Liberal Forum

No law will stop everyone with bad intentions from getting their hands on a gun, but if we can cut down the number who do, then I'm for it.Using this logic, we can "cut down the number" of people who suffer complications from abortion by restricting them more.Here's the thing, Misty,What you are calling the "gun show loophole" is actually free citizens conducting free trade with one another. A basic freedom, a basic right.Let's say that you and I live near each other, and like to go shooting together every couple weeks. And say that one of those times you show up with a new gun, say a Ruger LCP, and you find you can't hit diddly squat with it. But I can. Say you also really like my gun, and can shoot bulls eyes nearly every time with it.Should we be allowed to trade guns and go our way, or should we be forced to ask the federal government for permission?

I don't see how private sales like that can ever be regulated.But I don't think you should be able to sell your gun to a stranger at a gun show.Maybe there should be one law for all 50 states that you have to be a licensed dealer to sell at a gun show.How about the parking lot of a "gun show"?How long do you have to know someone before they are considered a "stranger"?Is a guy selling a gun at his table at a flea market considered to be at a gun show?How about having three guns on a table at a yard sale?In your quest to pass a "feel good" gun law that has absolutely nothing to do with what happened, you are overlooking the obvious,,,,

I called this one, five days earlier,,,,Oh, I know, if only someone had had a gun, they could have stopped those shootings.Can you imagine someone trying to take down the shooter (in full body armor) in a dark crowded movie theater in Aurora?The guy wasn't wearing "body armor" in Aurora, and I'll bet you the guy in CT wasn't either once the real facts come out.Wanna cite?Newtown Gunman Adam Lanza Did Not Wear Body Armor At MassacreA Connecticut state police spokesman on Thursday said Adam Lanza was not donning a bullet proof vest when he carried out the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., the New Haven Registerreports.Lt. J. Paul Vance said Lanza was only wearing a utility vest.“It was a fishing type vest, a jacket with a lot of pockets; it was not a bullet-proof vest,” Vance said.For TWO WEEKS this lie was floated out there that the shooter was wearing body armor.About the same as the lie abut the movie theater shooter in Colorado.This is a typical tactic of the anti-gun MSM and anti-gun government agencies.And the Liberal Left ALWAYS runs with it.This is blindly following the established talking points,Not discussing proven tactics for securing schools,,,,

See, unlike you, Dano, I can provide evidence. Pearl, MS shooting - 2 killed, 7 wounded. Stopped by armed principal. Appalachian Law School shooting - 3 killed, 3 wounded. Stopped by armed students and unarmed student. Stories differ as to who initiated contact with the shooter though. New Life Church - 2 killed, 2 wounded. Shooter was wounded by armed member and subsequently killed himself. Golden Food Market - 1 wounded. Shooter wounded and subdued by person with CCW. AT&T Shooting (New York Mills, NY) - 1 killed. Shooter killed by customer who was an off-duty law enforcement officer. Killer had a hit-list of six people. Trolley Square Shooting - 5 killed, 4 wounded. Confronted and killing stopped by off-duty law enforcement officer. Shooter killed by SWAT. Winnemuca Bar Shooting - 2 killed. Shooter shot and killed by CCW permit holder. Parker Middles School dance Shooting - 1 Killed, 3 wounded. Subdued by armed owner of the establishment. Destiny Christian Center shooting (Aurora, CO) - 1 Dead. Shooter killed by off-duty law enforcement officer. Accent Signage Systems shooting (Minneapolis) - 5 killed, 3 wounded. Shooter killed self. Sikh Temple shooting - 6 killed, 4 wounded. Shooter killed self. Auroa Theater Shooting - 12 killed, 58 wounded. Shooter apprehended by responding law enforcement. Korean Christian College - 7 killed. Shooter apprehended by law enforcement several miles from the scene. Chardon, Ohio High School Shooting - 3 killed, 3 wounded. Apprehended by law enforcement after leaving the school. Salon Meritage Hair Salon Shooting - 8 killed, 1 wounded. Apprehended by law enforcement after leaving the scene. IHOP Shooting (Carson City, NV) - 8 killed, 5 wounded. Shooter killed self. Hartford Beer Distributer Shooting - 8 killed, 2 wounded. Shooter killed self. Ft. Hood Shooting - 13 killed, 29 wounded. - Shooter was shot and apprehended by law enforcement. Binghampton, NY Immigration Center Shooting. - 13 killed, 4 wounded. Shooter killed self. Northern Illinois University Shooting - 6 killed, 21 wounded. Shooter killed self. Kirkwood City Hall Shooting (Missouri) - 6 killed, 2 wounded. Shooter killed by police. Westroads Mall (OK) - 9 killed, 4 wounded. Shooter killed self. Virginia Tech Shooting - 32 killed, 24 wounded. Shooter killed self. Trolley Square Shooting (Salt Lake City) - 5 killed, 4 wounded. Shooter killed by police. Capitol Hill Shooting (Seattle) - 7 killed, 2 wounded. Shooter killed self. Red Lake Senior High School Shooting - 9 killed, 5 wounded. Shooter killed self. Living Church of God Shooting - 9 killed, 4 wounded. Shooter killed self. Lockheed Martin Shooting (MS) - 6 killed, 14 wounded. Shooter killed self. Wedgewood Baptist Church (TX) - 7 killed, 7 wounded. Shooter killed self. Atlanta Day Trader Shooting (Mark Barton) - 9 killed, 13 wounded. Shooter killed self. Columbine - 13 killed, 21 wounded. Shooters killed themselves. Average of those killed when an armed person intervenes in a shooting: 1.9 Average of those wounded when an armed person intervenes: 2.2 Average of those killed when an armed person does not intervene: 9.1 Average of those wounded when an armed person does not intervene: 10.5

