published Sunday, January 20th, 2013

Obamaphobia

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

176
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Rebus said...

^^^^About what one would expect from an imperial president. ♚

January 20, 2013 at 2:22 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Conjecture and a large, elaborate non sequitur from tu_quoque and, of course, Jack_Rebus_Dennis bought into it. Mr. Bennett has you both pegged.

January 20, 2013 at 2:59 a.m.
fairmon said...

The precedent is that local and state authorities are not allowed to enforce federal laws as seen with federal immigration laws. The feds are not adequately staffed or funded to enforce any new gun laws or executive orders. Law abiding citizens will comply while the criminals and crazies will not. So, who will experience the most detrimental impact from the executive orders or future gun control legislation. Who can best prevent a tragedy involving a crazy perpetrator of a heinous crime that includes their own death?

Significant increases in taxes on guns and ammunition plus making it a federal crime with severe penalties if a gun is involved in a criminal act may reduce the incidence of crimes with guns. Major tax revenue would be required to increase FBI staffing and for new or expanded prisons. It would seem reasonable people with opposing views should be able to agree with this approach.

January 20, 2013 at 4:37 a.m.
fairmon said...

Psychiatry is not as much exact science as the medical field where there are still occasional different opinions. Mental illness is not diagnosed with blood work, x-ray, mri's etc. but subjective conclusions from a wide variety of techniques often employed by those with their own questionable mental stability. Imprisoning or restraining for mental disorders may be necessary but must include adequate safe guards to prevent abuse. Failure to include adequate safe guards could result in high turnover in the U.S. congress.

January 20, 2013 at 4:59 a.m.
GlacierClipper said...

Gun Control will never keep the guns from the criminals.

January 20, 2013 at 6:11 a.m.
jesse said...

Apparently Clay doesn't think they keep them away from the mentally ill either!AND he's right!

January 20, 2013 at 6:28 a.m.
conservative said...

I don't think Liberals should have a gun either and certainly not be elected to office.

Representative (think about that) Maxine Waters after the Colorado movie theater shooting:

"These guns are killing people all over the place and must be stopped," Rep. Maxine Waters said in a statement released this morning. "If we can't get rid of all guns completely, at least legislate they must have a permanent stopper of some sort in the barrel."

January 20, 2013 at 8:19 a.m.
limric said...

Excellent cartoon today Clay.

The included video is a short Bill Maher piece. In his usual style he takes jabs at everyone. Love him or hate him, he hits the nail squarely on the head here.

"The only thing that still has bipartisan support in Washington is not giving a sh!t about privacy." :Bill Maher

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QxpK-mrC1E

And finally:

Bipartisanship usually means that a larger – than – usual deception is being carried out.” :George Carlin

January 20, 2013 at 8:20 a.m.
dougmusn said...

In the course of my work (doctor), I have had to tell a family one of their own is dead or paralyzed or brain-dead and unlikely to ever recover, so I am no big fan of guns or what they do but I am in agreement with TQ (gasp!) about some of the trouble mixing mental illness, guns and physician disclosure of information to government.

First, if you know I might 'rat you out', you will not share information with me which might be essential for your care but which might trigger disclosure.

An even greater concern surrounds definitions. How sick is sick? Sadness affects us all from childhood on (Think: "nobody likes me, everybody hates me, I'm going to eat worms!"). If, TQ, you came to my office and said you were sad, would that be enough? How 'bout if you admitted slapping your wife around--would that do it? The line between normal if bad feelings and mental illness is fluid and fuzzy. Juvenal's warning applies: "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" {But who shall guard the guards themselves?)

Our struggles about reporting are not new--when does corporal punishment become child abuse? On balance, I do believe the additional struggles we might have are worth anything which might reduce the terrible consequences eminating from the barrel of a gun.


@GlacierClipper: "Gun Control will never keep the guns from the criminals." Half credit. Gun Control will never keep the guns from ALL the criminals. Seat belts in cars, airbags and crash-resistant design will never prevent all auto deaths, but I am thankful we have them now.

January 20, 2013 at 8:20 a.m.
GameOn said...

