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.

(CNSNews)   Senator Nancy Pelosi (D-oublethink, Calif.) says congress needs to "protect and defend the constitution" by passing stricter gun control laws   (cnsnews.com) divider line 741
    More: Fail, Nancy Pelosi, gun controls, Gun Owners of America, senator  
•       •       •

829 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jul 2013 at 7:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-24 06:35:07 AM
I suppose we could just table the discussion until the next massacre. maybe if we pile the bodies higher, really let the cameras in there to rub our noses in the carnage next time, then maybe we might be willing to discuss some changes in our gun laws. But lets be honest - unless a rich person gets killed, we're not going to talk about how to keep powerful weapons out of the hands of people with bad tempers and poor impulse control.
 
2013-07-24 06:38:06 AM
Shut up and go back to your cave, hag.
 
2013-07-24 06:51:45 AM
When did Nancy get elected to the Senate?

/I'm out before the bullet counters show up
 
2013-07-24 06:56:13 AM
I find it funny as fark

Pro-lifers: we need to protect the kids! Ban abortion now!
Pro-Choicers: No! Abortion is a right!

Pro-gun controllers: We need to protect the kids! Ban guns now!
Anti-gun controllers: No! Guns are a right!


Why is that funny? Because both of them take the opposite positions and end up looking like hypocrites.
 
2013-07-24 07:11:34 AM
Texas just passed the "Stand your womb" act, where fetuses are allowed to shoot back at abortion doctors.
 
2013-07-24 07:31:57 AM
Also, Nancy Pelosi is a Senator now? When did that happen?
 
2013-07-24 07:42:20 AM

Weaver95: I suppose we could just table the discussion until the next massacre. maybe if we pile the bodies higher, really let the cameras in there to rub our noses in the carnage next time, then maybe we might be willing to discuss some changes in our gun laws. But lets be honest - unless a rich person gets killed, we're not going to talk about how to keep powerful weapons out of the hands of people with bad tempers and poor impulse control.


Weaver, even if rich kids die it doesn't matter, those kids in Sandy hook were the children of well-to-do parents.  If that didn't get the country motivated to do something literally nothing will.
 
2013-07-24 07:42:55 AM

jehovahs witness protection: Shut up and go back to your cave, hag.


Your mom is Nancy Pelosi?
 
2013-07-24 07:45:24 AM

cman: I find it funny as fark

Pro-lifers: we need to protect the kids! Ban abortion now!
Pro-Choicers: No! Abortion is a right!

Pro-gun controllers: We need to protect the kids! Ban guns now!
Anti-gun controllers: No! Guns are a right!


Why is that funny? Because both of them take the opposite positions and end up looking like hypocrites.


Ahhhhh, the ol' apples-to-oranges trick!

/Reasonable restrictions are not attempts to ban, except in the case of the anti-choice brigade. For them nothing but a total ban is acceptable. Gun safety advocates just want some reasonable restrictions, not the complete banning of all firearms
 
2013-07-24 07:45:37 AM

vernonFL: Also, Nancy Pelosi is a Senator now? When did that happen?


Subby obviously values accuracy in headlining as much as CNS values journalism.
 
2013-07-24 07:47:08 AM

cman: I find it funny as fark

Pro-lifers: we need to protect the kids! Ban abortion now!
Pro-Choicers: No! Abortion is a right!

Pro-gun controllers: We need to protect the kids! Ban guns now!
Anti-gun controllers: No! Guns are a right!


Why is that funny? Because both of them take the opposite positions and end up looking like hypocrites.


It's the difference between a health care procedure, which can save lives, or weapons for taking lives.
 
2013-07-24 07:47:20 AM
OK, does anyone have an explanation as to why conservatives feel the need to randomly capitalize words in their bizarre posts?  Every comment section on these weird-ass rightwing sites is like that.  I just don't get it.
 
2013-07-24 07:47:29 AM

vernonFL: Texas just passed the "Stand your womb" act, where fetuses are allowed to shoot back at abortion doctors.


If someone were trying to stick a fork in my head, I'd hope someone would shoot them.
 
2013-07-24 07:48:58 AM

Weaver95: I suppose we could just table the discussion until the next massacre. maybe if we pile the bodies higher, really let the cameras in there to rub our noses in the carnage next time, then maybe we might be willing to discuss some changes in our gun laws.


It would be extremely insensitive to gun owners to discuss guns after a gun massacre. Have you no decency?
 
2013-07-24 07:50:21 AM
FTA- "commonsense gun safety legislation "

That phrase makes me want to punch you.

Just be honest and tell me you want to take my guns.
 
