10 people shot dead in Texas

weisses

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Fook No is right, lets focus on comifornia for a second.

If I carry my 357 on my person without a permit I go to jail for a long time.
My second amendment (federal) should trump all state laws, how is that legal?
so yeah fook libtards

all they spout is "ban all guns" ... how about some options?

I think you turned out to be the perfect example as to why have tougher gun laws

Manic Moran

TeaBagMania wrote: »

My second amendment (federal) should trump all state laws, how is that legal?

For the sake of another civics lesson, it is because no authority competent in California has held that the reasonable restrictions permissible upon the exercise of Constitutional rights does not include carriage in public.

As California is one of the six states without a Constitutional right to arms, State courts have not ruled on the issue. Thus far, the 9th has only ruled that 2A does not confer a right to concealed carry, but has remained silent in the idea of open carry. Heller does not rule, as it concerned ownership and carriage within the home.

It seems likely that 9th will indeed rule that some form of carriage will be mandated, it will follow the rulings in other circuits such as the 7th, and the line of questioning at oral argument in Young v Hawaii indicates as much, but until it so holds, that’s how it is considered legal. The way our system works.

TeaBagMania

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

you know how you can tell conservatives are rarely smart people? they think coming up with terms like Comifornia and libtards are really clever uses of language. it should come as little surprise that conservatives frequently score significantly lower on IQ and creativity tests than those who have more left leaning views. where do you think people are smarter on average, California or Alabama? .

Everyone asks, what can we do to stop school shootings?
how about being polite to start with
you my friend are a bully and its callus people like you that push people over the edge, and ulitmately lead to these kind of shootings
personally, I have thick skin and couldn't care less about your opinion

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

i almost never hear anyone in the US saying ban all guns.

give the libtards an inch (AR15's) and they'll take a mile... all guns

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

was the ban on people with mental issues owning guns not a sensible option? why was that overturned, explain it to me if you can please. .

Couldn't agree more, peeps with mental issues have no business owning a firearm

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

the 2nd amendment gives you the right to own firearms, it doesn't mean you can't be required to register guns or have permits to carry them in public. .

Where does the 2nd amendment state "must register fire arms"?
I have a permit to carry thank you

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

a ten year old child can understand these simple concepts. the fact that you cannot wrap your head around them is baffling, and the thought of someone with such limited mental capacity walking around armed is alarming.

just an example of another bully comment

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

I'm willing to bet you cannot and will not answer a single one of the questions above.

you lost that bet and owe me a cold Guinness

TeaBagMania

weisses wrote: »

I think you turned out to be the perfect example as to why have tougher gun laws

Please explain?

TOss Sweep

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Everyone asks, what can we do to stop school shootings?
how about being polite to start with
you my friend are a bully and its callus people like you that push people over the edge, and ulitmately lead to these kind of shootings
personally, I have thick skin and couldn't care less about your opinion

Hilarious. The irony of your posts. You call NinetyTwoTeam a bully but yet you keep using

give the libtards an inch (AR15's) and they'll take a mile... all guns

You understand what libtard is supposed to mean right? So wouldn't that make you a hypocrite? I am going to bully Liberals until they bully me back and then I am going to complain about being bullied is how it looks.

I also love how you say people should be polite and you don't care about their opinions but yet you keep responding. Also the fact you believe weisses is a bully really doesn't make that thick skin of yours seem thick.


You yourself are part of the problem in the US both you and your buddies on the extreme right and those on the extreme left. Anybody who wants whats best for America sit in between regardless of political party.

TeaBagMania

There is a difference between using a derogatory term to describe a political group and attacking an individual person

Wait, does libtard describe you, is that why you're mad?

Manic Moran

It’s a cheap, divisive insult used mainly by folks who are apparently unable to articulate a coherent argument and have no interest in attempting discourse.

TOss Sweep

TeaBagMania wrote: »

There is a difference between using a derogatory term to describe a political group and attacking an individual person

There really isn't.

Wait, does libtard describe you, is that why you're mad?

The more you post the funnier it gets. Mad thing is if I said I was a liberal that would make you 100% a hypocrite and demolish the quote above. You truly are living up to the stereotype. Well done.

TeaBagMania

TOss Sweep wrote: »

The more you post the funnier it gets. Mad thing is if I said I was a liberal that would make you 100% a hypocrite and demolish the quote above. You truly are living up to the stereotype. Well done.

LOL, awww you just a mad wittle guy

TOss Sweep

TeaBagMania wrote: »

TOss Sweep wrote: »

The more you post the funnier it gets. Mad thing is if I said I was a liberal that would make you 100% a hypocrite and demolish the quote above. You truly are living up to the stereotype. Well done.

LOL, awww you just a mad wittle guy

Awe how cute you think Im mad. Are you posting from your safe place just in case someone bullies you online? Hilarious

Madd Finn

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Fook No is right, lets focus on comifornia for a second.