I see Clay has received his drawing orders from Stephanie Cutter. The mentally ill should not have sharp objects either. Clay put down your artistic weapons. I really thought you would do one about Obama and Karzai approving the Taliban office in Qatar.

January 20, 2013 at 8:22 a.m.
whatsthefuss said...

I didn't think the mentally ill could have a gun? Well they sure do draw purrty cartoons, now don't they?

The point is anyone who is given access to a gun, purchases one on the street, or steals a gun has a gun. The Newtown murders came about because of an irresponsible legal gun owner, the mother, allowing someone access to her weapons, her son. Now if anyone can legislate that to correct the situation please step forward. Until then perhaps the artist might consider Thumpers fathers advice and say nothing at all.

January 20, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Our gonna-cut-the deficit -in-half, joblessness'll-never-top-8%, make-sure-the-laws-are-faithfully-executed President qualifies for guns under the lady's criterion as applied by our cartoonist?

But beware of the criterion itself: "Whoever says to his brother, You fool, shall be in danger of Hell fire"--Matthew 5:22.

January 20, 2013 at 8:31 a.m.
fairmon said...

I am not a Maher fan but he has it right in the video posted by Limric at 8:20 am.

January 20, 2013 at 8:45 a.m.
GrouchyJohn said...

Clay Bennett finally tells it like it is. Kenyon born, islamo-facist dictator Obama. If we aren't careful, we will be calling him Uncle Joe Stalin.
Want to see exactly why we are allowed by the constitution to keep firearms? Go to Wikipedia and search Battle of Athens. It happened in 1946, McMinn County,Tennessee, just miles north of here. The locals - after a significant gun battle - threw out a corrupt government and tossed the tyrants out on their ears... then used a ballot box to set up a government of and by the people.

Clay also got it right the part about Mentally Ill. To simply ask on a firearms application if someone has been adjudged mentally incompetent is (pun intended) crazy. There needs to be a data base of Nutcases, and also a database of people that are currently on mind-altering drugs. A violation of privacy? Oh, Hell, Yeah. So is getting a bullet in the head. Considering the vast majority of the mass murders that have occurred in this country(and others) have been done by people on mind altering drugs, a necessary one. The data base needs to show WHEN someone was taking these drugs. After a time period determined by mental professionals, the stipulation should be removed. Some people actually do get better with these drugs. Until that point, they need to be monitored by someone on a regular basis to determine their mental status and to insure they aren't going off the deep end. Last but not least, family members need to be reminded that their firearms should be somewhere with restricted access.

In all my years I have never seen a gun grow a pair of legs and go walking down the street shooting people. I HAVE seen the results when people pick up a gun and go shoot someone. The old saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people is true. Unfortunately, its getting to the point that saying should be modified to sane people with guns don't kill people, crazy people with guns kill people.

January 20, 2013 at 8:58 a.m.
jesse said...

Joycelyn Elders had the solution to this entire problem back in July 2004!!

"SAFER BULLETS!!"

Makes about as much sense as MORE LAWS!!

January 20, 2013 at 9:03 a.m.
fairmon said...

Using mental illness as a reason for not allowing gun ownership could be a way to confiscate 98% of them. Perhaps a minimum level of intelligence and responsibility would be a better and a more accurate and measurable criteria. I wonder how law enforcement is to know someone that is mentally unstable or someone that will be committing a crime has a gun before the crime is committed? Should a high school diploma and a GPA of C or better be a requirement for gun ownership? How does the governor of New York reconcile his age 21 criteria for gun ownership and those 18 year old in the military defending his freedom with all the fire power they have? Politicians will have a hard time getting around this right shall not be infringed statement in the 2ND amendment.

January 20, 2013 at 9:05 a.m.
conservative said...

Maybe Pelosi thinks guns are wearing Nike shoes :

"Well, I think you know we have too many guns," a blinking Minority Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters this morning. "It's the Tea Party who are putting them out there and it's simply terrible - these guns are absolutely running amok, shooting everyone."

January 20, 2013 at 9:26 a.m.
prairie_dog said...

