If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   "We reached out to all 31 pro-gun rights senators in the new Congress to invite them on the program to share their views on the subject this morning," ... "We had no takers"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 1019
    More: Sad, congresses, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Louie Gohmert, assault weapons, Michael Bloomberg, senate democrats, Mayor of New York City, Fox News Sunday  
•       •       •

4945 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Dec 2012 at 5:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1019 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-16 10:17:55 PM

iq_in_binary: chumboobler: dustman81: chumboobler: dustman81: chumboobler: "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."

It says so! Therefore every American citizen that is not a felon should be issued with a muzzle loaded musket, some ball rounds an a pound of black powder. There are the "arms" that were intended in the Constitution. Not fully/semi automatic rifles and handguns with large magazines.

The United States Supreme Court, the court that decides issues of constitutionality, disagrees with you. See District of Columbia v Heller which protects the individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves and McDonald v City of Chicago which, through the 14th Amendment, extends the right of the individual to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes to the states as well.

I am familiar with the Heller case and you are overlooking some things that were rendered in judgement that can be reviewed. Specifically what constitutes a militia. The court declined to make that definition. This means that while Heller could walk free, the definition of a militia was up for debate. They have not made that debate yet but may now, in light of the events that are coming more and more often. They also said that "reasonable restriction" is on the table. It was hardly the slam dunk victory the NRA claims. It opened the door to further investigation.

" They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Second Amendment rights are subject to reasona ...


where do I get my M1 MBT? And a few ballistic missiles, Maybe an MLRS just for home protection.

Gee, that makes the SCOTUS look really stupid.
 
2012-12-16 10:18:38 PM

chumboobler: skull


I haven't overthrown any. I also didn't write the farking 2nd amendment. Guns are made to kill people. That's why we have a 2nd amendment protecting your right to own one. To kill people. This ain't farking complex.
 
2012-12-16 10:18:43 PM

The_Sponge: chuckufarlie: The_Sponge: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: coeyagi: chuckufarlie: vygramul: Flying Lasagna Monster: If the assault weapons ban were allowed to still be in force, those 20 innocent children would still be alive. Hope you're all proud of yourselves, gun nuts.

That's completely false.

no, that is pretty much provable.

It's neither provable nor disprovable. I am not going to go into a long explanation as to why, anyone of any political persuasion can come up with reasons why.

of course it is provable, give him two pistols or a bolt action rifle and the number of dead would be much lower.

I'm not making any assertion about whether different weapons would have yoelded different results. But the same weapon was available.

got a citation for that?

Just follow the above link to wikipedia. You could still get the AR-15 only it had to come with a 10 round mag.

and that is 20 rounds less than what he had. That is a lot of switching out of magazines. True, not a lengthy process but ever second counts when a mad man is after you.

You do realize that pre ban magazines were available for legal sale during the ban, right?

Oh wait you don't....because gun grabbers do not have a sense of reality.

I have a great sense of reality. I have the good sense to realize that any semi-automatic or automatic rifle is not needed for hunting purposes. I have the good sense to realize that if you miss on the first shot, the target animal is going to be moving too fast for that second shot to do you any good. Unless, of course, you empty an entire magazine at the fleeing animal. Of course, that also means that you really have no business hunting if you do that. I have the sense to realize that there is no use for a semi-automatic or automatic rifle except to kill people.

I go deer hunting twice a year, once with a musket and once with a bow. That requires that I actually have to stalk the animal, not sit in a tree and shoot at an a ...


answer the question, douchebag.
 
2012-12-16 10:19:19 PM

mittromneysdog: chuckufarlie: You can not give me one valid, intelligent reason why any hunter needs a semi-automatic or automatic rifle.

To be clear, both semi-automatic and fully automatic rifles are automatic rifles.


To be clear, there is a difference that maybe you are not aware of.
 
2012-12-16 10:20:23 PM

chuckufarlie: You can not give me one valid, intelligent reason why any hunter needs a semi-automatic or automatic rifle.


Former military vets will often prefer a hunting weapon similar to what they were issued in the armed forces. They know it's range, handling characteristics and ballistics. You realize that it is possible to fire only one shot from a semi-automatic, right? You don't have to magdump on a deer just because you can?
 
2012-12-16 10:20:39 PM

chuckufarlie: mittromneysdog: chuckufarlie: You can not give me one valid, intelligent reason why any hunter needs a semi-automatic or automatic rifle.

To be clear, both semi-automatic and fully automatic rifles are automatic rifles.

To be clear, there is a difference that maybe you are not aware of.


Nope. There are automatic rifles. Some are semi-automatic. Others are fully automatic. But they're all automatic.
 
