Buy a gun before it's too late

[VABills]

Somewhere Thomas Jefferson is turning in his grave over the terrible news that it may become more difficult for pock-marked, pot-bellied, middle aged, angry white men in bad Wrangler jeans to spend their weekends shooting pumpkins with AK-47's equipped with the full array of accoutrements that they've become accustomed to. What is this country coming to?

No probably rolling in his grave knowing that if this goes through a bunch of crimanals with stocking caps and panty hose on their heads, angry whatever color doesn't matter, in gold chains, driving in bad parts of town will be spending their weekends drunk and stoned shooting innocent people because no one else will have guns.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Somewhere Thomas Jefferson is turning in his grave over the terrible news that it may become more difficult for pock-marked, pot-bellied, middle aged, angry white men in bad Wrangler jeans to spend their weekends shooting pumpkins with AK-47's equipped with the full array of accoutrements that they've become accustomed to. What is this country coming to?

A classic fact full liberal response. I am starting to to get the leftist idea-go on about northing till the listener is so bored they will coincide anything

[Steely Dan]

hard to shoot a moose from 500 yard swith a bb gun

 

Once again you take an argument to it's stupidest conclusion. Nobody is saying a common hunting rifle isn't ok and so a bb gun isn't going to be the only choice.

 

I don't have to talk to the people who were willing to pick up their own rifles and fight for their freedom. Losers like you would still be worshiping the Queen Mother and pretending people can actually be born with royal blood.

 

I have the utmost respect for the military. They need the guns. Average Americans don't.

 

And there you have it, a liberal just admitted that hunting rifles should also be illegal. Welcome to the next step in the process.

 

Another exaggeration because reasonable responses make you look silly. I never said hunting rifles should be illegal. I said that particular rifle should be illegal.

 

How about you tell me why they shouldn't, since my right is Constitutionally protected? I don't feel the need to argue the legality further.

 

Translation: I have no freaking idea what to say and so I'll try to turn it back on you. An answer would be nice but I bet you can spend the next week and not come up with something other than "It's my right under the second amendment." Just tell what they serve in terms of protection that other guns can't?

 

Somewhere Thomas Jefferson is turning in his grave over the terrible news that it may become more difficult for pock-marked, pot-bellied, middle aged, angry white men in bad Wrangler jeans to spend their weekends shooting pumpkins with AK-47's equipped with the full array of accoutrements that they've become accustomed to. What is this country coming to?

 

 

 

Somehow I doubt Thomas "The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots. Patriotism are the virtues of the vicious." would be thinking of the issue as a problem with the citizenry.

 

"I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house." - Thomas Jefferson

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherentin the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson

 

So you think Jefferson would believe that the rules should be the same now as they were then? I doubt it. His comment on having a gun for a farmhouse is that grocery stores didn't exist and hunting was necessary in order to eat.

 

He said the second quote when there wasn't a strong independent military. It's not necessary now. He also didn't forsee the power of modern day weapons. Explain to me how the British, or any other country are going to invade us and start a firefight with the strength of our military?

 

 

No probably rolling in his grave knowing that if this goes through a bunch of crimanals with stocking caps and panty hose on their heads, angry whatever color doesn't matter, in gold chains, driving in bad parts of town will be spending their weekends drunk and stoned shooting innocent people because no one else will have guns.

 

Once again you take it to the most ridiculous level because a rational post would make your point look stupid. Show me where Obama has said anything about taking peoples guns or illegalizing all guns. Stick to the facts even if they don't help you.

 

 

A classic fact full liberal response. I am starting to to get the leftist idea-go on about northing till the listener is so bored they will coincide anything

 

Yeah, that's only a "liberal" tactic.

 

How many conservative comments have been made in this thread vs. rational posts or what you call "liberal" posts?

[The Dean]

The best part is you think you're helping your point.

 

Really? What do you think my point is?

 

I hope you aren't against my having a few SAMs around...I DO have the right to defend my home, my city, my state and my country. In these times, how effective can I be if I can't take down aircraft?

 

Pretty soon you'll want to deny me the right to buy C4 at local gun shop. You God damned liberals are gutting the 2nd Amendment.