Hey, Clay. Look in "right to know" and see how many pudgy white guys there are under arrest for gun crimes.

January 20, 2013 at 9:27 a.m.
Rebus said...

I'm with Maxine Waters....the govt needs to find a way to put stoppers in all those barrels. Bwahahaha

January 20, 2013 at 9:45 a.m.
Rebus said...

Easy still enamored with word conjecture. Must have learned it at Kaplan U. Give it a rest, dumbass.

January 20, 2013 at 9:49 a.m.
dude_abides said...

This is all so confusing! I'm not even sure where or how to report subversive comments or unsound thinking. For instance, if I want to report the use of the phrase 'Founding Fathers,' (a dead giveaway to a dangerously unstable mind) or the use of the words cold, dead, or fingers in any order, on any posts, within a six month period (another red flag to a case of compos mentisn't), who'm I gonna call? 1(800)TEA-BANG?

January 20, 2013 at 9:49 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Indeed, Clay Bennett. . . Great cartoon. . . I wonder if any of the NRA fans on this site will see the light? . . . Nah, probably not. . . NRA membership packets don’t include instructions on the basics - like who should change, how to change, or when to change a lightbulb.

January 20, 2013 at 9:50 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

tu_quoque said... "ToonBoy has stumbled inadvertently onto the truth."

Thank you for putting this cartoon into proper perspective, with a post immediately under Clay's propaganda piece.

The left has been conditioned to think that people who believe in the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment are "Wingnuts", "Extreme", wearers of Tinfoil Hats, and other such hyperbole for years now. Every liberal on these pages now uses those descriptions routinely to describe the people they do not agree with.

This is the kind of manipulation of public opinion that ambitious governments ALWAYS use to soften minds to prepare them to accept their agenda. Obama and his crowd have done their homework very well.

January 20, 2013 at 9:54 a.m.
patriot1 said...

A few years ago, at the insistence of a friend, I went to the local Veterans Clinic. He felt that anyone elgible should at least register and get a card in the event something comes up in the future. I have been blessed with good health insurance coverage all my working life and have felt my use of this facility might deprive someone else who might really need their care. I was assigned a doctor and an appointment was made for my first visit. One of the things the doctor asked was if I had ever considered harming myself (in other words suicide). Futhermore I was asked if I had ever or was currently considering harming anyone else. My point in this is: Are veterans going to be assumed mental health cases, with all the stigma attached to military service? If my demeanor was not what that Dr thought it should be, regardless of my answer, would I be judged a mental case just because I have been in a combat zone? I see a slippery slope.

January 20, 2013 at 9:56 a.m.
limric said...

I like the metaphor Moutainlaurel; but what 'light' are NRA members (aka gun nuts like me) supposed to see?

BRP, Did you watch the video? If you listen, Bill Maher is saying there is a lot more at stake than the Second Amendment.

January 20, 2013 at 9:59 a.m.
dude_abides said...

patriot1 said... "I see a slippery slope."

That's scary. Does it have dragons on it? I'm thinking you might be crazy. Report yourself... oh wait, you just did.

January 20, 2013 at 10 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

patriot1 said... "I see a slippery slope."

He did not ask if you had a firearm in your home? I understand that question is also becoming routine.

Don't the feds what to set up centralised digital record keeping of personal medical histories in the name of "cost containment". Wouldn't that be a handy tool.

January 20, 2013 at 10:02 a.m.
limric said...

Very good point Patriot1. I ran into the exact same line of questioning at the VA here.

January 20, 2013 at 10:05 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Whatsthefuss says: "The Newtown murders came about because of an irresponsible legal gun owner, the mother, allowing someone access to her weapons, her son. Now if anyone can legislate that to correct the situation please step forward. Until then perhaps the artist might consider Thumpers fathers advice and say nothing at all."

