in a crowded theatre” ]

You can buy a revolver arm but not a grenade launcher arm
A 9 year old cannot buy a shotgun
Australia & England both passed strict new gun control laws –
………and drastically cut their gun deaths
The nra uses its members to sell guns for the gun manufacturers
It is illegal to drive an un-registered car
It is illegal to drive if you are un-licensed
It is illegal to drive an un-insured car

The 1994 “assault weapons ban” did not work because it did NOT ban assault weapons – it only banned their sale or manufacture.

The real problem never discussed:
It is not the gun sellers or
the gun buyers –
or even the guns –
it is the gun OWNERS

I would divide most gun deaths into five categories:
the Sandy Hook mass murderers,
drug related street crime,
non-drug related street crime,
“personal” crimes of anger,
Consider each one - all would be reduced if we reduced the number of guns ( and legalized drugs ). The complex, conflicting state laws and the huge number of guns owned by Americans makes confiscation ( that no one is advocating ) totally unfeasible

We need a uniform federal gun law
The “mental health” issue is an nra stall – unless they agree that everyone who OWNS a gun must be psychoanalyzed and certified “safe to own guns”.
The nra’s “American culture is different” is another stall – most countries have hunters, violent movies, citizen owned guns, violent video games, drugs.

Background checks & closing the gun show loophole will help –
but ONLY with new sales –
it does nothing about OWNERS – and there are 100,000,000 of them. If just 1/10 of 1% of them are crazy, that’s 10,000 crazy gun OWNERS!

SOLUTION: Based on reducing guns, not confiscation

learn as much as you can about the numbers that prove what the solutions are

demand a plan:


alex jones – without his straight jacket!

multi-millionaire gun manufacturer wayne lapierre who works for koch brothers & gets paid over $1,000,000 / year
to get his army of lemmings to keep buying guns.


find your congresspeople

VP Joe Biden, Gun Panel, 1600 Pennsylvania Av, Washington DC 20006


Dear ............................:

[ Y.O.U.R...I.N.T.R.O...H.E.R.E ]

While some people may want to confiscate guns, I don’t.
Here is a much more feasible approach.
It will not solve all gun problems, but it will
reduce the number of guns
and that will reduce the number of dangerous people who have access to guns -
and isn't THAT our real goal?

My proposal - for a NATIONAL gun law for all guns & owners:
My four points are SIMPLY based on seeing a logical parallel between cars & guns.

Please consider advocating these four steps below to help America with our 11,000+ gun disasters:

all gun owners must be licensed & tested with all guns they own and pass a written test.

If you own a motor cycle, a dump truck, and a car - you are tested in each.
Require a written gun test - to guarantee the owner's understanding of gun laws
thus being forced to know the law - via the test – also means the police know who you are -
and you may be less likely to commit a crime or be careless when storing your guns

every year, you must prove that you have gun liability insurance &
be background checked and prove that your gun is properly locked when not used.

Insurance should be at least as high as car insurance [ I would like at least $1,000,000 ]
You must prove your car insurance.
Require an annual back ground check ( with fee ) to verify your suitability to own guns.
Every gun must be locked in a gun case or have a trigger lock.

as the owner of a gun, you are legally responsible for what is done with it.

You are required to report if your gun is missing within 48 hours,
The owner will be much less likely to leave a gun accessible to a family member or thief.

every gun must be registered and tested & a sample fired bullet stored by the police

Knowing that your gun & its bullets are so easily traced will make you think before using it.

additionally -

Over ten bullet magazines are illegal to own { 2nd amendment has no relevance }

Gun fees [ licenses fees & registration fees & fines ] should be
high enough to create a very substantial gun buy-back program ($100-$500 / year)

Penalties must be very high in money ( equal to ten years fees ) & jail time -
especially after the first offense

No citizens ( except dealers & collectors ) need more than a small number of guns

Gun fees should be higher for more guns & for bigger guns.

But the nra may be in favor of this when the gun companies understand that gun owners
can get paid to turn in their old gun and will be able to buy a new gun -
with an INTEGRATED lock .

If we legalize drugs, we will clear out jail cells to fill with gun law breakers and
free up police "time" for real crime investigation

We WILL get higher compliance and lower opposition if we use high fees & buyback.

Take a position of reducing guns, like assault weapons such as semi-automatic rifles -
rather than punishing a gun nut who spent $10,000 on an armory.

LBJ proposed a gun plan similar to the above 4 point plan

Some real 2011 / 2012 gun statistics:

Americans own almost half of all civilian owned guns in the world.
Per 100,000:
America:.. 88,880 guns owned ; 2.97 homicides
England.…: 6,200 guns owned ; 0.07 homicides
Austrailia: 15,000 guns owned ; 0.14 homicides
Canada…: 30,800 guns owned ; 0.51 homicides
France….: 31,000 guns owned ; 0.06 homicides
Japan……..: 1,000 guns owned ; 0.08 homicides
Israel……..: 7,300 guns owned ; 0.90 homicides

The above link is to England police statistics - see table D19

The nra & its trolls are claiming that we will fail, where England & Australia succeeded in reducing gun deaths substantially by legislation.

