Joe the Not a Plumber is Being an Asshole Again

Wordslinger wrote:

Gunz wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:He tells the truth. If we listen to the babble of liberals out whole world is turned upside down.

Are you seriously saying that a human being's right to life is not as important as your right to carry a gun?  You are seriously brain damaged.

  How does me owning a gun impede someones right to life?

You guys need to get real.  The left isn't insisting that all guns should be banned.  But what's wrong with anyone applying to owning a gun passing some sort of medical/mental exam?

We license drivers, why not gun owners?

The way things are right now, any nutcase can buy an assault rifle with a 100-round drum mag.

You go along with that?

It is simple and it has been explained to you before but you refuse to learn.  Easy to explain again for you.

Gun ownership = RIGHT

Driving = PRIVLEGE

Everyone fully realizes that you would much prefer that the Constitution of the United States be discarded and replaced with one written by the Communist Party of the United States.

Please do some research into exactly what constitutes an assault rifle. You obviously do not know, or care.

Wordslinger wrote:

Gunz wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:He tells the truth. If we listen to the babble of liberals out whole world is turned upside down.

Are you seriously saying that a human being's right to life is not as important as your right to carry a gun?  You are seriously brain damaged.

  How does me owning a gun impede someones right to life?

You guys need to get real.  The left isn't insisting that all guns should be banned.  But what's wrong with anyone applying to owning a gun passing some sort of medical/mental exam?

We license drivers, why not gun owners?

The way things are right now, any nutcase can buy an assault rifle with a 100-round drum mag.

You go along with that?

Do we license voters? Gun ownership is more of a right than voting. We have millions more ignorant voters than gun owners considering who is POTUS.

Its truly scary how some confuse Constitutional rights and State given privilege in this country. I think some would have the entire Constitution treated as privilege instead of God given rights.

Markle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

Gunz wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:He tells the truth. If we listen to the babble of liberals out whole world is turned upside down.

Are you seriously saying that a human being's right to life is not as important as your right to carry a gun?  You are seriously brain damaged.

  How does me owning a gun impede someones right to life?

You guys need to get real.  The left isn't insisting that all guns should be banned.  But what's wrong with anyone applying to owning a gun passing some sort of medical/mental exam?

We license drivers, why not gun owners?

The way things are right now, any nutcase can buy an assault rifle with a 100-round drum mag.

You go along with that?

It is simple and it has been explained to you before but you refuse to learn.  Easy to explain again for you.

Gun ownership = RIGHT

Driving = PRIVLEGE

Everyone fully realizes that you would much prefer that the Constitution of the United States be discarded and replaced with one written by the Communist Party of the United States.

Please do some research into exactly what constitutes an assault rifle.  You obviously do not know, or care.

You are well aware that there have been amendments and changes to the Constitution since it was written.

Many, if not the majority of Americans would welcome changes that would work against mentally deficient citizens acquiring or possessing automatic or semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines.

Obviously, you and your Nazi friends don't care about the innocent victims of these errant gun owners. You and Joe-the-Plumber have made that point.

What's also become very clear, is that the NRA no longer feels any concern for such tragedies, since the NRA is now nothing but a promotional organ for gun manufacturers.

It's time to change the 2nd amendment.

Reality.

There are already laws on the books designed to keep weapons out of the hands of mentally ill individuals yet they still aquire them. Explain to me how you tell a mentally ill person who cant reason that they cant have a gun. The problem is treatment of the mentally ill and not the 2nd amendment. More reality.

Please do some research

I am utterly unimpressed with your research. Have you read any of the gun cases before the Supreme Court in the last five years? Of course not. When you pose the question of right vs. privilege you speak as if the second amendment right is unqualified and without conditions. Is that the case with the first, fourth, fifth, or six amendment? I guess for someone asking others to do research, you might start with doing some reading. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that Government can in fact put restrictions on gun ownership. Heller and MacDonald still allow regulation of firearms, so like other rights enumerated in the bill of rights they are not absolute rights but qualified rights, and it is amusing to read that somebody needs to research when people have not read the Supreme Court cases which are clear. Guns may be regulated, but some regulations cannot restrict the ownership of traditional guns used in protection of the home.......beyond that these absolute rights which get bandied about in these forums are non existent.

