Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers

[Screw_Michigan]

Rooster is clearly jealous of the size of David Hogg's penis.

At least he has a penis and not some bleeding gash flowing out menstrual bullshit like the stuff that comes out of your pie hole every post.

Nice IKYABWAI, tardstain.

[Left Seater]

What is sensible to you isn’t sensible to someone else.

Here is my issue. If we are going to limit the size of clips then put the same limit on Police. You want to ban “assault” rifles, then keep the Police from having any as well. What is good for the citizens should be good for the government.

Now that's not sensible at all. It's the job of the police to protect us. It's not the job of some CCW wingnut. And please link us up to the last school mass shooting perpetrated by a police officer.

The 2nd Amendment is there to protect the citizens from the government. The citizens should have equal footing with the government in most cases. If a ten round clip is to dangerous for a used car salesman from Wisconsin then it should be too dangerous for the police. And while I can’t remember a school shooting by a police officer, there are plenty of times officers have behaved poorly, see shooting the unarmed man in his backyard recently.

Again why do you hate the Constitution?

LS doesn't think the police should be able to outgun criminals. Wouldn't be a fair fight or anything.

Criminals and criminal behavior have never been a factor in the left’s drive to control guns. If criminals were the focus we would be discussing lack of mental health coverage and facilities, not taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

[Rooster]

I have to laugh when someone like goobs or Emma Gonzalez speaks in vague and opaque terms of “sensible” gun control legislation. The another amorphous term is “common sense” gun laws, which upon examination is never comprised of common sense, nor of any regard for the Constitutional protections which these gun grabbers are so quick to dispose of in a debate. Goobs says he supports the 2A, but that is like the guy who says he supports the troops, but spits on them in the airport when he sees them return from overseas. Most likely his idea of supporting the second Amendment is deigning to allow citizens a shotgun or single shot rifle for sport hunting, as if the Bill of Rights was a frivolous list of rights designed to protect a mere hobby.

[Derron]

"LS," if you haven't noticed, is a total fraud, a slimy slithering troll in every sense of the word.

Finally you weight in on something you have a lot of experience in.

[Rooster]

Finally, an honest word from the progressive Left’s latest sock puppet on gun control:
“There are so very many things, so many steps to take. Like, right now, sign our petition. It takes two seconds and it matters. We will take the big and we will take the small, but we will keep on fighting. When they give us that inch, the bump stock ban, we will take a mile.*

We are not here for bread crumbs, we are here for real change.”
—Delaney Tarr
*my bolding of the quote



From the mouths of children comes the true goal of those who are gun grabbers. Those modest common sense and reasonable proposals for curbing gun violence? All just a pretext for getting their foot in the door and enacting legislation that diminishes or negates the second amendment. Enough said.

[Goober McTuber]

It's the job of the police to protect us.

Yeah, we should totally leave that to the government.

Sin,
Those Four Stiffs At Kent State

You had to go back almost 50 years for that. And it wasn't even the police. Impressive.

And please link us up to the last school mass shooting perpetrated by a police officer.

The last time one was a factor, he was too scared to shoot anyone, and cowered behind some bushes.

So he was a factor, not a perpetrator. Still waiting.

[Goober McTuber]

Now that's not sensible at all. It's the job of the police to protect us.

That simply isn't true. The main job of police is to maintain order, and of course to help others when feasible. The reality is it's up to individuals to protect themselves.

And what would you suggest for people that don't own guns? Get a really big stick? Pointing to specific failures of a police force isn't a valid argument either.

[Mikey]

The purpose of owning a gun is to protect ourselves from the police.

Sin,
Seater

[Goober McTuber]

What is sensible to you isn’t sensible to someone else.

Here is my issue. If we are going to limit the size of clips then put the same limit on Police. You want to ban “assault” rifles, then keep the Police from having any as well. What is good for the citizens should be good for the government.

Now that's not sensible at all. It's the job of the police to protect us. It's not the job of some CCW wingnut. And please link us up to the last school mass shooting perpetrated by a police officer.