How about the parking lot of a "gun show"? How long do you have to know someone before they are considered a "stranger"? Is a guy selling a gun at his table at a flea market considered to be at a gun show? How about having three guns on a table at a yard sale? In your quest to pass a "feel good" gun law that has absolutely nothing to do with what happened, you are overlooking the obvious,,,, How about auctions? This doesn't relate to guns, but it could... Went to an auction a coupla-three years ago and there was a full-body mount of a whitetail fawn. By law, the mount could not be "sold". What the auctioneer did was put a vase up for auction and then threw in the mount as a freebie to the winning bidder. The vase sold for around $200. Almost every auction I've been too there has been at least one firearm up for auction.

Gotta keep in mind to get teacher back in this thread as well.That's harsh.I guess I hit a nerve.I called this one, five days earlier,,,,Wanna cite?Newtown Gunman Adam Lanza Did Not Wear Body Armor At MassacreFor TWO WEEKS this lie was floated out there that the shooter was wearing body armor.About the same as the lie abut the movie theater shooter in Colorado.This is a typical tactic of the anti-gun MSM and anti-gun government agencies.And the Liberal Left ALWAYS runs with it.Dick Durbin(D-IL), on the backs of these lies, has already suggested a ban on bullet resistant vests and the like.

I guess I hit a nerve. Dick Durbin(D-IL), on the backs of these lies, has already suggested a ban on bullet resistant vests and the like. Well, brother, ya might want to address what I threw out there.

Well, brother, ya might want to address what I threw out there.The Constitution specifically relates to US citizens. Yet then you apply rights to foriegners. All while giving me the strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment.Seems all a tad arbitrary to me.

Inalienable rights are guaranteed by the constitution, not granted by it

The Constitution specifically relates to US citizens. Yet then you apply rights to foriegners. All while giving me the strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Seems all a tad arbitrary to me. Your position then is foreigners do not possess a right to Due Process or Habeaus Corpus? In actuality, I'm providing you a very liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

The Constitution specifically relates to US citizens. Yet then you apply rights to foriegners. All while giving me the strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Seems all a tad arbitrary to me. The bed rock for the Constitution is the D of I, which states that ALL MEN are created equal, and ALL MEN are endowed with inalienable rights. For any normal human being, this would preclude the the feds from alienating any man's rights. The federal government may only be RESPONSIBLE for protecting citizens' rights, but that does not empower it to violate non-citizens' rights - not even to make you feeeeeel all saaaaaafe and fuzzy.