Floridatexan wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:by Floridatexan Today at 6:14 am

The law is supposed to work like this: If you kill someone with your car while you're drunk, you lose the right to drive a car.
------
So do we take everyone's car because a few do the wrong thing ? No, we don't and the same applies for guns. We don't take everyone's just because there are a few idiots out there.

That's not what I said.  If YOU, for instance, drive while drunk and kill someone, YOU will lose your license to drive and most likely do some jail time.  Don't be disingenuous.  You already look foolish enough.

Yes it is.

So when are fully automatic assault rifles going to be available to the general public? I haven't murdered anyone and if any car owner can purchase a Jag or Lamborghini then full auto's should be available for me to purchase also since I'm a law abiding citizen. I'm kinda' likin' the idea of some fully automatic miniguns with auto tracking systems stationed strategically around my property for home protection.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elJ3t6AOPJc

 

I'm kinda' likin' the idea of some fully automatic miniguns with auto tracking systems stationed strategically around my property for home protection.


You have been watching too many James Bond movies......I thought most people in Iowa use a pitch fork and pig stench to keep folks off their property.

2seaoat wrote:Please do some research

I am utterly unimpressed with your research.  Have you read any of the gun cases before the Supreme Court in the last five years?   Of course not.  When you pose the question of right vs. privilege you speak as if the second amendment right is unqualified and without conditions.   Is that the case with the first, fourth, fifth, or six amendment?  I guess for someone asking others to do research, you might start with doing some reading.   The Supreme Court has made it very clear that Government can in fact put restrictions on gun ownership.  Heller and MacDonald still allow regulation of firearms, so like other rights enumerated in the bill of rights they are not absolute rights but qualified rights, and it is amusing to read that somebody needs to research when people have not read the Supreme Court cases which are clear.  Guns may be regulated, but some regulations cannot restrict the ownership of traditional guns used in protection of the home.......beyond that these absolute rights which get bandied about in these forums are non existent.

So now you're saying that it's alright to put restrictions on rights... Like voting rights by imposing voter ID requirements at the voting booths.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

  

2seaoat wrote:I'm kinda' likin' the idea of some fully automatic miniguns with auto tracking systems stationed strategically around my property for home protection.


You have been watching too many James Bond movies......I thought most people in Iowa use a pitch fork and pig stench to keep folks off their property.

And when a person can't argue a point logically and diplomatically they turn to shit slingin' like you... At least us here Iowans have sense enough to use a pitchfork to sling it instead of using our hands and mouths.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ljy6PTbX9I

  

[quote="\"Wordslinger"
It's time to change the 2nd amendment.  

Reality.[/quote]

We are NOT changing the 2nd amendment.

Chrissy wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:
It's time to change the 2nd amendment.  

Reality.

We are NOT changing the 2nd amendment.

*****WARM SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBmtaFq0kvQ

 

Chrissy wrote:[quote="\"Wordslinger"
It's time to change the 2nd amendment.  

Reality.

We are NOT changing the 2nd amendment.[/quote]

Who's "we" Chrissy? You're already outnumbered in the U.S.A.

What most of us want is some better way to keep large capacity semi-automatic firearms from being bought by unstable people.

Let me hear your argument against that desire, if you have one.

Wordslinger wrote:

Chrissy wrote:[quote="\"Wordslinger"
It's time to change the 2nd amendment.  

Reality.

We are NOT changing the 2nd amendment.

Who's "we" Chrissy?  You're already outnumbered in the U.S.A.

What most of us want is some better way to keep large capacity semi-automatic firearms from being bought by unstable people.

Let me hear your argument against that desire, if you have one.[/quote]

I'm not outnumbered LOL YOU are.

And my argument as far as finding the most creative ways to limit gun ownership goes like this.

Progressives ALWAYS use emotional driven techniques to install liberty defeating control upon the population. Give a inch here, a inch there and poof you wake up one day with stalin taking your farm.

Chrissy wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

Chrissy wrote:[quote="\"Wordslinger"
It's time to change the 2nd amendment.  

Reality.

We are NOT changing the 2nd amendment.

Who's "we" Chrissy?  You're already outnumbered in the U.S.A.

What most of us want is some better way to keep large capacity semi-automatic firearms from being bought by unstable people.