The 2nd Amendment is there to protect the citizens from the government. The citizens should have equal footing with the government in most cases. If a ten round clip is to dangerous for a used car salesman from Wisconsin then it should be too dangerous for the police. And while I can’t remember a school shooting by a police officer, there are plenty of times officers have behaved poorly, see shooting the unarmed man in his backyard recently.

Again why do you hate the Constitution?

Did either of the two officers have more than a 10-round clip? They fired a total of 20 shots. You are flailing badly.

And I don't hate the Constitution, you disingenuous tard.

[Joe in PB]

And what would you suggest for people that don't own guns?

Wait for police, they may not arrive on time, but everyone is free to choose how and whether to defend themselves.

[Goober McTuber]

I have to laugh when someone like goobs or Emma Gonzalez speaks in vague and opaque terms of “sensible” gun control legislation. The another amorphous term is “common sense” gun laws, which upon examination is never comprised of common sense, nor of any regard for the Constitutional protections which these gun grabbers are so quick to dispose of in a debate. Goobs says he supports the 2A, but that is like the guy who says he supports the troops, but spits on them in the airport when he sees them return from overseas. Most likely his idea of supporting the second Amendment is deigning to allow citizens a shotgun or single shot rifle for sport hunting, as if the Bill of Rights was a frivolous list of rights designed to protect a mere hobby.

More absolute total bullshit. Particularly galling is the comparison to someone who would spit on troops. BTW, I own 8 guns. Two are semi auto.

Sensible gun control for me would include the following:
Ban bumpstocks
Background checks for all gun purchases (including gun shows)
10-round clip limit

I would like to see an honest discussion at least. The whole assault weapon thing should be discussed separately. I'm not totally sold one way or another.

Stick to facts about me, Rooster, not your made up bullshit.

[Goober McTuber]

And what would you suggest for people that don't own guns?

Wait for police, they may not arrive on time, but everyone is free to choose how and whether to defend themselves.

That's fine, but does it not justify LS desire that police should only have 10-round clips. Which is where this particular part of the discussion originated.

[Goober McTuber]

The purpose of owning a gun is to protect ourselves from the police.

Sin,
Seater

Why is LS concerned about the police? They're only shooting brown people.

[Mikey]

There's no such thing as "sensible" gun control. It's a slippery slope and it all just means they want to confiscate your guns.

[Rooster]

The March For Life, which is predicated on the idea that we need to eliminate guns, has given rise to the foolishness of the Left thinking that if it weren’t for that pesky Second Amendment, we could easy do something right now. The funny thing is that the 2A would exist even if it wasn’t written down in our Constitution. Unlike a legal right like the right to due process, the Second Amendment is a natural right that is yours by virtue of you being a free man. It matters not one wit that it is codified— that is simply a written reminder to our government that our ability to defend ourselves, be that from home invaders to wild animals to a hostile and oppressive government is something that shall not be infringed.

This issue came up during the writing of the Constitution, where various people thought it unnecessary to have to spell out such innate and natural rights because they were self evident. However, there were others who did not believe the baser instincts of humans could not be relied upon to never appear and so demanded that those rights be numerated in the Bill of Rights.

All this leaves us with a significant portion of the American populace that firmly believes that the government dispenses rights and privileges to its’ citizens and that you don’t actually have any particular rights at all, except those which are deemed safe enough for you to wield properly and in service to the mob, err, democracy. We see this time and time again on the Left. Recently, our Progressive friends in Congress actively worked to diminish the First Amendment, the one they so often claim to feel* most strongly about.

Because of the totalitarian nature of the Left’s ideological origins, no quarter should be given in regard to any of our fundamental rights. But it is instructive to note that even in the worst cast scenario, these rights would remain in place regardless the law striking them down.

*feelings being the operative word here. Emoting is both the young and the Left’s strong suit, despite claims to the contrary wherein they loudly proclaim to reside on the more reasoned intellectual and scientific side of the political spectrum.