2013-07-24 07:50:55 AM
Subby fail
 
2013-07-24 07:51:32 AM

Basily Gourt: FTA- "commonsense gun safety legislation "

That phrase makes me want to punch you.

Just be honest and tell me you want to take my guns.


Seems like common sense to take weapons away from someone that threatens violence because they don't like words.
 
2013-07-24 07:51:35 AM
She's right you know.
 
2013-07-24 07:51:42 AM
Couldn't get past the image file of "A Copy of the Constitution Printed on Ben Franklin's Press" -- it's like a little kid saying "yeah, well I'm Superman and I stapled the Hulk to my back!"
 
2013-07-24 07:52:34 AM

Basily Gourt: FTA- "commonsense gun safety legislation "

That phrase makes me want to punch you.

Just be honest and tell me you want to take my guns.


If you're punchy about that, perhaps you can't be trusted with weapons.
 
2013-07-24 07:52:40 AM
Well if she can just call herself a Senator, then I'm President of the World.
 
m00
2013-07-24 07:52:51 AM

Weaver95: unless a rich person gets killed


Rich can afford private body guards, who are never going to have their guns taken away under ANY Congress.
 
2013-07-24 07:53:34 AM
Perhaps if gun owners stopped threatening to use them if politics don't go their way...
 
2013-07-24 07:54:49 AM
Senator?  I know California voters are dumb, but not that dumb.
 
2013-07-24 07:55:35 AM
Has anyone pointed out that Pelosi isn't a senator?
 
2013-07-24 07:55:46 AM

Weaver95: I suppose we could just table the discussion until the next massacre. maybe if we pile the bodies higher, really let the cameras in there to rub our noses in the carnage next time, then maybe we might be willing to discuss some changes in our gun laws. But lets be honest - unless a rich person gets killed, we're not going to talk about how to keep powerful weapons out of the hands of people with bad tempers and poor impulse control.


I used to think that. I honestly did not expect the response to 26 school children being murdered would be "we need more guns in schools". So pretty clearly the gun nuts aren't going to see any problem that can't be solved by an escalation of firepower. The NRA is pretty much a mouthpiece of the firearms manufacturing industry, so they're out. The people who might actually make a difference have their kids in private schools and far away from the general public.

I think the Left should just cede the issue to the Republicans. Vote present on any firearms legislation and let them both determine policy and own the consequences. It gets rid of a wedge issue and eventually enough people might come to their senses when people are wearing gunbelts to movie theaters, restaurants, and bars.

Arkansas recently became an "open carry" state and I'm curious to see which way things are going to go; whether people will be unloading on each other in bars once they've had a few drinks in them or if there will be some social stigma to walking around like you're in downtown Fallujah.
 
2013-07-24 07:56:01 AM

KeatingFive: cman: I find it funny as fark

Pro-lifers: we need to protect the kids! Ban abortion now!
Pro-Choicers: No! Abortion is a right!

Pro-gun controllers: We need to protect the kids! Ban guns now!
Anti-gun controllers: No! Guns are a right!


Why is that funny? Because both of them take the opposite positions and end up looking like hypocrites.

Ahhhhh, the ol' apples-to-oranges trick!

/Reasonable restrictions are not attempts to ban, except in the case of the anti-choice brigade. For them nothing but a total ban is acceptable. Gun safety advocates just want some reasonable restrictions, not the complete banning of all firearms


Take a look at the state of gun rights NYC if you want to understand why people are against 'reasonable restrictions'.  They have just effectively banned most rifles and shotguns within the city and are also calling for a mandatory buyback (confiscation).  Get your foot in the door approach to the extreme.
 
2013-07-24 07:56:49 AM

Basily Gourt: FTA- "commonsense gun safety legislation "

That phrase makes me want to punch you.

Just be honest and tell me you want to take my guns.


Are you clinically insane? Then, yes, I want to take your guns.
Are you guilty of a felony? Then, yes, I want to take your guns.

If you are not either of those, then you should be able to purchase any firearm that a cop can get his hands on but you should have to prove that you are neither clinically insane or a felon.
 
2013-07-24 07:57:13 AM

JRaynor: Has anyone pointed out that Pelosi isn't a senator?


No, really? Then I guess Dracula isn't actually a Duke..
 
2013-07-24 07:57:40 AM
Since we want to paint un really broad strokes here, does the "senator" also think that "well regulated militia" means "any access without any regulation whatsoever"?
 
2013-07-24 07:58:02 AM

Alphax: JRaynor: Has anyone pointed out that Pelosi isn't a senator?

No, really? Then I guess Dracula isn't actually a Duke..


Wait, is Count below a Duke?
 