Let me hear your argument against that desire, if you have one.

I'm not outnumbered LOL YOU are.

And my argument as far as finding the most creative ways to limit gun ownership goes like this.

Progressives ALWAYS use emotional driven techniques to install liberty defeating control upon the population. Give a inch here, a inch there and poof you wake up one day with stalin taking your farm. [/quote]


In other words, you don't give a shit if crazies slaughter innocent Americans as long as you can keep your M4 and its 30-round mag. Right?

2seaoat wrote:Please do some research

I am utterly unimpressed with your research.  Have you read any of the gun cases before the Supreme Court in the last five years?   Of course not.  When you pose the question of right vs. privilege you speak as if the second amendment right is unqualified and without conditions.   Is that the case with the first, fourth, fifth, or six amendment?  I guess for someone asking others to do research, you might start with doing some reading.   The Supreme Court has made it very clear that Government can in fact put restrictions on gun ownership.  Heller and MacDonald still allow regulation of firearms, so like other rights enumerated in the bill of rights they are not absolute rights but qualified rights, and it is amusing to read that somebody needs to research when people have not read the Supreme Court cases which are clear.  Guns may be regulated, but some regulations cannot restrict the ownership of traditional guns used in protection of the home.......beyond that these absolute rights which get bandied about in these forums are non existent.

Has the Supreme Court NOT recently ruled that both Washington and Chicago went to far in restricting gun ownership? Are they NOT two of the most violent cities in the country with hundreds of gunshot murders? So how has that worked for them?

Do some research.

Markle wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Please do some research

I am utterly unimpressed with your research.  Have you read any of the gun cases before the Supreme Court in the last five years?   Of course not.  When you pose the question of right vs. privilege you speak as if the second amendment right is unqualified and without conditions.   Is that the case with the first, fourth, fifth, or six amendment?  I guess for someone asking others to do research, you might start with doing some reading.   The Supreme Court has made it very clear that Government can in fact put restrictions on gun ownership.  Heller and MacDonald still allow regulation of firearms, so like other rights enumerated in the bill of rights they are not absolute rights but qualified rights, and it is amusing to read that somebody needs to research when people have not read the Supreme Court cases which are clear.  Guns may be regulated, but some regulations cannot restrict the ownership of traditional guns used in protection of the home.......beyond that these absolute rights which get bandied about in these forums are non existent.

Has the Supreme Court NOT recently ruled that both Washington and Chicago went to far in restricting gun ownership?  Are they NOT two of the most violent cities in the country with hundreds of gunshot murders?  So how has that worked for them?

Do some research.  

Well Herr Markle ... very interesting. Perhaps you can enlighten us all with your solution to the problems of mentally unstable Americans being able to acquire and possess large capacity magazine loaded semi-automatic weapons. We're all ears. LOL

Wordslinger wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

Chrissy wrote:[quote="\"Wordslinger"
It's time to change the 2nd amendment.  

Reality.

We are NOT changing the 2nd amendment.

Who's "we" Chrissy?  You're already outnumbered in the U.S.A.

What most of us want is some better way to keep large capacity semi-automatic firearms from being bought by unstable people.

Let me hear your argument against that desire, if you have one.

I'm not outnumbered LOL YOU are.

And my argument as far as finding the most creative ways to limit gun ownership goes like this.

Progressives ALWAYS use emotional driven techniques to install liberty defeating control upon the population. Give a inch here, a inch there and poof you wake up one day with stalin taking your farm.

In other words, you don't give a shit if crazies slaughter innocent Americans as long as you can keep your M4 and its 30-round mag.  Right?[/quote]

One of the prices we have to pay to protect ourselves from our government as well.  Something you despise and wish we could be tromped into place by a powerful, all mighty government making all our decisions for us, whether we want them or not.

Yes, many share your views.  We know with whom you stand!  