[The Dean]

A classic fact full liberal response. I am starting to to get the leftist idea-go on about northing till the listener is so bored they will coincide anything

 

 

As opposed to your tactic of being too freaking stupid to have a meaningful discussion.

[Alaska Darin]

As opposed to your tactic of being too freaking stupid to have a meaningful discussion.

This post made more priceless only by the fact that it followed your last one.

[The Dean]

This post made more priceless only by the fact that it followed your last one.

 

 

Don't worry Darin. I won't taunt you any further. I realize you aren't equipped to have a real 2nd Amendment discussion with someone other than a knee-jerk believer, on one side or the other. The idea of having to think and discuss actual nuances is far more than a "just stick to the Constitution" wunderkind, like you, can handle.

[Alaska Darin]

Once again you take an argument to it's stupidest conclusion. Nobody is saying a common hunting rifle isn't ok and so a bb gun isn't going to be the only choice.

 

 

 

I have the utmost respect for the military. They need the guns. Average Americans don't.

 

 

 

Another exaggeration because reasonable responses make you look silly. I never said hunting rifles should be illegal. I said that particular rifle should be illegal.

Except, you utterly clueless !@#$ing moron, you just stated that a common hunting rifle should be illegal. The fact that you don't know that a Winchester .308 IS a COMMON HUNTING RIFLE. But you should keep typing and adding smilies.

 

 

Translation: I have no freaking idea what to say and so I'll try to turn it back on you. An answer would be nice but I bet you can spend the next week and not come up with something other than "It's my right under the second amendment." Just tell what they serve in terms of protection that other guns can't?

You're right. I can't figure out how to respond to you because I don't speak dumbass.

So you think Jefferson would believe that the rules should be the same now as they were then? I doubt it. His comment on having a gun for a farmhouse is that grocery stores didn't exist and hunting was necessary in order to eat.

The fact that you think that is the issue shows how little you know about both history and Jefferson.

He said the second quote when there wasn't a strong independent military. It's not necessary now. He also didn't forsee the power of modern day weapons. Explain to me how the British, or any other country are going to invade us and start a firefight with the strength of our military?

Because the Founding Fathers never wanted a standing military. They were afraid of what it would mean to the country and the world because they'd seen what the British Empire was capable of. Ask yourself why the Germans never invaded Switzerland in WWII, despite their lack of a standing military. Try and come up with a real answer, instead of "dee da dee, I like the taste of poop."

 

Now that I've said that, the real answer is "who cares?" The Second Amendment wasn't put into the Constitution solely for the purpose of "protecting the country". Franklin said it best: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

You and the rest of the liberals who willingly give up their right to defend their homes, selves, and country for the perception of safety are cowards.

[Alaska Darin]

Don't worry Darin. I won't taunt you any further. I realize you aren't equipped to have a real 2nd Amendment discussion with someone other than a knee-jerk believer, on one side or the other. The idea of having to think and discuss actual nuances is far more than a "just stick to the Constitution" wunderkind, like you, can handle.

 

You have yet to bring up a salient point worth discussing. It's much the same way you "discuss" music. You're a typical coward who hides behind "worst case scenario" B.S. that's neither honest nor relevant. Then you overtly pretend to be it's intelligent when you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

The cool part is you're the first to point it out when someone with an opposing political view does the same thing.

 

One more thing: You need to look up the definition of taunt. You obviously have no idea what it means.

[Steely Dan]

Except, you utterly clueless !@#$ing moron, you just stated that a common hunting rifle should be illegal. The fact that you don't know that a Winchester .308 IS a COMMON HUNTING RIFLE. But you should keep typing and adding smilies.

 

You're the one who compared them, I didn't. You should keep distorting the facts because you don't need smilies. I'm laughing already and if the smiley comment is the best you can do then that's really lame. (there's another one, oooohhhh!)

 

I understand you love your big long, hard steel, powerful weapon and don't want to lose it but you're not going to. You're only not going to be buying another one legally. (waiting for a comment about them not being made of steel. )

 

 

 

You're right. I can't figure out how to respond to you because I don't speak dumbass.