2012-12-16 10:20:40 PM

skullkrusher: chumboobler: skull

I haven't overthrown any. I also didn't write the farking 2nd amendment. Guns are made to kill people. That's why we have a 2nd amendment protecting your right to own one. To kill people. This ain't farking complex.


So you think that it is okay to gun down innocent little kids?
 
2012-12-16 10:22:37 PM

skullkrusher: chumboobler: skull

I haven't overthrown any. I also didn't write the farking 2nd amendment. Guns are made to kill people. That's why we have a 2nd amendment protecting your right to own one. To kill people. This ain't farking complex.


.........I don't think that came out the way you wanted it to.
 
2012-12-16 10:23:30 PM

chuckufarlie: The_Sponge: chuckufarlie: The_Sponge: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: coeyagi: chuckufarlie: vygramul: Flying Lasagna Monster: If the assault weapons ban were allowed to still be in force, those 20 innocent children would still be alive. Hope you're all proud of yourselves, gun nuts.

That's completely false.

no, that is pretty much provable.

It's neither provable nor disprovable. I am not going to go into a long explanation as to why, anyone of any political persuasion can come up with reasons why.

of course it is provable, give him two pistols or a bolt action rifle and the number of dead would be much lower.

I'm not making any assertion about whether different weapons would have yoelded different results. But the same weapon was available.

got a citation for that?

Just follow the above link to wikipedia. You could still get the AR-15 only it had to come with a 10 round mag.

and that is 20 rounds less than what he had. That is a lot of switching out of magazines. True, not a lengthy process but ever second counts when a mad man is after you.

You do realize that pre ban magazines were available for legal sale during the ban, right?

Oh wait you don't....because gun grabbers do not have a sense of reality.

I have a great sense of reality. I have the good sense to realize that any semi-automatic or automatic rifle is not needed for hunting purposes. I have the good sense to realize that if you miss on the first shot, the target animal is going to be moving too fast for that second shot to do you any good. Unless, of course, you empty an entire magazine at the fleeing animal. Of course, that also means that you really have no business hunting if you do that. I have the sense to realize that there is no use for a semi-automatic or automatic rifle except to kill people.

I go deer hunting twice a year, once with a musket and once with a bow. That requires that I actually have to stalk the animal, not sit in a tree and shoot at an a ...

answer the question, douchebag.


After a piece of sh*t asshole like you refused to admit he was wrong about pre ban magazines? I'll pass.

And get this through that thick skull of yours: The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
 
2012-12-16 10:23:41 PM

mittromneysdog: chuckufarlie: mittromneysdog: chuckufarlie: You can not give me one valid, intelligent reason why any hunter needs a semi-automatic or automatic rifle.

To be clear, both semi-automatic and fully automatic rifles are automatic rifles.

To be clear, there is a difference that maybe you are not aware of.

Nope. There are automatic rifles. Some are semi-automatic. Others are fully automatic. But they're all automatic.


I will continue to use both terms because there are a lot of ignorant douche bags here that would get their panties all twisted if I did not. Now you are getting your panties all twisted because I do. You are just going to have to live with twisted panties.
 
2012-12-16 10:24:25 PM
What's really gonna be satisfying is when the New Madrid Fault goes off and a huge earthquake destroys dams, bridges and distribution centers. No electrical or gas, rampant civil disobedience from lack of food or shelter. Yep, the ones with the guns and the land will persevere. Inner city liberals will be screwed.
 
2012-12-16 10:25:00 PM

Farker Soze: LargeCanine: Farker Soze: WienerButt: I've never actually gone on FreeRepublic.com but only read what I see on here. I decided to check on it since Obama was speaking at that high school and the comments weren't even amusing or funny. They were downright depressing and scary. What the fark? Upset because they cut away from 49ers vs Bradys to show the speech? Then someone mentioned they were happy that Republican Dallas beat Liberal Steelers?

I...I just can't. I have no words. Never going on that shiat again.

They're addicted to hate and anger. It doesn't matter the politics, it's the endorphin rush they get out of it. Being a racist sexist rightwingnut just gives them more targets to be butthurt over.

Or... pretending that you are a rightwing nut.

I'm sure there are a lot of actual nuts. Sure, there will be some feigning the most extreme views to gain a sense of community from that sight and a lot of outright trolls, but there are many genuine freepers with deep anger issues.


Fair to say. I tend to be skeptical of anonymous extreme speech or threats on the web. Some people seem to like exercising their imaginations on what they think the Other Side would say.
 
2012-12-16 10:25:17 PM

Clutch2013: skullkrusher: chumboobler: skull

I haven't overthrown any. I also didn't write the farking 2nd amendment. Guns are made to kill people. That's why we have a 2nd amendment protecting your right to own one. To kill people. This ain't farking complex.