Statistics clearly prove that the number of guns in a state or in a country
adds to the risk of homicides.

More complex is the effect of gun laws and restrictions.

When Australia had a massacre in 1996 when 35 people were killed, gun laws were substantially strengthened and a major buy-back was instituted.
There has not been an incident in Australia since then.
Of course, they did not have the benefit of the nra.

In 2011, there were 11,000+ gun homicides in America
In 2011, there were 35 gun deaths in England

For 2011, the average Murder Rate in Death Penalty States was 4.7,
while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2011, the murder rates were highest in red state regions:
Per 100,000: South 5.5 Midwest 4.5 West 4.2 Northeast 3.9

▬► The 1994 gun "ban" did NOT ban assault weapons.
▬►It banned the MANUFACTURE & SALE of assault weapons.
▬►For $300 you can buy a legal accessory to make an AR15 fully automatic (800rpm)

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line. That line could be between you and an AR15.

And of course if we stopped money going from advocacy groups & corporations to buy politicians, this would be a very big step in the right direction
Watch our videos: Hedges, Kucinich, Warren, Chomsky , Sanders ,
Romney, Reich, Hartmann, Maddow, Nader, Feingold, Jefferson
And read our analysis of Corporate Personhood & Citizens United & evaluate the national polls that prove the truth. See the new HJR29


[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Inconvenience is nothing to loss of life!

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Moments ago, we learned the U.S. Senate will vote on Thursday to break a 13-Senator filibuster of legislation to reduce gun violence.

That means we have forty-eight hours to get sixty votes before we can begin debate on issues like expanded background checks (that 90% of Americans want).

The good news is, several Republican Senators have signaled that we deserve an up-or-down vote on these issues.

But we need to convince a few more before the clock runs out.

The Gun Lobby NRA and the Weapon Industry have ALEC-Koch Bro$-American Crossroads deep pocket funding $$. Can we count on you to contribute $10 or more to our organization, Americans for Responsible Solutions, to help us run a campaign to break the filibuster?


Twenty first graders lost their lives in the classrooms of Connecticut. Six Arizonans lost their lives coming to meet Gabby in Tucson. Thousands and thousands of our fellow citizens who lose their lives to gun violence every year. We cannot allow these 13 senators to deny those victims and their families the vote they deserve.

Let's break this filibuster and pass expanded background checks.

All the best,

Gabby Giffords & Mark Kelly

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

NRA-Blue Dog Dems Must Go! ~ American Lives Before Antiquated Gun Mythology


[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

12 GOP senators back Rand Paul on gun-control filibuster

By JONATHAN ALLEN | 4/6/13 9:00 AM EDT

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s threat to filibuster any new gun restrictions is gathering steam, as a dozen of his Republican colleagues have now signed onto his plan.

The Kentucky [Ass Clown] Republican and Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) first wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid late last month to warn him of their intention to try to tie up the Senate if, as planned, Reid moved forward with legislation that would expand background checks and attempt to crack down on interstate gun trafficking.

Reid is expected to bring a gun-control bill to the floor as early as next week, or perhaps the following week, and Paul is renewing his vow to try to block the measure. Paul’s follow-up letter, obtained by POLITICO, bears Monday’s date and is signed by 13 Republicans, including fellow potential 2016 presidential aspirant Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — who signed on shortly after Paul’s first threat was issued — and National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Jerry Moran of Kansas. (CONTINUED:)


[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Connecticut Governor: LaPierre and NRA are 'Clowns at the Circus'


[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

NRA's Hutchinson: Too Burdensome For Someone to Drive 30 Miles to Sell Shotgun

The NRA's National School Shield Task Force chair, Asa Hutchinson may have finally conceded, after being badgered by Fox host Chris Wallace that he might be willing to go along with more background checks on gun sales at gun shows or over the Internet, but he was still being just as unreasonable as his cohort when it came to doing the checks on other types of private sales.

Take the word gun every time it's used here and replace it with the word car in Hutchinson's response.


[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Gang of Cowards: On Today's Randi Rhodes Show:

Thursday, April 18, 2013

(Live blog & tweet feed for latest on the Boston bombings)

The Senate responded to the slaughter of children at Newtown with a shrug of their shoulders. Worse, even—they didn’t just shrug their shoulders, they brushed the memories of those murdered children off their shoulders like so much annoying dandruff. The Senate voted 54 to 46 to kill the compromise bill on background checks. And of course, the majority of 54 voted FOR the bill, but it wasn’t enough under Senate filibuster rules. But this is one case where what they did was so much worse even than how they did it. Hopefully this vote will end up costing some of these Senators their jobs, because it will most certainly cost some of you your children.