[Mikey]

Sometimes I wonder where you come up with this crap. Certainly you're not nearly clever enough to make it up on your own. So, which nutjob are you stealing it from?

Advocating for repeal of the 2nd Amendment is a gift the NRA doesn't deserve

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has raised a ruckus with a call to repeal the 2nd Amendment. It pains me to disagree with a lion of the court, but I think a repeal effort would be deeply misguided. It's politically unwise and legally unnecessary.

Advocating for repeal, in essence, advocates for National Rifle Assn. leader Wayne LaPierre's vision of the Constitution. But the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee unlimited gun rights, and it never has. The Constitution is not a bar to sane gun legislation. A broken political system and a failure of will in Congress and statehouses are the culprits, not the words scratched on parchment two and a half centuries ago.

Of course, Stevens is more than just a pundit weighing in on gun control. He wrote a key dissent in the Supreme Court case of District of Columbia vs. Heller less than a decade ago. That 2008 case was the first time the court recognized an individual right to gun ownership for purposes other than service in a "well regulated militia." In Stevens' view, however, the majority had "utterly failed to establish [such a right] as a matter of history or text."

Stevens said as much again in his op ed, and he is certainly correct on the provision's history. It was designed to protect the ability of state militias and their citizen soldiers to stand up against what the Framers feared might be a tyrannical central government. All white men were required to serve in the militia, and to own a gun. The intent was to protect an individual right to gun ownership in order to fulfill the duty to serve in the militia. (James Madison's original proposal also had a conscientious objector clause for those who did not wish to fight for the state.)

Today's America — especially with its proliferation of guns and gun violence — would be unrecognizable to Madison and his compatriots. All through early U.S. history, gun rights and responsibilities went together. In Boston at the time of the 2nd Amendment, for example, it was illegal to keep a loaded weapon in the home (they tended to blow up and start fires). In 1825, the University of Virginia board of visitors voted that no student "shall keep or use weapons or arms of any kind" on campus. Who were these gun grabbers? Madison, again, and Thomas Jefferson, to name two.

The idea that the 2nd Amendment protects an unlimited individual right to gun possession is "a fraud on the American public," conservative former chief justice Warren Burger told a TV interviewer in 1990. But that's hardly conservative conventional wisdom today So why not repeal the amendment?

Start with constitutional doctrine. The Heller decision established an individual right to gun ownership, but it also made clear that it was a limited right, and that gun laws would still pass constitutional muster. Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion focused on colonial history to bolster the individual right, but it said that "dangerous and unusual weapons" could be banned and a host of other gun rules would pass muster.

What has actually happened in the decade since Scalia and Stevens thundered at each other? Dozens of lower federal courts have carefully considered gun laws. Sometimes they limit government action. But overwhelmingly they have upheld safety regulations, even bans on semiautomatic assault weapons enacted by New York and Connecticut after the Newtown, Conn., massacre of schoolchildren. The Supreme Court justices have declined to take another 2nd Amendment case, thus allowing this consensus to take root.

If the Constitution makes it unnecessary to erase the amendment, politics makes it unwise, even self-defeating. There's a reason the NRA calls itself the country's "oldest civil rights organization." Far better to be seen as championing the Bill of Rights than defending guns, ammunition and mayhem. Even among those who support strong gun safety laws, there are many who would feel queasy about deleting one of the first 10 amendments. The reality is that the United States has gun rights because millions of Americans believe in those rights.

Stevens' op ed is right on this: It's time to think big about the gun issue. The remarkable demonstrations by hundreds of thousands of people, led by high school students, show a pent-up demand for action to regulate firearms. It's as if an entire generation shook off the compromises and acquiescence of their elders. As with the #metoo movement or the drive for marriage equality, sometimes social mores can shift sharply and quickly. What has held the country back is not the Constitution or court rulings, but legislatures in thrall to the intense minority of gun rights absolutists. Now a new group of passionate advocates has emerged. Let's see if they rebalance the political world.