 

Once again: I can't answer that so I'll insult. If you'd come up with an answer it would be really cool to see but you're to afraid to say what you think because it will come out making you look like a lunatic.

 

The fact that you think that is the issue shows how little you know about both history and Jefferson.

 

Because the Founding Fathers never wanted a standing military. They were afraid of what it would mean to the country and the world because they'd seen what the British Empire was capable of. Ask yourself why the Germans never invaded Switzerland in WWII, despite their lack of a standing military. Try and come up with a real answer, instead of "dee da dee, I like the taste of poop."

 

dee da dee, I like the taste of poop. Have you really sunk that low. Well obviously you have. So I guess Da Doo Doo Doo, Da Da Da Da. That's all I have to say to you.

 

But we do have a standing military whether they wanted it or not. So do you see how that changes things and how that changes what their ideas on it would be? Do you think our military is unnecessary and we could defend our country with only home owned guns?

 

Now that I've said that, the real answer is "who cares?" The Second Amendment wasn't put into the Constitution solely for the purpose of "protecting the country". Franklin said it best: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

Another lame attempt at avoiding the question. You really can't think of an answer can you? I knew you wouldn't have an answer other than it's my right. Still waiting and I'm giving you a week.

 

You and the rest of the liberals who willingly give up their right to defend their homes, selves, and country for the perception of safety are cowards.

 

That is freaking funny. Isn't the true coward somebody who needs a gun? Where did I say that people shouldn't be able to defend their homes or selves? Find it. Once again an exaggeration is needed because the truth makes you look bad. Are you cowardly about the big bad marauders who will come to kill you and your family?

[UConn James]

I have the utmost respect for the military. They need the guns. Average Americans don't.

 

I just find it funny that you think it's impossible for the military/govt to decide that they also need our First Amendment rights. Or, say, the Sixth Amendment rights just become inconvenient to them.

 

What happens when the 48th POTUS decides he wants to become dictator-for-life and has the support of the military, and by that time with a liberal youth bent, guns have been outlawed? Better stock up on those kneepads, people.

 

---

 

This is the start of the pendulum swinging back. Bush pushed it further to the right than it's been in a long time, now I suppose it's going to be going further to the left than ever on the momentum of the backswing.

[Alaska Darin]

You're the one who compared them, I didn't. You should keep distorting the facts because you don't need smilies. I'm laughing already and if the smiley comment is the best you can do then that's really lame. (there's another one, oooohhhh!)

Of course I compared them, you blockhead. They're pretty much exactly the same weapon except one of them looks menacing and people think it should be banned. The other one is apparently OK because it just looks like a hunting rifle, even though it shoots essentially the same bullet. Jesus Christ, they should legalize "cop killers" just to see if anything can get into your skull.

I understand you love your big long, hard steel, powerful weapon and don't want to lose it but you're not going to. You're only not going to be buying another one legally. (waiting for a comment about them not being made of steel. )

Actually, I'll be able to continue to buy them legally. As I stated earlier, the "ban" wasn't a ban at all and this one won't be either. The weapons were all still available, only they looked slightly different. But the ignorant (like you) have the misguided idea that something else was going on, which is pretty much how it works and why the freedom continues to be eroded.

 

Bans don't work. Never have, never will. They don't keep drugs out of schools. They don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. They wouldn't keep abortions from happening. They make weak minded people feel like they're accomplishing something because they simply can't face reality. There are no facts to distort, though you wouldn't be able to weed through and pick them out anyway.

Once again: I can't answer that so I'll insult. If you'd come up with an answer it would be really cool to see but you're to afraid to say what you think because it will come out making you look like a lunatic.

There's no answer to someone who doesn't have a clue. If I looked like anything other than a lunatic to someone like you, I'd question my own sanity.

dee da dee, I like the taste of poop. Have you really sunk that low. Well obviously you have. So I guess Da Doo Doo Doo, Da Da Da Da. That's all I have to say to you.

 

But we do have a standing military whether they wanted it or not. So do you see how that changes things and how that changes what their ideas on it would be? Do you think our military is unnecessary and we could defend our country with only home owned guns?