As the Senate voted down the background check bill, Tucson shooting survivor Patricia Maisch shouted “Shame on you!” I would like to see that entered into the Congressional Record—it’s the best summation of the proceedings that there is.

A radio talk show host in Minneapolis has told the families of the Newtown victims they can “go to Hell.” ( http://www.mediaite.com/online/pro-gun-radio-host-tells-newtown-victims-families-go-to-hell/ ) If people like that exist, I suspect we may already be in Hell. Bob Davis told parents of slain children” I’m sorry that you suffered a tragedy. But you know what? Deal with it and don’t force me to lose my liberty which is a greater tragedy than your loss.” Got that? Having to drive 30 miles to town trumps having a child murdered. And let’s face it—this guy doesn’t even live 30 miles from town.

The man arrested in the ricin-mailing case is an Elvis impersonator who thinks there’s a conspiracy involving the sale of body parts. This is an Elvis impersonator who had even weirder ideas than Elvis did at his most addled. Suspect Kevin Curtis has numerous online postings ranting about what he thought was a giant conspiracy to sell human body parts. Oddly, my first question is “How did Alex Jones miss this one?” Curtis writes that he discovered the conspiracy while working at a hospital. He found “a refrigerator full of dismembered body parts & organs wrapped in plastic.” OK, that’s not really that weird in a hospital. If he had found that at—say—a Pizza Hut, then he should worry.

Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html#ixzz2QrVb4f1y

OR: http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

One Percent Right Wing TYRANT$$ win round One.

We shall see who wins round Two.

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Round One to brain-dead neofacsists and Big~$$!!!

Round Two, coming up!!

Libs, Progs and Dems never Ever give up!!!

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

You know, I told myself I’d stop posting on gun threads. I even made a thread saying I was done commenting about guns. Nothing is accomplished. Just pro-gun and anti-gun people flaming each other. So, I opted out of the gun debate on this forum.

But I can’t restrain myself when someone starts freaking out and bashing every gun owner because the background check bill didn’t pass. I’m not going to reargue the point. It’s already been argued a thousand times on this forum.

So, I’ll just say. Get over it. The anti-gun nuts lost this round. Deal with it. Yeah, there’ll be more anti-gun legislation at some point, but gun owners are as committed to keeping their gun as you are in trying to take them away. I don’t see any new gun regulations at the federal level in the foreseeable future. The gun debate has moved to the State level.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Spare us your specious tribulations! Lives are more important than misunderstood hobbies (read and weep): http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2013/02/12/a-grammar-lesson-for-gun-nuts-second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-gun-rights/33796/

Especially American lives, remember the Cons' hysteria over a few deaths in Benghazi? Where is the outrage over the thousands of American deaths every year? It's way past time that the weapons of mass death of Americans GET REGULATED!!

OBEY Your HERO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG4V_6pCLVo

And be proud of this: http://www.mediaite.com/online/pro-gun-radio-host-tells-newtown-victims-families-go-to-hell/

[-] 2 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

I understand you’re anti-gun. You made it clear. I’m will not try to change your mind. You’re entitled to your view; as I am to mine. I have no interest to reading your links. What would it accomplish?

All I’m saying the is anti-gun nuts lost this round; and that has caused you to go on a rant against gun owners. You know as well as I do that almost every one of the legal gun owners in America are law abiding, honest members of the 99%. To berate them because you don’t like guns is simply wrong.

Look at the bright side. The gun debate isn’t over.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 5 years ago


I figured I'd respond to you instead of Smith, 'cause he just doesn't get it. First off, his link to the Denver post is worthless because it's just an opinion.

Secondly, the 2nd Amendment does guarantee the right to bear certain arms according to the cases "District of Columbia vs. Heller" and "McDonald vs. Chicago." The first one, according to Wikipedia was "a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states."


And in the case "McDonald vs. Chicago" the issue of the states themselves was addressed:


Also, according the Wikipedia's definition of a militia, "Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures."

And also from Wiki: "In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

So, it's pretty obvious that, according to the Supreme Court, the 2nd Amendment does guarantee the right to keep and bear (certain) arms so that in case a militia is ever needed, the citizens will already have their weapons.

[-] 2 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

Thank you very much. I’m aware of the court decisions, but didn’t know the exact cases. Hell, I’m not even a gun nut like a lot of people. I just own a few guns. Mostly for self defense and occasional hog hunting. I don’t own an AR or AK (anymore). I just don’t like people demonizing good and honest people just because they own guns.