If I carry my 357 on my person without a permit I go to jail for a long time.
My second amendment (federal) should trump all state laws, how is that legal?
so yeah fook libtards

all they spout is "ban all guns" ... how about some options?

Show me ONE democratic country where "all guns" are banned. Just one.

Even in Britain, the most gun-phobic country on the planet, it is permissible for citizens to own and use firearms.

Americans are the most fearless enemies of straw men in history. Still, it beats engaging in a rational debate, eh?

Billy86

Madd Finn wrote: »

Show me ONE democratic country where "all guns" are banned. Just one.

Even in Britain, the most gun-phobic country on the planet, it is permissible for citizens to own and use firearms.

Americans are the most fearless enemies of straw men in history. Still, it beats engaging in a rational debate, eh?

I don't know many at all are saying to ban all guns, but the fact is the availability of guns in the US is a huge part of why their murder rate is about seven times as high as ours.

One problem that US gun owners face on the PR front though is that whether members or not, they don't seem to speak out an awful lot against the terrorist-advocating group that claims to represent them.

BattleCorp

Billy86 wrote: »

I don't know many at all are saying to ban all guns, but the fact is the availability of guns in the US is a huge part of why their murder rate is about seven times as high as ours.

One problem that US gun owners face on the PR front though is that whether members or not, they don't seem to speak out an awful lot against the terrorist-advocating group that claims to represent them.

While the vast majority of US gun owners aren't members of the NRA nor do they support all their policies, they do see that the NRA are defending their rights as gun owners. Very few gun owners fancy losing their guns so while not in total agreement with the NRA, they will let them do their thing while they are keeping the gun grabbers away.

Billy86

BattleCorp wrote: »

While the vast majority of US gun owners aren't members of the NRA nor do they support all their policies, they do see that the NRA are defending their rights as gun owners. Very few gun owners fancy losing their guns so while not in total agreement with the NRA, they will let them do their thing while they are keeping the gun grabbers away.

The problem there is for the NRA these days, "their thing" is literally calling for violence against their political enemies. Otherwise known as the definition of terrorism.

And with all the gun problems the US has, it's really not a good look for gun owners to decide it best to side with terrorists.

TOss Sweep

Billy86 wrote: »

The problem there is for the NRA these days, "their thing" is literally calling for violence against their political enemies. Otherwise known as the definition of terrorism.

And with all the gun problems the US has, it's really not a good look for gun owners to decide it best to side with terrorists.

That video pissed off a lot of Gun Owners including NRA members. They lost a lot of members over it.

Problem is with the NRA is that on one hand they do a lot of good things for gun owners. They have a lot of resources to aid those who own guns. But their downfall is that some of those running the show are narrow minded ignorant assholes that are effectively undoing any good work the NRA ever did.

They keep sending me stuff to join but I keep ignoring their attempts. Shame as they do offer a lot of good advice but just handle themselves horrendously these days and come off as nothing more than a White Supremacist group.

BattleCorp

Billy86 wrote: »

The problem there is for the NRA these days, "their thing" is literally calling for violence against their political enemies. Otherwise known as the definition of terrorism.

And with all the gun problems the US has, it's really not a good look for gun owners to decide it best to side with terrorists.

Have you watched that NRA advert?

There is absolutely no call to commit acts of terrorism or any sort of violence whatsoever in that NRA advert. It says fight lies with the clenched fist of truth.

You say they are literally calling for violence against their enemies...............they aren't in that video anyway.

BattleCorp

TOss Sweep wrote: »

That video pissed off a lot of Gun Owners including NRA members. They lost a lot of members over it.

I don't know why. I've watched it twice now and I see no call to violence. She says to fight the lies with the clenched fist of truth. That isn't a call to violence. It's a call to tell the truth (granted their version of the truth).

Once again, I'm not a member of the NRA nor do I support all their aims. Just sayin'.

steddyeddy

BattleCorp wrote: »

While the vast majority of US gun owners aren't members of the NRA nor do they support all their policies, they do see that the NRA are defending their rights as gun owners. Very few gun owners fancy losing their guns so while not in total agreement with the NRA, they will let them do their thing while they are keeping the gun grabbers away.

But they don't do that. They present such an extreme nutty image of gun owners that they polarise the debate about gun laws.

RandomName2

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

you know how you can tell conservatives are rarely smart people? they think coming up with terms like Comifornia and libtards are really clever uses of language. it should come as little surprise that conservatives frequently score significantly lower on IQ and creativity tests than those who have more left leaning views. where do you think people are smarter on average, California or Alabama?

The rest of your post is okayish but this paragraph is totally terrible. Not only do so-called liberals come up with most of the stupid terms 'microaggression' 'safe-space' 'WOKE' and so on, but the thing about Alaska vs California is particularly weak. And the 'liberals are really smart' statement. Oh man.

Comifornia is a really stupid term though, for sure. California isn't communist. It's a complete basket case, but communist it is not. Libtard is only a slightly better term, but it's pretty shi*t too.