A call to repeal the 2nd Amendment is a gift the NRA doesn't deserve. It gives cover to the false notion that gun control advocates want to "take our guns." We should fight, instead, for the true reading of the Constitution: We can have freedom and safety at the same time.

Michael Waldman is the author of "The Second Amendment: A Biography." He is president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html

[Rooster]

I have to laugh when someone like goobs or Emma Gonzalez speaks in vague and opaque terms of “sensible” gun control legislation. The another amorphous term is “common sense” gun laws, which upon examination is never comprised of common sense, nor of any regard for the Constitutional protections which these gun grabbers are so quick to dispose of in a debate. Goobs says he supports the 2A, but that is like the guy who says he supports the troops, but spits on them in the airport when he sees them return from overseas. Most likely his idea of supporting the second Amendment is deigning to allow citizens a shotgun or single shot rifle for sport hunting, as if the Bill of Rights was a frivolous list of rights designed to protect a mere hobby.

More absolute total bullshit. Particularly galling is the comparison to someone who would spit on troops. BTW, I own 8 guns. Two are semi auto.

Sensible gun control for me would include the following:
Ban bumpstocks
Background checks for all gun purchases (including gun shows)
10-round clip limit

I would like to see an honest discussion at least. The whole assault weapon thing should be discussed separately. I'm not totally sold one way or another.

Stick to facts about me, Rooster, not your made up bullshit.

I’ll be your huckleberry, Goobs.
What does a bumpstock do that cannot be improved upon or imitated by either more practice or something as pedestrian as a belt that holds up your pants (as seen on youtube)?

What does a ten round magazine do for you that an eleven round magazine does not? And if it is so effective, why not a nine or eight round magazine? Why bother with the farcical sop to reasonable and common sensical reforms and simply demand single shot firearms? After all, that is the logical end to your argument without sinking into reductio ad absurdum.

Finally, what would the universal and comprehensive background check deliver that nearly each and every one of these mass shooters had not already passed before committing the crime? Metaphorically, your solution is worse than applying a Band-Aid to a gunshot— you are sticking the Band-Aid on a part of the body not injured! Both are useless, but the latter fix is stupid as well.

For someone who claims to own and operate firearms, you are strangely delusional as to what would be (and hasn’t been to date) effective in preventing gun violence. Now I could pithily spout off dozens of sayings found around the internet, as I’m certain you could as well, but bumper sticker policy isn’t what is going to fix the problem—if there is any solution to be applied to living in an open society in the first place. Republican democracy based on our shared history of freeing ourselves from tyranny, Manifest Destiny, and opposing oppression around the world and at home can be, and frequently is, messy. Rare and infrequent occurances of events like school shootings are, if not a by-product of our open society, certainly an unintended consequence of understanding the depravity of the human condition— and there is no law or legislative fix for that, only freedom for those not so disposed, to resist them and, if necessary, kill them in self defense.

[Joe in PB]

That's fine, but does it not justify LS desire that police should only have 10-round clips. Which is where this particular part of the discussion originated.

I was only pointing out the misconception that police's 'job' is to protect the populace.

[Arch Angel]

LS doesn't think the police should be able to outgun criminals. Wouldn't be a fair fight or anything.

"LS," if you haven't noticed, is a total fraud, a slimy slithering troll in every sense of the word.

Like you?

[Mikey]

That's fine, but does it not justify LS desire that police should only have 10-round clips. Which is where this particular part of the discussion originated.

I was only pointing out the misconception that police's 'job' is to protect the populace.

Some around here would beg to differ.

[Arch Angel]

Rooster is clearly jealous of the size of David Hogg's penis.

At least he has a penis and not some bleeding gash flowing out menstrual bullshit like the stuff that comes out of your pie hole every post.

Nice IKYABWAI, tardstain.