The Constitution specifically relates to US citizens. Incorrect, prog-breath. The Constitution specifically relates to the United States GOVERNMENT. The instrument defines its powers and limitations. Show us the section where "Making sure that women in Iraq get to vote and stuff" is enumerated. Show us, too, where the federal government is empowered to violate the rights of all non-citizens at its whim.

Wow. What a dick. So is hot little twist still a player? Or does it have a username now?

The punishment imposed by the state has ended, prison sentence, parole, probation. Yet, you desire to punish the person throughout the remainder of his life.Punishment has not ended. Jail and parole have ended. The con will have a record for the rest of his life. He will be considered differently from a non-convict in things like employment, military service, insurance, loans, he may be included in a list of suspects for a crime in his area, if he breaks he law again his record will come into play, there may be places a community will not allow him to live. Sex offenders have served their prison and paroles terms yet they still have to register. Hell yea a violent offender will be punished for the rest of his life. Deservedly so. Stick a gun in someones face and rob them then doing x amount of time in jail does not erase the fact that he was the kind of fellow that would stick a gun in someones face and rob them. Few are the times that a person really changes. Behavior can change.The implications of your statement lead me to believe that you considered him dangerous.Fine.Then.A Bulgarian Nun on a missionary job here in America to read to blind orphans does not get to keep and ear arms in America.If the Bill of Rights don't apply to foreigners, can you explain when they are accused of a crime they are required their day in court under the Bill of Rights?apples and orangesAh yes, replace those dictators with people who put in place a constitution where all legislation is based upon Islamic Law. But you know, they get to vote for their subjugation and bondage. Cause voting is what's important. Change the dictator, but make it worse. Wonderful system.I believe it was Churchill that said that democracy was the worst system of government, except for all others.We give the oppressed in other nations to choose their future. If they choose islamic law, so be it. But at least they got to choose it.When it comes to freedom and liberty, you take the good with the bad.ou mean like someone voting themselves islamic law?You compromise once. You compromise again. You compromise again. Then you get the realization that you can't compromise anymore, not because you're gonna hold your ground, but because you already gave them everything.Maybe you should look up the definition of compromise. In compromise you give up sumpin to gain sumpin, so you haven't given all. My compromise is to have non recorded background checks in trade for vast, federal concealed carry laws. What do we lose? Criminals not being able to get their hands on some guns. What do we gain? Buku law abiding folks having greater access to guns. More guns for good guys, less guns for bad guys.In what world is that a bad thing? What have we lost?Since you're arguing the 2nd Amendment, what part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing you?The Founding Father's intent of the second amendment was to keep us free, for us to be able to protect ourselves. I say arming felons goes against that intent.So, to be clear, you advocate that violent felons, foreigners, crazy people and Mehican drug cartel members in the country illegally should be able to purchase weapons in America with zero oversight?And the morale of the story?The liberal says he is not against the 2nd amendment. The liberal says he does not want to take away guns from law abiding citizens. They say they are for "common sense" solutions to curb the deaths. I say bull$h!t. I say everything the liberal does is to castrate the 2nd amendment without repealing the 2nd amendment cause they know that ain't ever gonna get that done. Look at this thread. The liberal wants background checks real bad. This thread clearly shows that the amount of weapons being purchased without a background check is very low. Bushmasters, I don't believe, would be covered under concealed carry laws. I'm not asking the liberal, with my compromise offer, to allow Joe and Marsha, Marsha, Marsha Sixpack to allow me to keep a M-60 in my pants. (Insert penis insults here, you know, derringer/snub nose 22 references, shooting blanks...) I'm asking that the liberal allow more law abiding citizens to be able to carry a pistol under stringent rules. Now, Mr. Swine, this is an internet political debate forum. We ain't gonna make no laws, we ain't gonna legislate nuttin, we ain't gonna change nuttin here. All we can hope to accomplish is to show the other side is full of $h!t. One thing, among others, that I have learned in my years of being The friggin Man on internet political debate forums is that the liberal is fairly easily shown to be full of $h!t. One just has to ask the correct simple questions that the liberal dare not answer less he exposes his true agenda. I don't hope for answers, the liberal knows more betterer by now to answer my questions. Most likely cause I splain all this to them from the get go. So all that is left to the liberal is to not answer my simple questions, or, in this case, address my compromise. Ignoring sumpin at an internet political debate forum is an answer in itself, would you not agree? I've got a thread that gets some few views. This Monkey thread gets some few views. Not a single liberal has touched my compromise offer. Oh, they'll take the background check, but they ain't gonna go near the concealed carry part of the compromise. If they did that would lead to more simple questions. "So, you don't want more law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves yet you claim that you are not against law abiding citizens being able to defend themselves. Why is this?" If they answer that one it will be a crap answer that leads to more simple questions. Eventually they are firmly painted into a corner, at which point they flee the thread and go start another thread on the same topic with the same swill hoping I won't notice. I notice, but I let them slide. What's the point of destroying some idiot twice? We all know what happened the first time. One of my main missions here is to show liberals are liars and hypocrites. An example I love is I offer the compromise of raising taxes on the rich in exchange for a balanced budget amendment. The liberal wont touch that, kinda shows they really don't want a balanced budget, right? And then why don't they want a balanced budget amendment? Cause that would be good for America and the liberal does not want capitalist America to exist as it does. They want socialism/communism/Marxism/statism and a way to accomplish that is to bankrupt America and then say "see, capitalism doesn't work, now try our way." They can't address that, it's a slam dunk. It's a formula that works.All that being said I still don't want violent felons, whackjobs, a Mehican drug cartel member in the country illegally or a Nun from Bulgaria to be sporting a weapon in my nation.