I guess you've forgotten some of the other killings. . . And some of these like the Columbine killings are tragic reminders that communities do need to step forward and regulation changes do need to be made, especially when to comes to these "private" gun sales:

An 18-year-old woman, Robyn Anderson, accompanied the two teens to a gun show where she purchased two shotguns and one rifle for the two teens. These same guns were used in the Columbine killings. Anderson could not be charged with any crime because there was no state or federal law prohibited the purchase of a long gun (rifle) from a private individual (non-licensed dealer). If Anderson had purchased the guns from a federally licensed dealer, the situation would have been different. The purchase would have been considered a "straw purchase" and considered illegal under federal law to make the purchase for the teens.

January 20, 2013 at 10:11 a.m.
Rebus said...

BRP 9:54 hits it out of the park. The left has used this tactic for awhile, but the Chicago Thugs (rahm, axelrod) refined it to an art form. Never mind that it's bogus. Without an honest press to challenge them, this strategy is working. Amazing that so many Americans are buying it too. The nation will suffer for it. Hope we can recover. If we fall, history can look to the Fourth Estate's failures as a main contributor. And the acolytes just don't get it.

January 20, 2013 at 10:17 a.m.
Salsa said...

Don't worry, President Obama isn't going to take away the right of the mentally ill to become TFP cartoonists.

January 20, 2013 at 10:21 a.m.
Rebus said...

Salsa: Bennett should be wary of crayon locks being installed on his tools of the trade.

January 20, 2013 at 10:22 a.m.
patriot1 said...

BRP..I too have heard from others that question has been asked. I don't recall that in my case.

Perhaps army brats should be presumed mental cases as well.

January 20, 2013 at 10:28 a.m.
Rebus said...

Joe Biden the gaffe machine was at it again Saturday.

Speaking at the Iowa State Society inauguration ball, the Vice President said, "I'm proud to be President of the United States" Plugs Biden The gift that keeps on giving...:😜

January 20, 2013 at 10:34 a.m.
raygunz said...

dougmusn said."Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" or "who watches the watchers?"

Exactly! Case in point, Bradley Manning.In testimony,"the things Manning did to preserve his sanity while in total isolation custody,(talking to himself,making faces in the mirror,etc.)were interpreted as being mentally unstable. I don't care which side of the issue anyone is on as regards Manning,it's still a scary situation. Anyone ever read "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"??

January 20, 2013 at 10:41 a.m.
jesse said...

Uncle Joe can't get has brain in sync w/his mouth OR he's practicing for 2016!!(in his dreams!)

January 20, 2013 at 10:46 a.m.
Rebus said...

Jesse: Maybe the latter. But Hillary will chew him up and spit him out.

January 20, 2013 at 10:51 a.m.
Maximus said...

I do so hope Congress will consider and ban assault rifles because then everyone will "feel better" and that's what is soooo important for Dear Leader Welfare Pimp Obama and his low information voter pawns....to "feel better". Many have compared Obama to FDR but there is no comparison, Obama spends our tax dollars to pay off his supporters and run his "feel better" hoax PR machine, FDR built things and employed millions of Americans to build them.....i.e. see Hoover Damn and the TVA. Limric...as for Bully Bill Maher, like so many athiest, secular humanist, ammoral bigots that are in it for the chicks...he is so predictable and boring. Bully Bill with his huge nose and 5'4' inch frame never, ever, got any dates at his Canadian high school and has been taking it out on the hot Sarah Palins of the world ever since. Finally.....NEWS FLASH....ya'll knew this was coming...."Lethal Weapon" movie star Danny Glover stated while giving a Martin Luther King Weekend speech on the Texas A&M campus that the 2nd. Ammendment was added so that racist white people could protect themselves from slave and indian uprisings. Glover was paid $25,000 for the speech where he also said whites used their guns to herd slaves on slave ships and take land away from the Indians. My response to Danny Glover......so what, that kind of thing has been going on for centuries. I am sure our Dear Leader Welfare Pimp has Danny's same point of view on guns. Also Danny if you hate this country so much why did you work for and with "white folks" (Mel Gibson) in this wonderful free market country to make your name and your millions in Hollywood? Get over it or get out!

January 20, 2013 at 11:01 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

The left has been conditioned to think that people who believe in the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment are "Wingnuts", "Extreme", wearers of Tinfoil Hats, and other such hyperbole for years now. Every liberal on these pages now uses those descriptions routinely to describe the people they do not agree with.