Since your master, Moving Fail, orphaned you, you can actually win some awards for 2018. You are an odds on favorite to win not only Board Bitch but also Dumbest Poster award. It would go good with all those participation trophies like...

lamest dude in school
most nerdy in school
who is most to be a lard ass in school
20 Fingers classic trophy Small dick
more likely to get ass rape by a train

[Mikey]

As long as we're talking about awards...

The first annual Smack Like It's 1999 Award goes to...

Arch Angel. Congrats, dude, nobody else comes close.

[Arch Angel]

As long as we're talking about awards...

The first annual Smack Like It's 1999 Award goes to...

Arch Angel. Congrats, dude, nobody else comes close.

Yeah, we have one vote apiece.

Do I get a participation trophy for finishing second place?

[Joe in PB]

That's fine, but does it not justify LS desire that police should only have 10-round clips. Which is where this particular part of the discussion originated.

I was only pointing out the misconception that police's 'job' is to protect the populace.

Some around here would beg to differ.

Anti gun advocate and hypocrite Dianne Feinstein disagrees, which is why she has armed body guards.......


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Mikey]

Nice deflection.
Or not.

[Joe in PB]

Evidently the truth hurts.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Rooster]

Sometimes I wonder where you come up with this crap. Certainly you're not nearly clever enough to make it up on your own. So, which nutjob are you stealing from?

I don't claim to have any particular insight into Constitutional issues, but I did pay attention in my high school civics class. The fact you think I wrote something somewhat erudite (even if you gave me a backhanded compliment by accusing me of plagiarism) tells me that I introduced you to a novel concept you haven't considered before-- and that is a good thing. Many of the arguments have grown stale, and so if I have added a new wrinkle to this debate, if only on this board, I am very pleased.

[Mikey]

you think I wrote something somewhat erudite tells.

Your reading comprehension isn't too good, either.

[Mikey]

Evidently the truth hurts.

Another deflection. This is getting boring.

[Joe in PB]

Heart warming stories.

http://wgntv.com/2018/02/27/man-armed-w ... in-oswego/

http://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/m ... 1021218239

http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/son-sho ... rotect-mom

https://www.discoverferndale.com/neighb ... int_74295/

https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/loca ... /715154870

[Arch Angel]

Evidently the truth hurts.

Another deflection. This is getting boring.

Next time you come to the aid of a known board bitch like Screwy, stay the fuck out of it. He is a grown ass, well fat ass, man, or I think he is and can fend for himself. Noble thought of you to do that but I would not want to defend a short bus riding douche like him.

Now you are on my shit list because of it and I never had a problem with you. So I am going to be that annoying remora that will be on your ass each time you post stupid shit, like this post.

And quit being redundant with your posts, its annoying.

[Rooster]

you think I wrote something somewhat erudite tells.

Your reading comprehension isn't too good, either.

That's the spirit! Don't give an inch!

[Mikey]

you think I wrote something somewhat erudite tells.

Your reading comprehension isn't too good, either.

That's the spirit! Don't give an inch!

I'm trying to live up to the fine example that Goobs always puts forward.

Could there be any higher calling?

[Mikey]

Evidently the truth hurts.

Another deflection. This is getting boring.

Next time you come to the aid of a known board bitch like Screwy, stay the fuck out of it. He is a grown ass, well fat ass, man, or I think he is and can fend for himself. Noble thought of you to do that but I would not want to defend a short bus riding douche like him.

Now you are on my shit list because of it and I never had a problem with you. So I am going to be that annoying remora that will be on your ass each time you post stupid shit, like this post.

And quit being redundant with your posts, its annoying.

Well OK. But the response you quoted here had nothing to do with Screwy.
I know all these threads, quotes, and re-quotes can get confusing. But try and get it straight, it would make it much easier to take you seriously.

[Arch Angel]

Well OK. But the response you quoted here had nothing to do with Screwy.
I know all these threads, quotes, and re-quotes can get confusing. But try and get it straight, it would make it much easier to take you seriously.[/quote]

Fuck you.

[Mikey]

Now there's the spirit!!!