Punishment has not ended. Jail and parole have ended. The con will have a record for the rest of his life. He will be considered differently from a non-convict in things like employment, military service, insurance, loans, he may be included in a list of suspects for a crime in his area, if he breaks he law again his record will come into play, there may be places a community will not allow him to live. Sex offenders have served their prison and paroles terms yet they still have to register. Hell yea a violent offender will be punished for the rest of his life. Deservedly so. Stick a gun in someones face and rob them then doing x amount of time in jail does not erase the fact that he was the kind of fellow that would stick a gun in someones face and rob them. Few are the times that a person really changes. Behavior can change. That's all well and good so long as it's a private citizen engaging in the discrimination. Which means the firearm dealer can deny the person from purchasing a firearm from his store. For any reason. Fine. Then. A Bulgarian Nun on a missionary job here in America to read to blind orphans does not get to keep and ear arms in America. And she will still possess the right to defend herself by firearm. If the Bill of Rights don't apply to foreigners, can you explain when they are accused of a crime they are required their day in court under the Bill of Rights? apples and oranges Bull. If a foreigner is accused and charged with a crime that occured in the US, that foreigner has a right to due process, equal protection, the right to remain silent and the right to be secure in their person, places and papers. I believe it was Churchill that said that democracy was the worst system of government, except for all others. We give the oppressed in other nations to choose their future. If they choose islamic law, so be it. But at least they got to choose it. And yet what we see is the government committing crimes against those people who disagree with the government. In some cases those people are prevented from leaving the nation. I don't see the US attacking those nations. Do you? you mean like someone voting themselves islamic law? Sure, those who voted for it. But what of those who don't want to be subjected to it and then are prevented from leaving? Maybe you should look up the definition of compromise. In compromise you give up sumpin to gain sumpin, so you haven't given all. My compromise is to have non recorded background checks in trade for vast, federal concealed carry laws. What do we lose? Criminals not being able to get their hands on some guns. What do we gain? Buku law abiding folks having greater access to guns. More guns for good guys, less guns for bad guys. In what world is that a bad thing? What have we lost? Because this is the Progressive modus operandi. I'm gonna call this right now. Feinstein is going to present her bill screaming for the world in her demands. She knows she won't get ALL of them. But the politics will succumb to compromise and bargain down to a lesser restriction. She'll go along, because she knows she won't get all she's demanded. But she got some. She got restrictions on the American people that weren't there before. And two years later she'll be back with more demanding the world. And they'll compromise some more. And she'll get a touch more in her demands. Her demands from two years previously. And two years after that she'll get more due to compromise. It's how Progressives operate. Blow it all out of proportion, then "compromise". And you suckers fall for it every time. This is why the Democrats are winning. You're willing to compromise on freedom and liberty. I'm not. The Founding Father's intent of the second amendment was to keep us free, for us to be able to protect ourselves. I say arming felons goes against that intent. So, to be clear, you advocate that violent felons, foreigners, crazy people and Mehican drug cartel members in the country illegally should be able to purchase weapons in America with zero oversight? Not government oversight. Let the firearm dealer make that distinction. Where does it state in the 2nd Amendment "shall not be infringed unless a person is a violent felon, foreigner, crazy or a drug cartel member."