2013-07-24 08:00:16 AM
Oh subby fail. Subby fail so hard. So hard.
 
2013-07-24 08:00:36 AM
I'll make the gun nuts a deal that protects and preserves the Constitution: you can own and carry any weapon you want, as long as once a year you show up for a roll call followed by 2 hours of drill, and every 5 years you go on a week long tactical exercise supervised by the US Army.

Would that work for you?
 
2013-07-24 08:01:14 AM

cman: I find it funny as fark

Pro-lifers: we need to protect the kids! Ban abortion now!
Pro-Choicers: No! Abortion is a right!

Pro-gun controllers: We need to protect the kids! Ban guns now!
Anti-gun controllers: No! Guns are a right!


Why is that funny? Because both of them take the opposite positions and end up looking like hypocrites.


One of them is guaranteed by the constitution, the other is not.
 
2013-07-24 08:01:14 AM

KeatingFive: cman: I find it funny as fark

Pro-lifers: we need to protect the kids! Ban abortion now!
Pro-Choicers: No! Abortion is a right!

Pro-gun controllers: We need to protect the kids! Ban guns now!
Anti-gun controllers: No! Guns are a right!


Why is that funny? Because both of them take the opposite positions and end up looking like hypocrites.

Ahhhhh, the ol' apples-to-oranges trick!

/Reasonable restrictions are not attempts to ban, except in the case of the anti-choice brigade. For them nothing but a total ban is acceptable. Gun safety advocates just want some reasonable restrictions, not the complete banning of all firearms


And what is "reasonable"?  I'd argue the gun laws in the US now are reasonable.  Especially considering what they were before I was born (ie., much, much less restrictive).

So what happens if, indeed, we pass some sort of "reasonable" new gun laws, and 10 years from now there is another horrible massacre at an elementary school?  Short of a complete ban and complete confiscation, you're almost guaranteed that it will happen again, because it happens in countries that have laws much stricter than the US.

Of course, there will be calls for more "reasonable" measures.

That's precisely what has happened in the UK, bans and confiscations after high profile gun crimes, until you can't even own a modern handgun in the UK now.  Period.  They actually had to pass a law to temporarily allow them for the London Olympics, because otherwise the pistol events would have been in violation of the law.

The calls for "reasonable" gun control are a one-way ratchet.  Even if happen to personally think "once we get X, that's all we'll ever need", someone else won't, and they'll be pushing for the new "reasonable" law that they think is needed.  And yes, there are those who want them completely banned.

Don't think confiscation of guns is going to happen in the US?   It's happening right now in New York City:

"Rifles and shotguns that fit the City or new State definition of an assault weapon, or that have feeding devices that violate the five round rule, are illegal and must be immediately surrendered and invoiced.  They can be sold, modified, or disposed of lawfully at a later point after being invoiced".
 
2013-07-24 08:01:16 AM

MFAWG: I'll make the gun nuts a deal that protects and preserves the Constitution: you can own and carry any weapon you want, as long as once a year you show up for a roll call followed by 2 hours of drill, and every 5 years you go on a week long tactical exercise supervised by the US Army.

Would that work for you?


Social obligations are communism.
 
2013-07-24 08:01:18 AM

Weaver95: I suppose we could just table the discussion until the next massacre. maybe if we pile the bodies higher, really let the cameras in there to rub our noses in the carnage next time, then maybe we might be willing to discuss some changes in our gun laws. But lets be honest - unless a rich person gets killed, we're not going to talk about how to keep powerful weapons out of the hands of people with bad tempers and poor impulse control.


If only we had laws against bringing guns into schools, Columbine and Newtown would never have happened...
 
2013-07-24 08:02:24 AM

o5iiawah: Weaver95: I suppose we could just table the discussion until the next massacre. maybe if we pile the bodies higher, really let the cameras in there to rub our noses in the carnage next time, then maybe we might be willing to discuss some changes in our gun laws. But lets be honest - unless a rich person gets killed, we're not going to talk about how to keep powerful weapons out of the hands of people with bad tempers and poor impulse control.

If only we had laws against bringing guns into schools, Columbine and Newtown would never have happened...


Classic "I have no useful input."
 
2013-07-24 08:04:08 AM

Bllasae: cman: I find it funny as fark

Pro-lifers: we need to protect the kids! Ban abortion now!
Pro-Choicers: No! Abortion is a right!

Pro-gun controllers: We need to protect the kids! Ban guns now!
Anti-gun controllers: No! Guns are a right!


Why is that funny? Because both of them take the opposite positions and end up looking like hypocrites.

One of them is guaranteed by the constitution, the other is not.