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 5 years ago

I agree about not liking people demonizing everyone that owns guns, or people that believe in the ridiculous idea that ALL guns should be banned. I think most the people (like Smith) don't realize there's more to all this hoopla than trying to save lives. Also, you might be interested in what law enforcement thinks about this current debate:


Click on the square under "Editor's Note" that says "Gun Policy and Law Enforcement Survey." There's a pdf with the full results and some summaries. A pretty interesting read, in my opinion.

[-] 1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 5 years ago

People like smith also don't want to talk about how many lives are saved by citizens with guns. Clackamas Mall should have been a nice case in point but our state run media didn't even mentioned the armed shopper that drew down on the shooter and caused him to run away.

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

President Obama Speaks on Reducing Gun Violence


[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

Obama is an elite who only wants to reduce gun violence. He doesnt want to end gun violence.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Since we will never end gun violence, fossil fuel, RW-authoritarianism, organized crime and religion, science deniers, ignorance, and on and endlessly on, all we can hope for is ever more reduction!!

If someone says he/she can end any of these, RUN!!!

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

Idealism is nothing to run from.

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

BS is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

Our government's fight over gun "control" is the summit of Bull Shit Mountain.

Neither side wants to protect people from gun violence, both sides are only interested in protecting the rights of gun owners.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Just round one.

Money and influence won this day, that will never last!

We Libs/Progs never Ever give up!!

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

Either the second amendment will be repealed or I'll probably get shot trying.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Join the regulated militia, National Guard, then.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

Violence is ALWAYS wrong and extremely ineffective.

How would more murder help?

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Clarify yourself please?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

How would joining a militia, as you suggested I do, help my crusade against guns and violence?

Seems to me that it only make it worse.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

OK, write your congressman to support radical gun control, this pussy ass background is nothing, we need to work toward BANNING ALL GUNS NOW!!!

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

The 2nd amendment needs to be repealed and the military should be abolished.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

"A Well Regulated Militia" The problem is we don't observe the second amendment, most of it's "supporters" are completely ignorant of it:

A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

By Mark Moe Colorado Voices

The Second Amendment is getting worked over again after the latest assault rifle massacre, and the usual suspects are issuing dire warnings that gun-control advocates want to undermine the constitution and take away freedoms and rights granted there.

However, unless you believe that the Founders’ knowledge of grammar and sentence structure was suspect (and what right-thinking person would think that?), the Second amendment, though it does employ a peculiar and sometimes awkward construction called an “absolute,” is actually a very straightforward call for the establishment of an armed militia when necessary. It has nothing to do with individual gun “rights” except in that context.

The amendment reads as follows: “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.”

The main argument about the amendment has always been a semantic one: What is meant? What is the intention? I use the present tense, because grammatical deconstruction is done in the here and now. We are not trying to divine intentions from our personal beliefs of what the Founders “stood for” or what they “believed.” The Founders are dead, but their words remain alive in the present, and their words, as well as their meticulous grammatical construction, leave no doubt as to their intentions.

Read these sentences:

“Their project being complete, the team disbanded.”

“Stern discipline being called for, the offending student was expelled.”

In both cases, the initial dependent clause is not superfluous to the meaning of the entire sentence: it is integral. The team disbanded because the project was complete; the student was expelled because his offense called for stern discipline. This causal relationship cannot be ignored. Reading the Second Amendment as “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” clearly shows the same causal relationship as the example sentences; in this case, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is essential to maintaining a well-regulated militia.

Gun rights advocates such as the NRA have rather successfully pushed the notion that the first clause of the Second amendment is merely prefatory, a sort of rhetorical throat-clearing before the substantive clause about “rights.” Too, certain linguists have said that, as an “absolute” clause (one that is grammatically separate from the main clause), the first clause has no bearing and thus conveys no limitations on the “right” of the second clause. However, no less a constitutional authority than Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall disagrees, declaring that “it cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.”

Thus, to call the first clause of the Second Amendment superfluous is to insult both Marshall and the framers. The “absolute” clause construction of the Second amendment was quite common at the time, and appears in many state constitutions and framing documents. The primary purpose in these constructions is to give the conditions under which the rest of the sentence is true or valid. As a prime example of the ablative absolute, the first clause of the Second Amendment may stand grammatically free, but serves semantically to modify or clarify the meaning of the rest of the sentence. The Framers were clearly familiar with the ablative absolute and used it not as rhetorical fluff or flourish, but as a way of clarifying intent, in this case clarifying that the right to bear arms is granted in the context and within the scope of establishing a militia. Nothing more, nothing less.

So today, when the paranoid fringe faction of the NRA howls that gun control is an assault on our Second amendment rights, we might ask, which rights are those? Unless they mean the right to “bear arms” (itself a military phrase) in the service of a well-regulated militia, they’re just blowing smoke. The NRA is free to lobby all they want for the freedom for citizens to own whatever gun they choose — it’s their right (and their business as lobbyists (salesmen) for the lucrative Weapons Industry.) But to say that gun control somehow attenuates individual gun rights “guaranteed” by the Second Amendment, well, that’s just wrong.