Is the military unnecessary? Quite probably but that'll never happen now that we've basically forced everyone in the world into thinking otherwise.

 

And if you don't think America could be defended with 200,000,000+ individually owned weapons, you don't know much about history. Especially American history.

 

Another lame attempt at avoiding the question. You really can't think of an answer can you? I knew you wouldn't have an answer other than it's my right. Still waiting and I'm giving you a week.

You can give me a millennium because your "question" has been answered throughout history, a subject you're obviously quite ignorant of. The fact that YOU don't like the answer or come up with an argument other than "Steely Dan can't think of a reason people should own a gun, so that's good enough" is pathetic - like virtually every take you have on virtually every subject.

That is freaking funny. Isn't the true coward somebody who needs a gun? Where did I say that people shouldn't be able to defend their homes or selves? Find it. Once again an exaggeration is needed because the truth makes you look bad. Are you cowardly about the big bad marauders who will come to kill you and your family?

You're a coward and the implication that you're perfectly OK with banning things you have nary a clue about proves that. You can put lipstick on that pig all day long but it's still a pig. Now go back to watching the talking babysitter for further instructions.

[Steely Dan]

I just find it funny that you think it's impossible for the military/govt to decide that they also need our First Amendment rights. Or, say, the Sixth Amendment rights just become inconvenient to them.

 

What happens when the 48th POTUS decides he wants to become dictator-for-life and has the support of the military, and by that time with a liberal youth bent, guns have been outlawed? Better stock up on those kneepads, people.

 

---

 

This is the start of the pendulum swinging back. Bush pushed it further to the right than it's been in a long time, now I suppose it's going to be going further to the left than ever on the momentum of the backswing.

 

Yes, another stupid exaggeration in order to make a foolish point. I guess you don't understand the difference between "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State... " vs. the right to free speech and I can't help you with that. Ruminate on it long enough and You'll get it.

 

Anyway there are limits to free speech. Just like there are limits to the second amendment. I'd love for the people on TV to speak the same way the vast majority of us do but they can't and those words are a lot less lethal than any gun. In fact I believe the rights of free speech are far more limited than the limits legally binding the second amendment.

 

You guys don't get it. Nobody is coming for your guns. Nobody is illegalizing your right to own an already purchased gun that falls under the law. Nobody is taking away your right to own a hunting rifle or a handgun. This uber paranoia is funny. The facts are twisted by you guys into something that is far more sinister than it is. They're only illegalizing a type of gun. Not all guns. Not the guns you currently own. Why are you acting like jack booted thugs will kick your doors down and grab your guns? I assure they won't so there is no need to be ascared of the dark. You'll still have your guns to protect you.

 

The military defends our right to free speech and the military needs guns to defend the country. If you're under the belief that you'll need your gun to ward off an invading army then you're beyond paranoid.

[Alaska Darin]

Yes, another stupid exaggeration in order to make a foolish point. I guess you don't understand the difference between "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State... " vs. the right to free speech and I can't help you with that. Ruminate on it long enough and You'll get it.

Without the 2nd, there is no 1st. Period. You can play the "militia" garbage but Heller has spoken.

Anyway there are limits to free speech. Just like there are limits to the second amendment. I'd love for the people on TV to speak the same way the vast majority of us do but they can't and those words are a lot less lethal than any gun. In fact I believe the rights of free speech are far more limited than the limits legally binding the second amendment.

Really? So there are 20,000+ laws currently on the books regulating Free Speech?

You guys don't get it. Nobody is coming for your guns. Nobody is illegalizing your right to own an already purchased gun that falls under the law. Nobody is taking away your right to own a hunting rifle or a handgun. This uber paranoia is funny. The facts are twisted by you guys into something that is far more sinister than it is. They're only illegalizing a type of gun. Not all guns. Not the guns you currently own. Why are you acting like jack booted thugs will kick your doors down and grab your guns? I assure they won't so there is no need to be ascared of the dark. You'll still have your guns to protect you.

It is you who has no idea what you're talking about but that's a continuing theme.