.........I don't think that came out the way you wanted it to.


that's exactly how I wanted it to come out. We don't have a 2nd amendment so guns can be used for hunting. We have it so we can own implements with which to kill human beings.
 
2012-12-16 10:25:43 PM

chuckufarlie: I will continue to use both terms because there are a lot of ignorant douche bags here that would get their panties all twisted if I did not. Now you are getting your panties all twisted because I do. You are just going to have to live with twisted panties.


My panties are completely untwisted. The "both terms" you are looking for are semi and fully, not semi and auto. Use the terms correctly or don't. I don't care.
 
2012-12-16 10:25:52 PM

chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chumboobler: skull

I haven't overthrown any. I also didn't write the farking 2nd amendment. Guns are made to kill people. That's why we have a 2nd amendment protecting your right to own one. To kill people. This ain't farking complex.

So you think that it is okay to gun down innocent little kids?


hey farlie, chuck you.

seriously, you're a moran brah
 
2012-12-16 10:26:16 PM

chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chumboobler: skull

I haven't overthrown any. I also didn't write the farking 2nd amendment. Guns are made to kill people. That's why we have a 2nd amendment protecting your right to own one. To kill people. This ain't farking complex.

So you think that it is okay to gun down innocent little kids?


Nobody in this thread does, stop being childish.

This tragedy could have occurred with handguns or pump shotguns.
 
2012-12-16 10:26:59 PM

The_Sponge: chuckufarlie: The_Sponge: chuckufarlie: The_Sponge: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: coeyagi: chuckufarlie: vygramul: Flying Lasagna Monster: If the assault weapons ban were allowed to still be in force, those 20 innocent children would still be alive. Hope you're all proud of yourselves, gun nuts.

That's completely false.

no, that is pretty much provable.

It's neither provable nor disprovable. I am not going to go into a long explanation as to why, anyone of any political persuasion can come up with reasons why.

of course it is provable, give him two pistols or a bolt action rifle and the number of dead would be much lower.

I'm not making any assertion about whether different weapons would have yoelded different results. But the same weapon was available.

got a citation for that?

Just follow the above link to wikipedia. You could still get the AR-15 only it had to come with a 10 round mag.

and that is 20 rounds less than what he had. That is a lot of switching out of magazines. True, not a lengthy process but ever second counts when a mad man is after you.

You do realize that pre ban magazines were available for legal sale during the ban, right?

Oh wait you don't....because gun grabbers do not have a sense of reality.

I have a great sense of reality. I have the good sense to realize that any semi-automatic or automatic rifle is not needed for hunting purposes. I have the good sense to realize that if you miss on the first shot, the target animal is going to be moving too fast for that second shot to do you any good. Unless, of course, you empty an entire magazine at the fleeing animal. Of course, that also means that you really have no business hunting if you do that. I have the sense to realize that there is no use for a semi-automatic or automatic rifle except to kill people.

I go deer hunting twice a year, once with a musket and once with a bow. That requires that I actually have to stalk the animal, not sit i ...


I did not respond to you about the magazines but I did respond to the person who posted it and who was conversing with me about it. If you do not like that, KMA.

Most people defend their right to own semi-automatic or fully automatic rifle because they use them for hunting. It seems that you own them simply because you want to kill people.That makes you a pretty disgusting pile of shiat.
 
2012-12-16 10:27:50 PM

skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chumboobler: skull

I haven't overthrown any. I also didn't write the farking 2nd amendment. Guns are made to kill people. That's why we have a 2nd amendment protecting your right to own one. To kill people. This ain't farking complex.

So you think that it is okay to gun down innocent little kids?

hey farlie, chuck you.

seriously, you're a moran brah


He really is....just another gun grabber spouting off more bullshiat.
 
2012-12-16 10:28:19 PM

The_Sponge: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chumboobler: skull

I haven't overthrown any. I also didn't write the farking 2nd amendment. Guns are made to kill people. That's why we have a 2nd amendment protecting your right to own one. To kill people. This ain't farking complex.

So you think that it is okay to gun down innocent little kids?

Nobody in this thread does, stop being childish.

This tragedy could have occurred with handguns or pump shotguns.


it happened to be a Bushmaster which looks assault rifle-ly. Many semi-auto handguns would have sufficed
 
2012-12-16 10:29:23 PM

The_Sponge: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chumboobler: skull

I haven't overthrown any. I also didn't write the farking 2nd amendment. Guns are made to kill people. That's why we have a 2nd amendment protecting your right to own one. To kill people. This ain't farking complex.

So you think that it is okay to gun down innocent little kids?

Nobody in this thread does, stop being childish.

This tragedy could have occurred with handguns or pump shotguns.


If you believe that then you really don't know much about rifles, handguns or shot guns. He was able to kill so many young innocent children because he had 30 round magazines. If you do not understand that, you don't understand anything about guns.
 