Mark Moe (brktrt_80231@yahoo.com) is a retired English teacher. Colorado Voices is an annual competition among writers vying for the opportunity to publish columns of regional interest in The Denver Post.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Please don't quote Jon Steward.

FLAKESnews is bullshit mountain.

Nothing else.

It's the NRA that doesn't want to protect anyone from gun violence.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

John Stewert didnt invent, nor does he own the phrase "bull shit mountain".

The NRA owns our government, infact, all lobbyist groups really own the government. "Representatives" rarely listen to their constiuents.

Neither party is willing to abolish lobbying, which allows the NRA to dictate policy.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Well at least you admit the NRA shares bullshit mountain with FLAKESnews.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

Oh yah. Lobbying is a chief cause of many of the american government's problems.

Congress/the President/SCOTUS refuses to protect people from violence and instead protects people's rights to be violent.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Why so much bullshit??

They are working with ALEC in the States.


You really should do more research, instead of investing in bullshit mountain..

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

Niether party is willing or has even ever suggested that the 2nd amendment be repealed.

All gun manufacture should be criminalized and gun owners should be encouraged to voluntarily destroy thier guns.

The govt should abolish the military and destroy all of it's weapons.

It should be illegal to conceal guns in public places and hunting should be outlawed.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

You should take that concept to theblaze.

I would be curious as to what kind of mileage you will get there.

[-] -1 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

The gun issue has been argued to death on this forum. So I won’t waste my breath trying to change your mind. But here are a few cold hard facts.

  1. The assault weapons ban is DOA at the federal level.

  2. The magazine capacity restriction is DOA at the federal level.

  3. Universal background checks is still up for grabs. Too soon to know if anything will happen at the federal level .

  4. Four States have passed tighter gun restrictions this year (California, New York, Colorado and Connecticut). About twelve other States are passing pro-gun legislation. I had a link and list on which states passed new pro-gun laws, but can’t find it at the moment.

  5. The gun debate has moved to the State level. Forget about anything happening on the federal level in the foreseeable future.

Also, I posted the following on another thread, but it fits here also. Law enforcement survey

. • 86 percent feel the currently proposed legislation would have no effect or a negative effect on improving officer safety.

• Similarly, 92 percent feel that banning semi-automatic firearms, or “assault weapons,” would have no effect or a negative effect on reducing violent crime

• Demonstrating the opinion that the best way to combat gun crime is through harsher punishment, 91 percent said the use of a firearm while perpetrating a crime should lead to a stiff, mandatory sentence with no plea bargains. Likewise, 59 percent believe increasing punishment severity for unlicensed dealers would reduce crime

• Respondents were more split on background checks, with 31 percent agreeing that mental health background checks in all gun sales would help reduce mass shootings, while 45 percent disagreed

• 71 percent support law enforcement leaders who have publicly refused to enforce more restrictive gun laws within their jurisdictions

• 82 percent believe gun buyback or turn-in programs are ineffective in reducing the level of gun violence

• 91 percent support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or have not been deemed psychologically incapable

• Likewise, 80 percent feel that legally-armed citizens would likely have reduced the number of casualties in recent mass shooting incidents


[-] 3 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Complete, and dumb, BULL SHIT!!

Did you copy your posting points from Ted Nugent's Facebook page?

FACT CHECK: Stacks Of Gun Facts Tired of running into ignorant people who don't know the real facts about gun violence in America? Find the answers here.

Sources: Research by Mother Jones. (With thanks to the Associated Press, Canada.com, and Citizens Crime Commission of NYC.)

As we noted recently, the availability of guns isn't the only factor in America's gun violence problem. It is the component that's been the most lied about though, often through the vast propaganda tools of the lobbying group that is the NRA.

So as a public service, we've collected and corrected some of the most common lies about guns, and provided the correct information, below.

Lie: Mass shootings don't really happen that often. It just seems like it because of the media. Truth: The number of mass shootings has actually risen significantly over the last 30 years.

Since 1982, there have been 62 mass murders carried out with firearms, across America, where 'mass murder' is defined as a single person killing four or more people in a single incident (other than the killer).

Lie: The assault weapons ban in the U.S. did nothing. Truth: The assault weapons ban did, in fact, limit unexpected mass killings.

Using the more accurate standard used for "mass killings" used by Mark Follman at Mother Jones, and Princeton researcher Sam Wang - where crimes that involve armed robbery or gang violence are not counted - statistics show the assault weapons ban did make a significant difference. As Wang's research noted, "Since the expiration of the gun ban in 2004, the number of shootings per year has doubled, and the number of victims per year has nearly tripled. Three of the bloodiest four years [since 1980] occurred since the expiration [of the ban]."