Excuse me, but I am a liberal, believe in the constitution, the 2nd amendment and am a gun owner. Stereotypes do nothing to move the conversation forward. The difference between me and average conservatives is how the constitution, including the 2nd amendment is put into practice. I consider an extremist one who thinks that ANY gun control violates the 2nd amendment, and that citizens must have access to any type of weapon on the off chance that the government goes off the deep end. The difference between me and the average conservative is that I think Obama had a better plan for the country and I voted for him, whereas the average conservative chose the GOP platform and candidate. I consider anyone who calls him a socialist, fascist, communist, muslim, or antichrist or says he is trying to become "king" to be a wingnut.

January 20, 2013 at 11:07 a.m.
Rebus said...

Lu: You would be better served to explain how you are different from the hate spewing, stereotyping, left. And I think you are.

January 20, 2013 at 11:18 a.m.
whatsthefuss said...

mountainlaurel,

Your bla bla bla, was included in the first sentence of the partial paragraph you decided to copy and paste. It said,

"The point is anyone who is given access to a gun, purchases one on the street, or steals a gun has a gun."

Buying a gun at a gun show is buying a gun on the street. The phrase in the toon you adore so much was, "Has A Gun." No mention of the word "LEGAL."

The week following the Newtown tragedy, a two year old in Harrison was visiting grandparents, found a gun and died while playing with it. Tragic. I don't own a gun and do not feel a need for one. I do know many people who do own guns and even have a safe for them keeping them locked up except for the same one the 2 year old discovered. The one loaded in the nightstand or under the pillow intended to keep the owner and family safe.

Again, if anyone has a solution to keep guns from the crazy, criminal, fanatical or innocent, please contact your congressman and ask that it be made law.

Your conclusion to your convoluted story claiming things would be different if the weapons used at Columbine were purchased through a federally licensed dealer is absurd. The only thing that would be different is that an 18 year old women would have been prosecuted. Not much comfort to the children and their families. The same could be said for the mother in Newtown if her son simply proceeded to the school without first killing her. Again, regardless of the legal outcome, the victims, witnesses and families would still be left with nothing to make their lives whole again. All to often the weapons we possess to protect us only harm our loved ones and even ourselves. Tragic doesen't even begin to describe these situations.

January 20, 2013 at 11:33 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Rebus, there is hate-spewing and stereotyping on both sides. And we should be calling them out on both sides, whether it is posters here, talk-radio, newspapers, blogs, etc.

I have tried to be rational when I give my views, and usually am treated well. But to a wingnut, my views are completely unacceptable. Extremists deal in absolutes, and cannot be reasoned with.

As a gun owner, I see several reasons to own guns, whether it be for self protection, target shooting or hunting. I also understand that it is my responsibility to see that my guns don't fall into the wrong hands. In my opinion, high capacity rapid shooting weapons, although cool, serve no purpose. Unless Ghengis Khan and his hoards are descending on your farm, or hundreds of zombies are trying to break in, no one needs to be able to kill many people in a short period of time. Can a lunatic kill with a shotgun or pistol? Of course. But only a lunatic would want to spray bullets into a crowd for maximum effect. Therefore, I see these weapons as inappropriate for civilian use. That argument does not matter to a wingnut that thinks the government will go rogue (though I am not sure how a small group takes on the military, even with such weapons)

Funny how things change. Used to be the NRA was all about gun control. That is until the Civil Rights era when blacks decided to arm themselves from what in their perspective really was a rogue government. Correction: NRA supported blacks arming themselves during the civil rights era. My mistake. The move away from sensible gun control happened in response to this, signalling a change in NRA focus. Liberals were totally against the idea of blacks owning guns at that time. The change in focus occurred in 1977.

January 20, 2013 at 11:54 a.m.
timbo said...

All I can say is "In an insane world the sane man must appear insane." Spock

January 20, 2013 at 12:23 p.m.
patriot1 said...

The polarization that we are experiencing about this and other issues is individual rights vs. group rights. The rights guaranteed in the constituion is about the former.