2012-12-16 10:30:23 PM

skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chumboobler: skull

I haven't overthrown any. I also didn't write the farking 2nd amendment. Guns are made to kill people. That's why we have a 2nd amendment protecting your right to own one. To kill people. This ain't farking complex.

So you think that it is okay to gun down innocent little kids?

hey farlie, chuck you.

seriously, you're a moran brah


no, I am just dealing with morons.
 
2012-12-16 10:30:25 PM

chuckufarlie: The_Sponge: chuckufarlie: The_Sponge: chuckufarlie: The_Sponge: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: coeyagi: chuckufarlie: vygramul: Flying Lasagna Monster: If the assault weapons ban were allowed to still be in force, those 20 innocent children would still be alive. Hope you're all proud of yourselves, gun nuts.

That's completely false.

no, that is pretty much provable.

It's neither provable nor disprovable. I am not going to go into a long explanation as to why, anyone of any political persuasion can come up with reasons why.

of course it is provable, give him two pistols or a bolt action rifle and the number of dead would be much lower.

I'm not making any assertion about whether different weapons would have yoelded different results. But the same weapon was available.

got a citation for that?

Just follow the above link to wikipedia. You could still get the AR-15 only it had to come with a 10 round mag.

and that is 20 rounds less than what he had. That is a lot of switching out of magazines. True, not a lengthy process but ever second counts when a mad man is after you.

You do realize that pre ban magazines were available for legal sale during the ban, right?

Oh wait you don't....because gun grabbers do not have a sense of reality.

I have a great sense of reality. I have the good sense to realize that any semi-automatic or automatic rifle is not needed for hunting purposes. I have the good sense to realize that if you miss on the first shot, the target animal is going to be moving too fast for that second shot to do you any good. Unless, of course, you empty an entire magazine at the fleeing animal. Of course, that also means that you really have no business hunting if you do that. I have the sense to realize that there is no use for a semi-automatic or automatic rifle except to kill people.

I go deer hunting twice a year, once with a musket and once with a bow. That requires that I actually have to stalk the animal, not sit i ...

I did not respond to you about the magazines but I did respond to the person who posted it and who was conversing with me about it. If you do not like that, KMA.

Most people defend their right to own semi-automatic or fully automatic rifle because they use them for hunting. It seems that you own them simply because you want to kill people.That makes you a pretty disgusting pile of shiat.


Yes retard, I want to kill people....you and your room temperature IQ nailed it.

*Eye roll*
 
2012-12-16 10:30:29 PM

James F. Campbell: Clutch2013: Knowing that about me, what am I in your eyes?

You're a gun enthusiast with, as far as I can tell, a firm grasp on the reality of the statistical likelihood of ever needing a gun for self-defense who questions -- correctly -- his ability to ethically wield a gun in such a situation.


As am I, read what I proposed, ask any questions, and let's see if we can get something ironed out to flood our representative's inboxes with.
 
2012-12-16 10:31:11 PM

The_Sponge: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chumboobler: skull

I haven't overthrown any. I also didn't write the farking 2nd amendment. Guns are made to kill people. That's why we have a 2nd amendment protecting your right to own one. To kill people. This ain't farking complex.

So you think that it is okay to gun down innocent little kids?

hey farlie, chuck you.

seriously, you're a moran brah

He really is....just another gun grabber spouting off more bullshiat.


I've not even a huge gun guy. I *have* shot them but I don't own any. I live in farking NYC, FFS.
That said I am getting my info together to get my shotgun and rifle permit. Aftermath of Sandy was nuts in a lot of places and I don't wanna get caught with nothing to keep people out of the house, worst case scenario.
Besides I found I am pretty darn good at skeet and wanna make a hobby of it
I just don't think all this silliness is productive. Sensible restrictions on gun sales and ownership are fine with me. Gotta judge on a case by case basis though I suppose
 
2012-12-16 10:32:22 PM

The_Sponge: Yes retard, I want to kill people....you and your room temperature IQ nailed it.

*Eye roll*


He's not stupid, actually. He was home-schooled, and his parents never taught him how to think critically. Sad, really.
 
2012-12-16 10:32:53 PM

chuckufarlie: The_Sponge: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chumboobler: skull

I haven't overthrown any. I also didn't write the farking 2nd amendment. Guns are made to kill people. That's why we have a 2nd amendment protecting your right to own one. To kill people. This ain't farking complex.

So you think that it is okay to gun down innocent little kids?

Nobody in this thread does, stop being childish.

This tragedy could have occurred with handguns or pump shotguns.

If you believe that then you really don't know much about rifles, handguns or shot guns. He was able to kill so many young innocent children because he had 30 round magazines. If you do not understand that, you don't understand anything about guns.