Wordslinger wrote:

Markle wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Please do some research

I am utterly unimpressed with your research.  Have you read any of the gun cases before the Supreme Court in the last five years?   Of course not.  When you pose the question of right vs. privilege you speak as if the second amendment right is unqualified and without conditions.   Is that the case with the first, fourth, fifth, or six amendment?  I guess for someone asking others to do research, you might start with doing some reading.   The Supreme Court has made it very clear that Government can in fact put restrictions on gun ownership.  Heller and MacDonald still allow regulation of firearms, so like other rights enumerated in the bill of rights they are not absolute rights but qualified rights, and it is amusing to read that somebody needs to research when people have not read the Supreme Court cases which are clear.  Guns may be regulated, but some regulations cannot restrict the ownership of traditional guns used in protection of the home.......beyond that these absolute rights which get bandied about in these forums are non existent.

Has the Supreme Court NOT recently ruled that both Washington and Chicago went to far in restricting gun ownership?  Are they NOT two of the most violent cities in the country with hundreds of gunshot murders?  So how has that worked for them?

Do some research.  

Well Herr Markle ... very interesting.  Perhaps you can enlighten us all with your solution to the problems of mentally unstable Americans being able to acquire and possess large capacity magazine loaded semi-automatic weapons.  We're all ears.  LOL

Glad to see you agree whole heartedly that the problem is not with gun restrictions but rather Progressives, like yourself, who demand that those with serious mental illness cannot be held against their will.

Wordslinger wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

Chrissy wrote:[quote="\"Wordslinger"
It's time to change the 2nd amendment.  

Reality.

We are NOT changing the 2nd amendment.

Who's "we" Chrissy?  You're already outnumbered in the U.S.A.

What most of us want is some better way to keep large capacity semi-automatic firearms from being bought by unstable people.

Let me hear your argument against that desire, if you have one.

I'm not outnumbered LOL YOU are.

And my argument as far as finding the most creative ways to limit gun ownership goes like this.

Progressives ALWAYS use emotional driven techniques to install liberty defeating control upon the population. Give a inch here, a inch there and poof you wake up one day with stalin taking your farm.

In other words, you don't give a shit if crazies slaughter innocent Americans as long as you can keep your M4 and its 30-round mag.  Right?

[/quote]

I shouldn't be punished and rendered defenseless because there are criminals running around the country breaking laws. You know like breaking gun laws, because everybody knows a criminal is going to follow the law and not buy a gun if you say they don't qualify LOL. Damn y'all are stupid. 

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsKzdKNAmo

  

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPwZeWOZ8JU

  

Wordslinger wrote:

Chrissy wrote:[quote="\"Wordslinger"
It's time to change the 2nd amendment.  

Reality.

We are NOT changing the 2nd amendment.

 
Who's "we" Chrissy?  You're already outnumbered in the U.S.A.
 
What most of us want is some better way to keep large capacity semi-automatic firearms from being bought by unstable people.
 
Let me hear your argument against that desire, if you have one.[/quote]

More people die by cars driven by drunks, do you want to ban all cars and punish all law abiding drivers as well? That's your logic old man.

http://news.yahoo.com/nra-calls-open-carry-rallies-142822502.html

HOUSTON (AP) -- Companies, customers and others critical of Texas gun rights advocates who have brought military-style assault rifles into businesses as part of demonstrations supporting "open carry" gun rights now have a surprising ally: the National Rifle Association.

The advocates' actions in restaurants and other public places — part of a push for less restrictive gun laws, including legalizing the open carry of handguns — have prompted public criticism.

The NRA has long been a zealous advocate for gun owners' rights. But the group's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, has called the demonstrations counterproductive to promoting gun rights, scary and "downright weird."

The NRA said the demonstrations have "crossed the line from enthusiasm to downright foolishness."

by Wordslinger on 6/1/2014, 1:21 pm
Chrissy wrote:
“
[quote="\"Wordslinger"
It's time to change the 2nd amendment.

Reality.
”
We are NOT changing the 2nd amendment.[/quote]

Who's "we" Chrissy? You're already outnumbered in the U.S.A.

What most of us want is some better way to keep large capacity semi-automatic firearms from being bought by unstable people.

Let me hear your argument against that desire, if you have one.
-----
Your version of control is to take weapons from all thinking there will not be any resistance. First of all, enforce laws already on the books. Second of all, if anyone is outnumbered, it is ill informed people such as yourself. If you think that the US military is going to enforce unconstitutional laws that outlaw gun ownership, you are sorely mistaken. Ask the state legislature in Vermont how their gun collecting of AR 15s and AKs went recently....

Cops aren't going to enforce it...