January 20, 2013 at 12:26 p.m.
nowfedup said...

Would some sane person explain exactly what 2nd Rights O has violated. DO NOT include the fables "they will next" paranoia. Posting seem to prove TN is last in education, first in shootings, AKA dumbed down,adult children who do not eadl well with reality.

Was very amused at state elected that wanted guns for teachers with "Fragmenting bullets the would not ricochet" as never heard of such things, ever. Then there was that no so subtle racist show by dumbed down "gun day" that just happened to be same day we remember MLK whose life was ended by a red neck with a rifle. Now we have story on price NRA pays for souls. Amusing how NRA cannot panick their lemming minded who rush to but guns "See daddy got on exactly like the one use to kill children, and others" as if such a purchase makes one more mnaly man and camo's to play SWAT, Rambo,etc. Even the killing machines carry names like "tactical, street sweeper" etc to further ego;s of those that a more then a bit lacking in education, success or moral values AKA bullies with guns. So play at your paranoia, I have owned guns for decades, never found, other then military any need for 30rd, AK killing machines and their spin offs, Hunted across America's, know guns, but NEVER felt any need or use for the killing machines. My "home gun" pump 16ga with 5 rd nr4 shot. Amusing how "Qualified to carry in GA means ZERO rounds required and NO class on laws. FL 10rds, other states less then 24, so some totally unqualified clown can prance about USA pretending "can defend us all from criminals", really? Yep TN at bottom of list in everything, other then adult kids that will not, as probably would flunk, fear a 100% background check, howl like rabid dogs about "Violate 2nd" but are a bit vague about what is being violated. NRA dogs trained to parrot NRA rubbish when NRA rings their bell. Yep AR/AK new choice of mass murder machines, now all you lil darling run out, as again NRA rang bell, buy one, show off to your kids, "See just like the one, even 30rd mag that is used to massacre 20 children, it can shoot them 10-14 times without a reload, hey you en wifey wunt to shot it". Yes the same fools that desecrated MLK day, "Reactors of good ole south", take Rambo wanna be patriotic pride in only nation that needs to arm all their schools, which obviously many did attend very long. Are not you very proud you can gee or have a gun, "just like they used in CO, CT, WI etc, now yo are a manly man?

January 20, 2013 at 12:26 p.m.
Maximus said...

Limric and others on the Bully Bill Maher video. If Maher is such a "Libertarian Patriot" regarding our right to privacy why did he give $1,000,000 to the Axelrod and Plouf magical mystery tour Barry "Da Pimp" Obama it's rainin welfare checks campaign? Again, with Maher it's about the ratings, money, and young chicks. Money and young chicks not a bad combination actually. Depressing news....Barry Da Pimp just took his oath of office. Michelle looks like a $2.00 whore in those bangs. Is it me but doesn't one of the Obama daughters look very butch? Look for a sex scandal to hit the Obama marriage in the months ahead. Word is Obama is hittin dat Eva Longoria vagina hard!!! Just sayin...........

January 20, 2013 at 12:45 p.m.
Maximus said...

nowfedup....TN last in education (public schools...who in TN that can afford it has their kids in public schools any more?) and first in guns. Well, now fedup...between this, Honey Boo Boo, Country Music, and fried foods maybe the Blue State Union Gay Loving Yankees will decide to stay up North. Yes, our plan emminating from the Red State Great Quality Of Life Southern Command Center Is Working! Chris Christy...Jersey Mafia Boy..keep your fat ass and your huge $30 billion dollar "please rebuild our beachfront property we are innocent victims" tax payer bailout but PLEASE, PLEASE STAY IN JERSEY!!

January 20, 2013 at 12:54 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack_Rebus_Troll,

"Easy still enamored with word conjecture. Must have learned it at Kaplan U. Give it a rest, dumbass."

I'll stop using the word when people's posts start not meeting the definition. Do you realize how stupid it makes you look when you demonize accurate characterizations of fallacious arguments? You should seriously give that a rest, dumbass. Learn what words mean. I'm using mine correctly and do no care if you don't like it.

January 20, 2013 at 1:04 p.m.
Rebus said...