Lie: "If there had been someone there [at a massacre site] who was packin', those people would still be alive!" Truth: Armed civilians do not stop mass shooters. As Mark Follman of Mother Jones notes, "...not one of the 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way."

Lie: More guns will actually make us all safer! Truth: More guns actually mean more murders.

As the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found, where there are more guns - in America and in other, similar rich nations - both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Lie: Gun-loving Americans don't support gun control or gun safety laws. Truth: In general, responsible gun owners support effective, smart gun safety laws.

According to a poll taken by noted GOP pollster Frank Luntz for the group Mayors against Illegal Guns, and published in Think Progress by Zach Beauchamp, "...gun-owning Americans, including National Rifle Association (NRA) members, overwhelmingly support a raft of common-sense measures typically described as 'gun control.'"

That includes 87 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners who support requiring criminal background checks on gun owners. 80 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 79 percent of NRA gun owners also support requiring criminal background checks on gun shop employees.

Lie: Obama is the worst President for gun-loving Americans, ever. Truth: 2012 has been a record setting year for gun sales.

As of August 1, 2012, there are nearly 130,000 federally licensed firearms dealers in the United States - which means there are currently more stores selling guns than groceries in the U.S.

Lie: German Jews would have been able to stop Hitler, before World War II, if they'd been armed. But Hitler banned guns in 1935, and took all their guns away. Truth: No, Hitler didn't ban guns in 1935. There was NO gun ban law enacted in Germany in 1935. There was a gun law enacted in 1928, before the Nazis came to power, and five years before Hitler's rise to power. That law didn't outlaw guns, though. It just restricted guns to law-abiding citizens, who had a reason to own one. Yes, Jews in Germany under Hitler were prohibited from owning guns. But there were only a half million Jewish Germans in 1933, out of a total population in Germany of 67 million. A few thousand guns would not have stopped the rise of Hitler, in large part because Hitler and Nazi's most effective weapon wasn't guns. It was propaganda.

Lie: Having a gun in my house, in case of a home invasion/for protection makes my home safer. Truth: As multiple studies have proven, having a gun in your home actually increases the risk of homicide, suicide, and accidental death. A gun in the home makes the likelihood of homicide three times higher, suicide three to five times higher, and accidental death four times higher. Further, according to a scientific study in the 'Annals of Emergency Medicine', an estimated 41 percent of gun-related homicides and 94 percent of gun-related suicides would not occur if no guns were present.

Lie: Every gun sold at a gun show has to go through a background check. Truth: Only guns sold by dealers have to go through background checks. A 1997 National Institute of Justice survey found that around 40 percent of all firearm sales are private sales and therefore take place without any kind of background check. Since many of these private sales happen at and around gun shows, the loophole is known as the 'gun show loophole.'

If you're looking for even more facts on guns, check the links below. http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrnews.html?article=10652140

IN DEPTH: Gun Laws & Violence - A Connection

As gun safety laws come to a head in Congress this week, the question must be asked: Do they really work?

Even while some of the most extreme Republicans in Congress threaten this week to filibuster votes on the gun safety legislation coming before them, one of the most important keys to effectively reforming our gun laws is a serious question: Do gun laws even work?

As we've noted previously, in our in-depth gun fact check, multiple legitimate sources agree that some gun safety laws do indeed work - and some work better than others.

As President Obama pointed out in a moving speech recently as he tried to pressure Congress to act positively on the gun reforms in front of them, and as the families of the victims of Newtown pointed out in a 60 Minutes report, at the very least, universal background checks would help - and they would know.

As anyone who has survived a violent tragedy, or had a horrible disease affect someone in their family, when the horror hits home, we all become experts. We study. We do research. We all do our homework. Or at least, most of us do. The extremist gun nuts however, don't seem to, as they continue to make unproven claims about gun violence and gun safety laws, by pointing out cities with high rates of gun violence like Chicago.

Thankfully, a new research study from the Center for American Progress, using information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, does the research. They even went so far as to

If you check out the details of the study, you can see how the Center organized the 10 indicators of gun violence they used to rank all fifty states in gun violence. Those factors include the following:


What the study gun laws and violence found can be summed up best in the study's summary, as reported by Think Progress:

Across the key indicators of gun violence that we analyzed, the 10 states with the weakest gun laws collectively have a level of gun violence that is more than twice as high —104 percent higher— than the 10 states with the strongest gun laws.

It's not complicated folks - and this isn't the only study that says this. Stronger gun laws work. Weaker ones don't.



[-] -3 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

As I said, I’m not going to argue the point since it’s been argued to death. Neither of us will change our mind. My intent was to state the facts as it stands now.

You can hate gun owners all you want, call us names and belittle us. The fact is we are honest law abiding citizens who are part of the 99%. We also vote, go to work every day and care for our families. We’re not the demons you want us to be.