It could have happened with two handguns and 10 round mags, don't be stupid.
 
2012-12-16 10:33:48 PM

chuckufarlie: point taken. That means that the new law must be much stricter. Got it!.


Well, yes, if we as a society want an actual ban, we need something unlike the hoodwink of the '90s.
 
2012-12-16 10:35:01 PM

chuckufarlie: The_Sponge: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: coeyagi: chuckufarlie: vygramul: Flying Lasagna Monster: If the assault weapons ban were allowed to still be in force, those 20 innocent children would still be alive. Hope you're all proud of yourselves, gun nuts.

That's completely false.

no, that is pretty much provable.

It's neither provable nor disprovable. I am not going to go into a long explanation as to why, anyone of any political persuasion can come up with reasons why.

of course it is provable, give him two pistols or a bolt action rifle and the number of dead would be much lower.

I'm not making any assertion about whether different weapons would have yoelded different results. But the same weapon was available.

got a citation for that?

Just follow the above link to wikipedia. You could still get the AR-15 only it had to come with a 10 round mag.

and that is 20 rounds less than what he had. That is a lot of switching out of magazines. True, not a lengthy process but ever second counts when a mad man is after you.

You do realize that pre ban magazines were available for legal sale during the ban, right?

Oh wait you don't....because gun grabbers do not have a sense of reality.

I have a great sense of reality. I have the good sense to realize that any semi-automatic or automatic rifle is not needed for hunting purposes. I have the good sense to realize that if you miss on the first shot, the target animal is going to be moving too fast for that second shot to do you any good. Unless, of course, you empty an entire magazine at the fleeing animal. Of course, that also means that you really have no business hunting if you do that. I have the sense to realize that there is no use for a semi-automatic or automatic rifle except to kill people.

I go deer hunting twice a year, once with a musket and once with a bow. That requires that I actually have to stalk the animal, not sit in a tree and shoot at an animal standing ...


Actually you describe exactly the issue that is common with hunters using Bolt Action rifles. People using, say, a Garand don't actually have that issue, they just aim again and pull the trigger, doesn't take long. The point is that while it's somewhat common for hunters to miss, they're not usually missing the animals, just the small spot that would have made it a clean and quick kill. Quick follow up shots usually put the animal down before it suffers.
 
2012-12-16 10:35:14 PM

chuckufarlie: If you believe that then you really don't know much about rifles, handguns or shot guns. He was able to kill so many young innocent children because he had 30 round magazines. If you do not understand that, you don't understand anything about guns.


He had a Glock 10mm as well. Can hold 15 rounds. He had 2 handguns. Up for some math?
 
2012-12-16 10:37:14 PM

chuckufarlie: iq_in_binary: chumboobler: dustman81: chumboobler: dustman81: chumboobler: "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."

It says so! Therefore every American citizen that is not a felon should be issued with a muzzle loaded musket, some ball rounds an a pound of black powder. There are the "arms" that were intended in the Constitution. Not fully/semi automatic rifles and handguns with large magazines.

The United States Supreme Court, the court that decides issues of constitutionality, disagrees with you. See District of Columbia v Heller which protects the individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves and McDonald v City of Chicago which, through the 14th Amendment, extends the right of the individual to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes to the states as well.

I am familiar with the Heller case and you are overlooking some things that were rendered in judgement that can be reviewed. Specifically what constitutes a militia. The court declined to make that definition. This means that while Heller could walk free, the definition of a militia was up for debate. They have not made that debate yet but may now, in light of the events that are coming more and more often. They also said that "reasonable restriction" is on the table. It was hardly the slam dunk victory the NRA claims. It opened the door to further investigation.

" They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Second Amendment rights are subj ...


What are you rambling on about? We're talking about ARMS. Not ORDNANCE.
 
2012-12-16 10:38:26 PM

iq_in_binary: chuckufarlie: iq_in_binary: chumboobler: dustman81: chumboobler: dustman81: chumboobler: "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."

It says so! Therefore every American citizen that is not a felon should be issued with a muzzle loaded musket, some ball rounds an a pound of black powder. There are the "arms" that were intended in the Constitution. Not fully/semi automatic rifles and handguns with large magazines.

The United States Supreme Court, the court that decides issues of constitutionality, disagrees with you. See District of Columbia v Heller which protects the individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves and McDonald v City of Chicago which, through the 14th Amendment, extends the right of the individual to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes to the states as well.

I am familiar with the Heller case and you are overlooking some things that were rendered in judgement that can be reviewed. Specifically what constitutes a militia. The court declined to make that definition. This means that while Heller could walk free, the definition of a militia was up for debate. They have not made that debate yet but may now, in light of the events that are coming more and more often. They also said that "reasonable restriction" is on the table. It was hardly the slam dunk victory the NRA claims. It opened the door to further investigation.