[Goober McTuber]

I have to laugh when someone like goobs or Emma Gonzalez speaks in vague and opaque terms of “sensible” gun control legislation. The another amorphous term is “common sense” gun laws, which upon examination is never comprised of common sense, nor of any regard for the Constitutional protections which these gun grabbers are so quick to dispose of in a debate. Goobs says he supports the 2A, but that is like the guy who says he supports the troops, but spits on them in the airport when he sees them return from overseas. Most likely his idea of supporting the second Amendment is deigning to allow citizens a shotgun or single shot rifle for sport hunting, as if the Bill of Rights was a frivolous list of rights designed to protect a mere hobby.

More absolute total bullshit. Particularly galling is the comparison to someone who would spit on troops. BTW, I own 8 guns. Two are semi auto.

Sensible gun control for me would include the following:
Ban bumpstocks
Background checks for all gun purchases (including gun shows)
10-round clip limit

I would like to see an honest discussion at least. The whole assault weapon thing should be discussed separately. I'm not totally sold one way or another.

Stick to facts about me, Rooster, not your made up bullshit.

I’ll be your huckleberry, Goobs.
What does a bumpstock do that cannot be improved upon or imitated by either more practice or something as pedestrian as a belt that holds up your pants (as seen on youtube)?

What does a ten round magazine do for you that an eleven round magazine does not? And if it is so effective, why not a nine or eight round magazine? Why bother with the farcical sop to reasonable and common sensical reforms and simply demand single shot firearms? After all, that is the logical end to your argument without sinking into reductio ad absurdum.

Finally, what would the universal and comprehensive background check deliver that nearly each and every one of these mass shooters had not already passed before committing the crime? Metaphorically, your solution is worse than applying a Band-Aid to a gunshot— you are sticking the Band-Aid on a part of the body not injured! Both are useless, but the latter fix is stupid as well.

For someone who claims to own and operate firearms, you are strangely delusional as to what would be (and hasn’t been to date) effective in preventing gun violence. Now I could pithily spout off dozens of sayings found around the internet, as I’m certain you could as well, but bumper sticker policy isn’t what is going to fix the problem—if there is any solution to be applied to living in an open society in the first place. Republican democracy based on our shared history of freeing ourselves from tyranny, Manifest Destiny, and opposing oppression around the world and at home can be, and frequently is, messy. Rare and infrequent occurances of events like school shootings are, if not a by-product of our open society, certainly an unintended consequence of understanding the depravity of the human condition— and there is no law or legislative fix for that, only freedom for those not so disposed, to resist them and, if necessary, kill them in self defense.

Infrequent occurrences? They seem to be getting more and more frequent. Not to worry. You'll get your comeuppance in the midterms and future elections. Despite LS' futile proclamations, the polls do tell a story. The majority of the population does favor some changes, and the NRA-bought-and-paid-for shills will start going down. Count on it.

[Goober McTuber]

Well OK. But the response you quoted here had nothing to do with Screwy.
I know all these threads, quotes, and re-quotes can get confusing. But try and get it straight, it would make it much easier to take you seriously.

Fuck you.[/quote]

The internet can be very difficult.

[Dinsdale]

clip

clips

10-round clip limit

Nothing says "gun knowledge" like using the word "clip."

Let me help you out, since you're an idiot -- you could have a 1000 round clip, and it won't fill the magazine beyond its capacity.

A "clip" is a device which is used to load rounds into a fixed magazine. The M1 Garand comes to mind, as does the SKS. I'm sure there's others out there, but I can't think of any. And I've never herd of one that holds more than 10 rounds.

It looks like this, dipshit:

[Dinsdale]

They seem to be getting more and more frequent.

Unless you look at the actual FBI statistics, which show they're on the decline over the last 20 years. Online outrage is certainly on the increase, though. And there's some activists out there making up their own stats.

QUICK... how many school shootings with more than two deaths (not including the shooter) has there been since 1996 (22+ years)?

The answer would be 14.

Which is still 14 too many.