The military defends our right to free speech

Most absurd thing ever written on PPP.

and the military needs guns to defend the country. If you're under the belief that you'll need your gun to ward off an invading army then you're beyond paranoid.

The only ones who're truly paranoid are those who continue to fear inanimate objects in the hands of free men.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Yes, another stupid exaggeration in order to make a foolish point. I guess you don't understand the difference between "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State... " vs. the right to free speech and I can't help you with that. Ruminate on it long enough and You'll get it.

 

Anyway there are limits to free speech. Just like there are limits to the second amendment. I'd love for the people on TV to speak the same way the vast majority of us do but they can't and those words are a lot less lethal than any gun. In fact I believe the rights of free speech are far more limited than the limits legally binding the second amendment.

 

You guys don't get it. Nobody is coming for your guns. Nobody is illegalizing your right to own an already purchased gun that falls under the law. Nobody is taking away your right to own a hunting rifle or a handgun. This uber paranoia is funny. The facts are twisted by you guys into something that is far more sinister than it is. They're only illegalizing a type of gun. Not all guns. Not the guns you currently own. Why are you acting like jack booted thugs will kick your doors down and grab your guns? I assure they won't so there is no need to be ascared of the dark. You'll still have your guns to protect you.

 

The military defends our right to free speech and the military needs guns to defend the country. If you're under the belief that you'll need your gun to ward off an invading army then you're beyond paranoid.

I honestly do not know where to start on this one. The military defends our right to free speech? What country do you live in?

[Steely Dan]

Of course I compared them, you blockhead. They're pretty much exactly the same weapon except one of them looks menacing and people think it should be banned. The other one is apparently OK because it just looks like a hunting rifle, even though it shoots essentially the same bullet. Jesus Christ, they should legalize "cop killers" just to see if anything can get into your skull.

 

Do they carry the same ability when it comes to the number of bullets they can fire in a 30 second period?

 

Actually, I'll be able to continue to buy them legally. As I stated earlier, the "ban" wasn't a ban at all and this one won't be either. The weapons were all still available, only they looked slightly different. But the ignorant (like you) have the misguided idea that something else was going on, which is pretty much how it works and why the freedom continues to be eroded.

 

Then why do you care?!

 

Bans don't work. Never have, never will. They don't keep drugs out of schools. They don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. They wouldn't keep abortions from happening. They make weak minded people feel like they're accomplishing something because they simply can't face reality. There are no facts to distort, though you wouldn't be able to weed through and pick them out anyway.

 

Some bans do work. Making a categorical statement like that is absurd.

 

There's no answer to someone who doesn't have a clue. If I looked like anything other than a lunatic to someone like you, I'd question my own sanity.

 

Translation: I don't have an answer and I'm squirming and attempting to weasel away from the question. Keep trying.

 

Is the military unnecessary? Quite probably but that'll never happen now that we've basically forced everyone in the world into thinking otherwise.

 

And if you don't think America could be defended with 200,000,000+ individually owned weapons, you don't know much about history. Especially American history.

 

You honestly believe the military may be unnecessary in this day and age and that 200,000,000 plus guns would protect us from bombers and tanks and chemical weapons and nuclear bombs and highly trained armies vs. Cletis?

 

 

You can give me a millennium because your "question" has been answered throughout history, a subject you're obviously quite ignorant of. The fact that YOU don't like the answer or come up with an argument other than "Steely Dan can't think of a reason people should own a gun, so that's good enough" is pathetic - like virtually every take you have on virtually every subject.

 

Once again another distortion. Where did I say that people shouldn't own a gun? You're good at ignoring the questions I pose about where I said things you accuse me of. Well I don't agree with you saying that all women should be subservient to men.

 

You're a coward and the implication that you're perfectly OK with banning things you have nary a clue about proves that. You can put lipstick on that pig all day long but it's still a pig. Now go back to watching the talking babysitter for further instructions.

 

Ohhh, a stinging rebuke ! You, you big bully.

 

A coward? I'm not the one who owns a lot of guns. Those who do are the cowardly people. You can put lipstick on that pig all you want but it's still a pig.