" They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Second Amendment r ...


FWIW, the 2nd amendment probably referred to ordnance too. People owned their own cannons and shiat
 
2012-12-16 10:38:45 PM

The_Sponge: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chumboobler: skull

I haven't overthrown any. I also didn't write the farking 2nd amendment. Guns are made to kill people. That's why we have a 2nd amendment protecting your right to own one. To kill people. This ain't farking complex.

So you think that it is okay to gun down innocent little kids?

hey farlie, chuck you.

seriously, you're a moran brah

He really is....just another gun grabber spouting off more bullshiat.


I am not going to be the one to grab your gun. The federal govt. will be doing that. It seems that the President, a lot of people in Congress and in the general population are getting fed up with you knuckle draggers not being willing to give an inch. You have taken a stance that you should be allowed to have any weapon that you desire with no compromise.

Sometime in the next four years we are going to see a gun control law far more strict than anything that you little mind can comprehend. And you can blame yourself and the NRA when they do it because you have been totally unwilling to cooperate.

There is no other instance in the history of mankind that has been as obtuse as the NRA and the rest of your rednecks. After seeing 20 innocent children and 6 brave adults shot down for no reason, your group is still adamant that you need to have your assault weapons. One of your ilk went so far as to say that things like this is the price we pay to keep our country free. I got news for you, Bubba, you and your redneck buddies are not what is keeping this country free.We are free because of the brave men and women of the DoD.

Of course, if you want to believe that the Soviets never invaded the USA is because they were so afraid of a bunch of rednecks with AR-15s, go ahead. You need to have something to make your life meaningful.
 
2012-12-16 10:39:42 PM

chuckufarlie: The_Sponge: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chumboobler: skull

I haven't overthrown any. I also didn't write the farking 2nd amendment. Guns are made to kill people. That's why we have a 2nd amendment protecting your right to own one. To kill people. This ain't farking complex.

So you think that it is okay to gun down innocent little kids?

Nobody in this thread does, stop being childish.

This tragedy could have occurred with handguns or pump shotguns.

If you believe that then you really don't know much about rifles, handguns or shot guns. He was able to kill so many young innocent children because he had 30 round magazines. If you do not understand that, you don't understand anything about guns.


Given the fact that lots of kids hid he could have had a revolver and gone from room to room till he ran out of ammo and killed as many kids.
 
2012-12-16 10:39:49 PM
Government doesn't need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.. just do away with the Constitution and the point becomes moot.
 
2012-12-16 10:40:03 PM

skullkrusher: iq_in_binary: chuckufarlie: iq_in_binary: chumboobler: dustman81: chumboobler: dustman81: chumboobler: "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."

It says so! Therefore every American citizen that is not a felon should be issued with a muzzle loaded musket, some ball rounds an a pound of black powder. There are the "arms" that were intended in the Constitution. Not fully/semi automatic rifles and handguns with large magazines.

The United States Supreme Court, the court that decides issues of constitutionality, disagrees with you. See District of Columbia v Heller which protects the individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves and McDonald v City of Chicago which, through the 14th Amendment, extends the right of the individual to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes to the states as well.

I am familiar with the Heller case and you are overlooking some things that were rendered in judgement that can be reviewed. Specifically what constitutes a militia. The court declined to make that definition. This means that while Heller could walk free, the definition of a militia was up for debate. They have not made that debate yet but may now, in light of the events that are coming more and more often. They also said that "reasonable restriction" is on the table. It was hardly the slam dunk victory the NRA claims. It opened the door to further investigation.

" They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Seco ...


no, they did not. The militia owned cannons, not individuals. That is okay, it is not like this is the only thing you are wrong about.
 
2012-12-16 10:41:22 PM

jst3p: chuckufarlie: The_Sponge: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chumboobler: skull

I haven't overthrown any. I also didn't write the farking 2nd amendment. Guns are made to kill people. That's why we have a 2nd amendment protecting your right to own one. To kill people. This ain't farking complex.

So you think that it is okay to gun down innocent little kids?

Nobody in this thread does, stop being childish.

This tragedy could have occurred with handguns or pump shotguns.

If you believe that then you really don't know much about rifles, handguns or shot guns. He was able to kill so many young innocent children because he had 30 round magazines. If you do not understand that, you don't understand anything about guns.

Given the fact that lots of kids hid he could have had a revolver and gone from room to room till he ran out of ammo and killed as many kids.


He did not get to the kids that hid. He shot a lot of kids in a short period of time before they could hide. Just one more big stupid mistake on your part.
 
2012-12-16 10:41:32 PM

skullkrusher: iq_in_binary: chuckufarlie: iq_in_binary: chumboobler: dustman81: chumboobler: dustman81: chumboobler: "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."