Alaska, gun ownership 61.7%, gun murders in 2010, 19 (2.7 per 100K people)
California, gun ownership 20.1%, gun murders in 2010, 1297 (3.4 per 100K people)

Just saying.

An interesting question to answer is why Washington DC's gun murder rate is by far the worst in America.

mynamejeff

RandomName2 wrote: »

The rest of your post is okayish but this paragraph is totally terrible. Not only do so-called liberals come up with most of the stupid terms 'microaggression' 'safe-space' 'WOKE' and so on, but the thing about Alaska vs California is particularly weak. And the 'liberals are really smart' statement. Oh man.

Comifornia is a really stupid term though, for sure. California isn't communist. It's a complete basket case, but communist it is not. Libtard is only a slightly better term, but it's pretty shi*t too.

Alaska, gun ownership 61.7%, gun murders in 2010, 19 (2.7 per 100K people)
California, gun ownership 20.1%, gun murders in 2010, 1297 (3.4 per 100K people)

Just saying.

An interesting question to answer is why Washington DC's gun murder rate is by far the worst in America.

i often wonder why people ignore obvious things
the reason some areas have more murders is cultural, ethnic and economic .

what to you think the rates of murder is in middle class white people vrs lower class black and Latino people

the alaska cali states reflect that ethnic divide

The J Stands for Jay

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Thoughts and prayers :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I was never brave enough to post "brap brap, pew pew" on a repeal the 8th thread.

BattleCorp

steddyeddy wrote: »

But they don't do that. They present such an extreme nutty image of gun owners that they polarise the debate about gun laws.

Ah but they do defend the interests of gun owners. They really do.

While I agree with you that they often polarise the debate and present a nutty image of gun owners at times, they are quite effective at stopping new laws that impinge on the rights of gun owners. And that's what gun owners want. They want to keep what they already have.

steddyeddy

BattleCorp wrote: »

Have you watched that NRA advert?

There is absolutely no call to commit acts of terrorism or any sort of violence whatsoever in that NRA advert. It says fight lies with the clenched fist of truth.

You say they are literally calling for violence against their enemies...............they aren't in that video anyway.

The NRA advert is set against images of war, street riots and violence. Not an ideal way to promote moderate gun ownership.

BattleCorp

steddyeddy wrote: »

The NRA advert is set against images of war, street riots and violence. Not an ideal way to promote moderate gun ownership.

I think they are showing that it's groups like Antifa and others rioting and not law abiding gun owners. In other words, those riots were by people likely to be anti-gun.

Billy86

BattleCorp wrote: »

I think they are showing that it's groups like Antifa and others rioting and not law abiding gun owners. In other words, those riots were by people likely to be anti-gun.

Can you please explain the what exactly the "clenched fist of truth" she calls for is supposed to mean?

Given that this is the same woman that claims survivors of a school shooting tried to attack her on stage when that showed to be a complete lie, it's fair to say she's not talking about factual, constructive conversation.

It's just a point blank open call for violence. Nothing more, nothing less.

BattleCorp

Billy86 wrote: »

Can you please explain the what exactly the "clenched fist of truth" she calls for is supposed to mean?

Given that this is the same woman that claims survivors of a school shooting tried to attack her on stage when that showed to be a complete lie, it's fair to say she's not talking about factual, constructive conversation.

It's just a point blank open call for violence. Nothing more, nothing less.

No idea what 'clenched fist' of truth means. Maybe it means sternly countering any lies told by those who want to take away rights from gun owners.

Like I said earlier, I don't agree with all the stuff the NRA do. But aside from all the political stuff, they do a lot of good work when it comes to safety training etc.

Billy86

BattleCorp wrote: »

No idea what 'clenched fist' of truth means. Maybe it means sternly countering any lies told by those who want to take away rights from gun owners.

Like I said earlier, I don't agree with all the stuff the NRA do. But aside from all the political stuff, they do a lot of good work when it comes to safety training etc.

Come on now, it's frankly a little comical to be claiming that an ad featuring tonnes of violent imagery trying to depict their political opponents as such, before calling for "the clenched fist of truth" in response is simply asking their members to simply 'ring their arms extra hard in the air while having dishing out constructive criticism'.

It's a call for violence, simple as; fists are incapable of uttering words. "I let my fists do the talking" is a well known euphemism for "I use violence to resolve my problems" or a reason. Telling your supporters that "the only way we save our country and our freedom is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth" is no different - that is very specific and intentional wording on their part.

Here's some more of them promoting violence as a means to solve an issue (or they want NRA supporters to go and smash in their own TVs for the hell of it?). This one is just bizarre:

BattleCorp

Billy86 wrote: »

Here's some more of them promoting violence as a means to solve an issue (or they want NRA supporters to go and smash in their own TVs for the hell of it?). This one is just bizarre:

Yep, that's an absolutely dumbass advert.