 

Now go back to checking your night lite to make sure the bulb will last til morning.

[Steely Dan]

Without the 2nd, there is no 1st. Period. You can play the "militia" garbage but Heller has spoken.

 

So a well regulated militia defends our right to free speech?

 

Really? So there are 20,000+ laws currently on the books regulating Free Speech?

 

I respect your intelligence but you must know that one law can cover a multitude of limits.

 

It is you who has no idea what you're talking about but that's a continuing theme.

 

So you really believe that people are coming to take your guns away?

 

Most absurd thing ever written on PPP.

 

Use more smilies.

 

You just said the same damn thing in this post!?

 

The only ones who're truly paranoid are those who continue to fear inanimate objects in the hands of free men.

 

Right, paranoia about an invasion is much better than people who think there should be mild restrictions on weapons.

 

 

I honestly do not know where to start on this one. The military defends our right to free speech? What country do you live in?

 

That's what AD just said. The military is there to defend all of our rights. They protect our country and political system which includes the most important document, The Constitution of the United States. Get it now. Your inability to discern that is something that boggles the mind.

[Alaska Darin]

Do they carry the same ability when it comes to the number of bullets they can fire in a 30 second period?

You mean because that's a significant problem, right? Happens every day in a school near you. And the answer is yes. Any magazine fed semi-automatic weapon is capable.

 

I have a perfectly legal semi-automatic shotgun that can fire 12 rounds in less than 2 seconds and many, many more if I wanted to make something with an even higher capacity (not illegal). It's more close quarters firepower than any assault weapon on the planet. It's a gun I use to trap shoot. Because of ignorant people like you, someday there will be legislation to ban it. These things are done incrementally for a reason.

Then why do you care?!

Because when that ban doesn't work, there will be another one. Just like there was in Britain, Australia, and Canada.

Some bans do work. Making a categorical statement like that is absurd.

Really? Name some. Since you made the statement, it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with a whole bunch of them.

Translation: I don't have an answer and I'm squirming and attempting to weasel away from the question. Keep trying.

I'm not squirming at all and I don't have to prove to anyone who is lucid that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You're doing a fine job. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same thing, it's never going to be true.

You honestly believe the military may be unnecessary in this day and age and that 200,000,000 plus guns would protect us from bombers and tanks and chemical weapons and nuclear bombs and highly trained armies vs. Cletis?

You mean like in Vietnam?

Once again another distortion. Where did I say that people shouldn't own a gun? You're good at ignoring the questions I pose about where I said things you accuse me of. Well I don't agree with you saying that all women should be subservient to men.

You don't have to overtly say it. You're willingly going a long on something you're completely ignorant about.

A coward? I'm not the one who owns a lot of guns. Those who do are the cowardly people.

That's awesome. Just awesome.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Lipstick on a pig. Man you one clever mo fo. Did you just think that up?

[Alaska Darin]

So a well regulated militia defends our right to free speech?

You keep concentrating on the "well-regulated militia" part (and completely misinterpreting what that is). The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right (sincerely Heller vs DC). Always has been - just like all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

I respect your intelligence but you must know that one law can cover a multitude of limits.

Which means 20000 covers many more. This isn't that hard.

So you really believe that people are coming to take your guns away?

I believe that history repeats itself and that human beings are money/power grubbing bastards and that free men must be eternally vigilant to remain that way. Every right infringed upon today will eventually be completely gone. Frog boiling theory.

Use more smilies.

FOAD

You just said the same damn thing in this post!?

No, I didn't. Your ignorance of the Constitution and the Second Amendment are pathetically attempting to take words from my keyboard.

Right, paranoia about an invasion is much better than people who think there should be mild restrictions on weapons.

I'm not paranoid about anything. And "BANNING" is not a "MILD RESTRICTION". Jesus Christ, buy a !@#$ing dictionary you retard.

That's what AD just said. The military is there to defend all of our rights. They protect our country and political system which includes the most important document, The Constitution of the United States. Get it now. Your inability to discern that is something that boggles the mind.

Except I didn't say any such thing. Don't let that get in the way though.