Life, liberty, health, freedom: not for women, eh?
 
2013-07-24 08:04:19 AM

LasersHurt: MFAWG: I'll make the gun nuts a deal that protects and preserves the Constitution: you can own and carry any weapon you want, as long as once a year you show up for a roll call followed by 2 hours of drill, and every 5 years you go on a week long tactical exercise supervised by the US Army.

Would that work for you?

Social obligations are communism.


The militia clause does not exist, just like the establishment clause?
 
2013-07-24 08:05:14 AM

KeatingFive: Gun safety advocates just want some reasonable restrictions, not the complete banning of all firearms


I love when people suggest "reasonable" limitations to our rights, as if the term is an objective, defined standard about which only partisans and fruit-loops can disagree.
 
2013-07-24 08:05:53 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Arkansas recently became an "open carry" state and I'm curious to see which way things are going to go; whether people will be unloading on each other in bars once they've had a few drinks in them or if there will be some social stigma to walking around like you're in downtown Fallujah.


Oh look! the Wild-west theory on concealed and open carry laws.

not that its ever once played out in the streets or anything but lets just keep humping the fark out of that tired chicken and ignore the fact that most gun crime in America comes from 3 counties where guns and CCW are heavily restricted.
 
2013-07-24 08:05:58 AM

dittybopper: Short of a complete ban and complete confiscation, you're almost guaranteed that it will happen again, because it happens in countries that have laws much stricter than the US.


How often as compared to the US?
 
2013-07-24 08:07:23 AM
www.pewsocialtrends.orgwww.pewsocialtrends.org
www.pewsocialtrends.org
 
2013-07-24 08:07:25 AM

MFAWG: LasersHurt: MFAWG: I'll make the gun nuts a deal that protects and preserves the Constitution: you can own and carry any weapon you want, as long as once a year you show up for a roll call followed by 2 hours of drill, and every 5 years you go on a week long tactical exercise supervised by the US Army.

Would that work for you?

Social obligations are communism.

The militia clause does not exist, just like the establishment clause?


All of the clauses basically boil down to "interpret in whatever way is beneficial to me but requires no obligations on my self."
 
2013-07-24 08:09:24 AM

o5iiawah: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Arkansas recently became an "open carry" state and I'm curious to see which way things are going to go; whether people will be unloading on each other in bars once they've had a few drinks in them or if there will be some social stigma to walking around like you're in downtown Fallujah.

Oh look! the Wild-west theory on concealed and open carry laws.

not that its ever once played out in the streets or anything but lets just keep humping the fark out of that tired chicken and ignore the fact that most gun crime in America comes from 3 counties where guns and CCW are heavily restricted.

www.examiner.com

 
2013-07-24 08:09:39 AM

LasersHurt: Classic "I have no useful input."


the "No useful input" comes from the MOAR LAWS people who completely ignore the laws that we have already that arent enforced.

We could start prosecuting people who try to purchase a gun when they have no legal right to do so
Or Firearms stores for not doing their due diligence
Or we could extend prison sentences for people who get caught using guns in crime
Longer sentences for domestic abusers.

But no.  We go after magazine capacity, barrel shrouds and pistol grips.  Thats going to prevent the next tragedy.
 
2013-07-24 08:10:00 AM

LasersHurt: All of the clauses basically boil down to "interpret in whatever way is beneficial to me but requires no obligations on my self."


Sure, if you believe the Constitution was written as a set of rules and restrictions that citizens, and not the federal government, had to abide.
 
2013-07-24 08:10:21 AM

Weaver95: I suppose we could just table the discussion until the next massacre. maybe if we pile the bodies higher, really let the cameras in there to rub our noses in the carnage next time, then maybe we might be willing to discuss some changes in our gun laws. But lets be honest - unless a rich person gets killed, we're not going to talk about how to keep powerful weapons out of the hands of people with bad tempers and poor impulse control.



You either believe in a constitutional right to self-defense, or you don't.

Clearly, if you are a democrat (or some other leftist/Marxist variant) you don't.  Everybody understands that, so your rant really wasn't necessary.  Still, I don't think comments like yours, or Nancy's ridiculous statement, are going to persuade the vast majority of Americans to voluntarily remain defenseless - especially since it will require some sort of bizarre, utopian police state to enforce it.

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

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.
 
2013-07-24 08:11:14 AM

o5iiawah: We could start prosecuting people who try to purchase a gun when they have no legal right to do so
Or Firearms stores for not doing their due diligence
Or we could extend prison sentences for people who get caught using guns in crime
Longer sentences for domestic abusers.


The problem is that Republicans consistently fight against those as well.
 
Displayed 50 of 741 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report