By the way, I’m not republican; and conservative only on a few issues. Gun rights being one of them. You can’t blame this on the republicans, I think owing guns crosses the political divide.

So I say again, you can throw as big a tantrum as you can muster. We are still keeping our guns.

[-] 3 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

What Insurmountable Burden is Gun Control Compared to slaughtered kids and adults on 12/14 Sandy Hook?

NONE! Oh, background checks (which 90% of Americans want). A burden worse than death!! What's worse than death? $~GREED~$ NRA shit slinging costs the Arms Industry BIG BUCK$!! And they're banking on a payoff!!

Why Is the lust for mass murder ease so important? More important than saving lives?

SUBTERFUGE! Duping the masses into buying "freedom" at the gun store, instead of winning it at the Ballot Box! Record sales at gun stores everywhere: where duped, paranoid, lemming, zombies snatch up anything that shoots, just as their NRA puppet masters direct!!

[-] -3 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

More accurately it’s law abiding gun owners buying guns in record numbers because they were afraid some politicians are trying to regulate guns out of existence. Just honest members of the 99% exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

Shame on you for standing in the blood of those children just to sell your personal agenda to pass legislation that won’t fix anything.

[-] 3 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

In what insane delusion do "law abiding gun owners" start stockpiling arms when a black POTUS is elected, twice?

Shame on gunnuts for putting their lethal hobby above American lives!

[-] -1 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

It's going to take a lot of hgate to hate 80 million legal gun owners. But you seem up to the task. Sorry you hate the honest gun owners. Buy we're not giving up our guns just you are afraid of them.

It's OK with me if you don't like guns. Don't get one, but leave the commom man alone. Your being eliteist..

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

GO creeeps GOOO!!!!

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Save your strawman BS for your dittohead friends.

90% of Americans want Background Checks!

Fewer guns equal fewer people getting shot by them, by whoever or however the weapons arrive at the scene of the crime or mass murder!

I don't give a flying fuck about, nor does it matter, the stature of some gun owners. Guns are killing too many people!

Get your tiny head out of your lethal hobby and realize we finally need GUN REGULATION!!!

American lives come FIRST!!!

The second requires REGULATION!!!

[+] -4 points by Stormcrow2 (-184) 5 years ago

What about all those "unregisterd" firearms that you speak of - how is the Universal Background Check going to deal with them?

Go into every household in America and demand that the owner register them? I don't think so.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

How do we deal with traffic violators when no cops are around?

[-] -1 points by Stormcrow2 (-184) 5 years ago

Apparenly we don't do we? When was the last time you saw someone go through a red light and called the cops?

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Or got run over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 5 years ago

I have to agree, the subject has been run into the ground on this forum. Personally, I think it's time to get on with real OWS business and forget this divide-and-conquer wedge issue.

Here's a link with information on which states have passed or introduced pro-Second Amendment bills:


[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

Note to self: dont visit the states that have passed pro-2nd amendment legislation.

Its a good thing you posted this!!!!

[-] -1 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

I agree. This topic should go away on this forum. It’s a divider. My problem is I can’t help myself when dealing with anti-gun nuts. I need to exercise restraint. Maybe it’ll die down. Fracking is my real hot button anyway, not guns.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

There is nothing nutty about being anti-gun. Nuts are only pro-violence.

[-] -2 points by Stormcrow2 (-184) 5 years ago

What I find interestng is that the "youth violence firarms crime" problem in this country will be solved with more laws.

Tell me how anyone here can guarentee that those firearms out there - probably 100 million or more that aren't regstered won't end up in the hands of criminals ?

Yah, I know if we pass a national background check everyone who has unregistered firearms will abide by the law when they sell those firearms- wrong.

Just like the laws that protect people from carjacking, home invasions, and use of drugs. Those laws are really working aren't they?

You peole are in such denial thinking that more laws will solve the problem.

How about we focus on "youth violence mental issues" and parenting.

Just today a 21 year old college student went off on a terror and stabbed 15 college students. I didn't see any post on this site about that incident.

But now if it was a gunman that did the dirty deed it would be all over the news.

Why the violence - :


[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

I'm sorry you're this dumb, Stormcrow2, but murder is against the law, should we repeal it because people still commit it?

This is what happens when you parrot talking points you believe without thinking.

[-] 0 points by Stormcrow2 (-184) 5 years ago

You didn't even address the issue I posted - and I never said anything about repealing people committing murder.

Apparently you like others think "more restrictions on people" will solve the "violent youth crime" in this country. How about the X and Y generation clean up their act and start being responsible for their actions.

How about the X and Y generation stop blaming others for their own shortcomings.

How about the X and Y generation start parenting the children they bring into this world instead of expecting someone else to do it.

And lastly How about the X and Y generation start showing respect for other people and the lives of those people.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

You are INSANE!!! Seek a dream help. Contact authorities.