It says so! Therefore every American citizen that is not a felon should be issued with a muzzle loaded musket, some ball rounds an a pound of black powder. There are the "arms" that were intended in the Constitution. Not fully/semi automatic rifles and handguns with large magazines.

The United States Supreme Court, the court that decides issues of constitutionality, disagrees with you. See District of Columbia v Heller which protects the individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves and McDonald v City of Chicago which, through the 14th Amendment, extends the right of the individual to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes to the states as well.

I am familiar with the Heller case and you are overlooking some things that were rendered in judgement that can be reviewed. Specifically what constitutes a militia. The court declined to make that definition. This means that while Heller could walk free, the definition of a militia was up for debate. They have not made that debate yet but may now, in light of the events that are coming more and more often. They also said that "reasonable restriction" is on the table. It was hardly the slam dunk victory the NRA claims. It opened the door to further investigation.

" They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Seco ...


The SCOTUS rulings on the issue disagree.
 
2012-12-16 10:42:03 PM

diaphoresis: Government doesn't need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.. just do away with the Constitution and the point becomes moot.


Aren't you the stupidest little moron on the internet.
 
2012-12-16 10:42:23 PM

chuckufarlie: jst3p: chuckufarlie: The_Sponge: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chumboobler: skull

I haven't overthrown any. I also didn't write the farking 2nd amendment. Guns are made to kill people. That's why we have a 2nd amendment protecting your right to own one. To kill people. This ain't farking complex.

So you think that it is okay to gun down innocent little kids?

Nobody in this thread does, stop being childish.

This tragedy could have occurred with handguns or pump shotguns.

If you believe that then you really don't know much about rifles, handguns or shot guns. He was able to kill so many young innocent children because he had 30 round magazines. If you do not understand that, you don't understand anything about guns.

Given the fact that lots of kids hid he could have had a revolver and gone from room to room till he ran out of ammo and killed as many kids.

He did not get to the kids that hid. He shot a lot of kids in a short period of time before they could hide. Just one more big stupid mistake on your part.


Yeah in that room, in other rooms the teachers were telling the kids to hide. Are you really this stupid.
 
2012-12-16 10:43:01 PM

chuckufarlie: The_Sponge: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chumboobler: skull

I haven't overthrown any. I also didn't write the farking 2nd amendment. Guns are made to kill people. That's why we have a 2nd amendment protecting your right to own one. To kill people. This ain't farking complex.

So you think that it is okay to gun down innocent little kids?

hey farlie, chuck you.

seriously, you're a moran brah

He really is....just another gun grabber spouting off more bullshiat.

I am not going to be the one to grab your gun. The federal govt. will be doing that. It seems that the President, a lot of people in Congress and in the general population are getting fed up with you knuckle draggers not being willing to give an inch. You have taken a stance that you should be allowed to have any weapon that you desire with no compromise.

Sometime in the next four years we are going to see a gun control law far more strict than anything that you little mind can comprehend. And you can blame yourself and the NRA when they do it because you have been totally unwilling to cooperate.

There is no other instance in the history of mankind that has been as obtuse as the NRA and the rest of your rednecks. After seeing 20 innocent children and 6 brave adults shot down for no reason, your group is still adamant that you need to have your assault weapons. One of your ilk went so far as to say that things like this is the price we pay to keep our country free. I got news for you, Bubba, you and your redneck buddies are not what is keeping this country free.We are free because of the brave men and women of the DoD.

Of course, if you want to believe that the Soviets never invaded the USA is because they were so afraid of a bunch of rednecks with AR-15s, go ahead. You need to have something to make your life meaningful.


We don't have assault weapons. A few rich guys do, but the general populace sure as hell doesn't.
 
2012-12-16 10:43:51 PM

jst3p: WienerButt: I've never actually gone on FreeRepublic.com but only read what I see on here. I decided to check on it since Obama was speaking at that high school and the comments weren't even amusing or funny. They were downright depressing and scary. What the fark? Upset because they cut away from 49ers vs Bradys to show the speech? Then someone mentioned they were happy that Republican Dallas beat Liberal Steelers?

I...I just can't. I have no words. Never going on that shiat again.

I find them funny until I remember that their vote counts just as much as mine. Don't get me wrong, I don't want them disenfranchised because I disagree with them. It is because in a thread about Obama addressing the nation on the day of the shooting I found this there:

Exactly. The laws of psychics prove he did not shed a tear. His head was tilted forward as he read, meaning gravity would have pulled any "real" tears from the tear ducts next to the nose straight down the face toward the mouth. There is no possible way any "real" tears would have run toward the outside of his eyes unless he had been lying on his side which he was not.

It disgusts me how the leftist media, Fox included, ate it up.