? And the morale of the story? The liberal says he is not against the 2nd amendment. The liberal says he does not want to take away guns from law abiding citizens. They say they are for "common sense" solutions to curb the deaths. I say bull$h!t. I say everything the liberal does is to castrate the 2nd amendment without repealing the 2nd amendment cause they know that ain't ever gonna get that done. Look at this thread. The liberal wants background checks real bad. This thread clearly shows that the amount of weapons being purchased without a background check is very low. Bushmasters, I don't believe, would be covered under concealed carry laws. I'm not asking the liberal, with my compromise offer, to allow Joe and Marsha, Marsha, Marsha Sixpack to allow me to keep a M-60 in my pants. (Insert penis insults here, you know, derringer/snub nose 22 references, shooting blanks...) I'm asking that the liberal allow more law abiding citizens to be able to carry a pistol under stringent rules. Now, Mr. Swine, this is an internet political debate forum. We ain't gonna make no laws, we ain't gonna legislate nuttin, we ain't gonna change nuttin here. All we can hope to accomplish is to show the other side is full of $h!t. One thing, among others, that I have learned in my years of being The friggin Man on internet political debate forums is that the liberal is fairly easily shown to be full of $h!t. One just has to ask the correct simple questions that the liberal dare not answer less he exposes his true agenda. I don't hope for answers, the liberal knows more betterer by now to answer my questions. Most likely cause I splain all this to them from the get go. So all that is left to the liberal is to not answer my simple questions, or, in this case, address my compromise. Ignoring sumpin at an internet political debate forum is an answer in itself, would you not agree? I've got a thread that gets some few views. This Monkey thread gets some few views. Not a single liberal has touched my compromise offer. Oh, they'll take the background check, but they ain't gonna go near the concealed carry part of the compromise. If they did that would lead to more simple questions. "So, you don't want more law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves yet you claim that you are not against law abiding citizens being able to defend themselves. Why is this?" If they answer that one it will be a crap answer that leads to more simple questions. Eventually they are firmly painted into a corner, at which point they flee the thread and go start another thread on the same topic with the same swill hoping I won't notice. I notice, but I let them slide. What's the point of destroying some idiot twice? We all know what happened the first time. One of my main missions here is to show liberals are liars and hypocrites. An example I love is I offer the compromise of raising taxes on the rich in exchange for a balanced budget amendment. The liberal wont touch that, kinda shows they really don't want a balanced budget, right? And then why don't they want a balanced budget amendment? Cause that would be good for America and the liberal does not want capitalist America to exist as it does. They want socialism/communism/Marxism/statism and a way to accomplish that is to bankrupt America and then say "see, capitalism doesn't work, now try our way." They can't address that, it's a slam dunk. It's a formula that works. All that being said I still don't want violent felons, whackjobs, a Mehican drug cartel member in the country illegally or a Nun from Bulgaria to be sporting a weapon in my nation. How's that worked out for ya? Attempting to compromise with Progressives? Bet they'll get more than you.

teacher: I still don't want violent felons, whackjobs, a Mehican drug cartel member in the country illegally or a Nun from Bulgaria to be sporting a weapon in my nation. What do you have against Nuns?

What do you have against Nuns? they're sometimes hard to talk into a blow-job.

they're sometimes hard to talk into a blow-job.ROFLHappy New Year lews.

ROFL Happy New Year lews. happy new years, hon. not doing a damn thing tonight except hanging out with the kid. maybe watch times square.

happy new years, hon. not doing a damn thing tonight except hanging out with the kid.maybe watch times square.That sounds great.We're not doing anything either.I like a nice quiet New Year's Eve.