[-] -2 points by freakzilla3 (-75) 5 years ago

Just to help you understand where the other side is coming from

”You don’t know what freedom is because you never lost it!”


"We could not fight back, because we did not have an inch of iron in our hands, to borrow a Chinese expression: we were unarmed."


[-] 3 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

This is truly criminal BIG $$ propaganda! This is what BIG $$ can do!!

The extent of the Paranoid Insanity of the Gun Nut, NRA, Weapon Industry cause, is truly criminal since it is contrived with vicious propaganda by those who stand to make Billion$! And who take no responsibility whatsoever for the thousands who are shot and slaughtered year after year in this unregulated gun saturated country! 90% of Americans want Back Ground Checks!!!

[-] -3 points by freakzilla3 (-75) 5 years ago

You want a gun law that will keep us safe? Stop and frisk. Are you down with that?

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Regulate the lethal hobby of gun ownership!!

[-] 0 points by freakzilla3 (-75) 5 years ago

Regulate the use of exclamation points on message boards.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

As soon as we: Regulate the lethal hobby of gun ownership!! No activity is equally void of any regulation WHATSOEVER!!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33490) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Stop everyone? 100% stoppage and friskage? Hmmmm - well the work pace has gotten awful hurried - it could help slow things back down to a reasonable pace. So this should be set-up on the highways and byways? To get people in transit? Wow think of the law enforcement employment opportunities created. More work for the auto industry as well - to save gas have cars set-up to shut off the engines automatically when the car is at a full stop.

[-] -1 points by freakzilla3 (-75) 5 years ago

Plus, don't we all need a little extra intimacy in our lives?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago


Featured on Glenn Beck AND OReilly.

Lots of ramblings and a story about how awful Michael Moore is from "11".

lots of good reason for you to be pro gun death, I guess.

[-] -1 points by freakzilla3 (-75) 5 years ago

No, just a chance for you to see it from another point of view. Two points of view we will never know thankfully. Ambitious thinking on my part. I forgot you like things simple, black and white, knee jerk.

I'm not into guns and don't care about new gun laws (go ahead, even though they won't make us one bit safer) but I like seeing all the points of view. Go ahead and classify every pro gun guy as a nut blindly following Fox News if it keeps your life simple and manageable Someone who survived Tiananmen Square or an actual revolution carries a lot of weight and should be heard. That is, if you aren't scared of what they have to say.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Glenn Beck doesn't have a valid point of view.

He's a lying sack of shit, as is O'Rieilly.

There's nothing there.

As for the guy in China?

What would he have against a tank????

What is you think a basement full of 'em is going to do, besides get a lot of innocent people killed?

That's exactly what they've done so far.

There's just too fucking many of them!!

And any idiot at all can buy a basement full.

That's just plain stupid.

[-] -1 points by freakzilla3 (-75) 5 years ago

One guy did stand up to a tank, remember? But we'll never know how history could have been different. I don't know if a basement full would be enough, but an entire population might have made the army think twice about walking on and bayoneting innocent students protesting for democracy. Maybe you're right. Gun laws are working just swell for Chicago and Detroit. How full is your basement?

"Now suppose the 20 million Beijing citizens had had a few million rifles"

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

They'd be shooting each other all over the place, just like we do, and their kids would be shooting each other at play time, just like here too.

Why would you wish that on someone else, when we won't get a handle on it?

Or are you yet another pro gun death advocate?

[-] -2 points by freakzilla3 (-75) 5 years ago

I told you I'm not pro gun. Death advocate? Depends. New gun laws? If they amuse you, go ahead.

I just always find talks of losing rights more engaging when they come from citizens of other countries where this stuff is real and not your typical spoiled American who overreacts and brings up the Nazis whenever they are denied anything they want

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Well freakoutzilla(3), I answered your supposition and the best you can do is feakout......and not actually respond to what I actually said.

Good job, I guess.

You can go back to theblaze now.

Have a nice day...................:)

[-] -1 points by freakzilla3 (-75) 5 years ago

Funny how nobody here ever responds to you. Must be frustrating when nobody ever answers your questions, not once.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

That's because they don't have an answer that fits their agenda.

Just like you.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Oh, they wouldn't do that.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Oh, but they would.

Here's the latest, straight from the clown's ass.


Beck lies.........there's no 'might" about it.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

BECK-Rush-ORieley are strangle-holds on all the samers and righties infecting this site.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

You forget Hannity, Alex Jones, and shit.........this crap goes all the way back to Art Bell and so many more in between. Plus the GOP in general these days.

All should come with a warning that belief comes at a price to your sanity.


Why piss off Buzz Aldrin?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Can we agree on a name or icon? You sharp girls are good at that, something that collects all the scumbags when we talk about labor rights...