He has no compassion for the deaths of these children because he has taught himself not to. That's probably the only way he could live with himself given his very open support of every type of the wholesale slaughter of children.


Because when I think "solid grasp of science" I think extreme right wing.


Back and to the left......

Back and to the left......

Back and to the left.....
 
2012-12-16 10:44:09 PM

skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: If you believe that then you really don't know much about rifles, handguns or shot guns. He was able to kill so many young innocent children because he had 30 round magazines. If you do not understand that, you don't understand anything about guns.

He had a Glock 10mm as well. Can hold 15 rounds. He had 2 handguns. Up for some math?


And the only time he used a handgun was to kill himself. He was smart enough to realize that the rifle was much more efficient, even if you are not.
 
2012-12-16 10:45:24 PM
Never been so glad for ignore...
 
2012-12-16 10:45:45 PM
i1273.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-16 10:46:24 PM

chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: iq_in_binary: chuckufarlie: iq_in_binary: chumboobler: dustman81: chumboobler: dustman81: chumboobler: "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."

It says so! Therefore every American citizen that is not a felon should be issued with a muzzle loaded musket, some ball rounds an a pound of black powder. There are the "arms" that were intended in the Constitution. Not fully/semi automatic rifles and handguns with large magazines.

The United States Supreme Court, the court that decides issues of constitutionality, disagrees with you. See District of Columbia v Heller which protects the individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves and McDonald v City of Chicago which, through the 14th Amendment, extends the right of the individual to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes to the states as well.

I am familiar with the Heller case and you are overlooking some things that were rendered in judgement that can be reviewed. Specifically what constitutes a militia. The court declined to make that definition. This means that while Heller could walk free, the definition of a militia was up for debate. They have not made that debate yet but may now, in light of the events that are coming more and more often. They also said that "reasonable restriction" is on the table. It was hardly the slam dunk victory the NRA claims. It opened the door to further investigation.

" They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they ...


Once again, Farlie... You're a moran
 
2012-12-16 10:46:33 PM

The Name: But it got me to thinking, I bet a lot of people carry for just that reason, because they "care" so much. I wonder how many of them carry insulin around, or a first aid kit, or a defibrillator, or a fire extinguisher, or even extra cash for emergencies. You know, just in the off-chance that someone's life depends on it.


I can't speak for other people but I have a concealed weapons permit. I don't carry all the time, but I go through phases of carrying regularly. I've got lots of first aid training, CPR, etc. I keep a fairly extensive first aid kit in the car. I don't carry a lot of cash, but I am pretty quick with the debit card if someone needs some help.
 
2012-12-16 10:46:39 PM

chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: If you believe that then you really don't know much about rifles, handguns or shot guns. He was able to kill so many young innocent children because he had 30 round magazines. If you do not understand that, you don't understand anything about guns.

He had a Glock 10mm as well. Can hold 15 rounds. He had 2 handguns. Up for some math?

And the only time he used a handgun was to kill himself. He was smart enough to realize that the rifle was much more efficient, even if you are not.


"much more efficient" and "could not have been done without it" aren't even close to the same thing.

You should stop, you are making yourself look dumber with every post.


/doesn't own a gun
 
2012-12-16 10:48:18 PM

chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: If you believe that then you really don't know much about rifles, handguns or shot guns. He was able to kill so many young innocent children because he had 30 round magazines. If you do not understand that, you don't understand anything about guns.

He had a Glock 10mm as well. Can hold 15 rounds. He had 2 handguns. Up for some math?

And the only time he used a handgun was to kill himself. He was smart enough to realize that the rifle was much more efficient, even if you are not.


ahh so it was the efficiency of the weapon and not the number of rounds it held which was the important part? You should have said that instead of saying something else entirely then... Talking about this topic this close to the event makes me feel kinda dirty. Conversing with you makes me feel kinda stupid. I think you're contagious
 
2012-12-16 10:48:29 PM

the_geek: The Name: But it got me to thinking, I bet a lot of people carry for just that reason, because they "care" so much. I wonder how many of them carry insulin around, or a first aid kit, or a defibrillator, or a fire extinguisher, or even extra cash for emergencies. You know, just in the off-chance that someone's life depends on it.

I can't speak for other people but I have a concealed weapons permit. I don't carry all the time, but I go through phases of carrying regularly. I've got lots of first aid training, CPR, etc. I keep a fairly extensive first aid kit in the car. I don't carry a lot of cash, but I am pretty quick with the debit card if someone needs some help.


I can't help but feel it's a little bit like wearing a life jacket all the time, just in case.
 
2012-12-16 10:49:02 PM
Has anyone figured out what well-regulated militia the shooter belonged to?
 
Displayed 50 of 1019 comments

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report