Easy: I've versed on words and their meaning. For instance, you are a dumb-ass, and determined to stay a dumb-ass.

January 20, 2013 at 1:11 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack_Rebus_Dennis,

"I've versed on words and their meaning."

You mean "I'm"? "Versed" isn't a verb. LMFAO! If you're so versed then why do your chastise people when they use words accurately?

"For instance, you are a dumb-ass, and determined to stay a dumb-ass."

Pot meet kettle. You are very ignorant, Jack_Dennis. And a TROLL to boot.

January 20, 2013 at 1:20 p.m.
jesse said...

According to what Easy told me on another thread he doesn't know the meaning of the word "FEAR"!!!But that's prob. from a lack of experience!!!

January 20, 2013 at 1:23 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

"According to what Easy told me on another thread he doesn't know the meaning of the word "FEAR"!!!"

I didn't tell you that at all. I told you I wasn't afraid of guns, pain or death after you asked. I know the meaning of the word.

"But that's prob. from a lack of experience!!!"

How so? Have you had a lot of first-hand experience with death? Or are you just afraid of a lot of things?

January 20, 2013 at 1:27 p.m.
jesse said...

13 months in Viet Nam and 12 years as a cop,what do you think?

January 20, 2013 at 1:33 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

"13 months in Viet Nam and 12 years as a cop,what do you think?"

At what point during that time did you die?

January 20, 2013 at 1:34 p.m.
Rebus said...

Clearly, Easy's entire life is delusional. Must have started with his severe inferiority complex. He thinks his mean spirited demeanor is cool....sort of like that idiot, dude_. Give one of them ex-lax and the other will defecate. One's just a young punk, the other old enough to know better. But both still punks. (I'm especially impressed with Easy's fearlessness) What a guy! And the smarted guy in his "for profit" college. (better check that accreditation, Ease.)

January 20, 2013 at 1:38 p.m.
jesse said...

Easy, if you had been in that sandy hook school during the after math THEN you would understand!

My M.O.S. was combat corpsman and i have seen my budds turned into a red mist, had my hands inside their chest cavity and tried to seal a sucking chest wound w/a plastic bag! You really do need to live a while on the fault line ,get a dose of reality!

January 20, 2013 at 1:44 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack_Rebus_Dennis,

"Clearly, Easy's entire life is delusional."

You're entire internet persona is based on talking out of your ass.

"Must have started with his severe inferiority complex."

You must have one testicle. See? I can talk out of my ass too.

"He thinks his mean spirited demeanor is cool....sort of like that idiot, dude_."

You've already called me a "dumb-ass" but I'm "mean spirited"? Pot meet kettle.

"Give one of them ex-lax and the other will defecate."

You don't even need an Ex-Lax to spew fecal matter onto this page.

"One's just a young punk, the other old enough to know better."

And you're just an old man that can't stand to have his opinion challenged or openly insulted for your ignorance and hypocrisy.

"But both still punks."

And you're still a whiny bitch.

"(I'm especially impressed with Easy's fearlessness) What a guy!"

Your sarcastic opinion has been duly noted.

"And the smarted guy in his "for profit" college. (better check that accreditation, Ease.)"

"Smarted"? LMFAO! Are you just jealous? What makes you demonize education? Seriously? Why is that your go-to insult? Is that funny to people without education?

Come on, Jack_Rebus_Dennis, you can do better than this.

January 20, 2013 at 1:46 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

"Easy, if you had been in that sandy hook school during the after math THEN you would understand!"

You were there?

"My M.O.S. was combat corpsman and i have seen my budds turned into a red mist, had my hands inside their chest cavity and tried to seal a sucking chest wound w/a plastic bag!"

Good for you.

"You really do need to live a while on the fault line ,get a dose of reality!"

That wouldn't make me any more afraid of dying, pain or guns. Maybe you should try a "dose of reality" and understand that I don't have to be afraid like you are.

January 20, 2013 at 1:49 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

"easy, you are one big pulsing ahole."

You give hand-jobs to homeless men.

January 20, 2013 at 1:50 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"I do so hope Congress will consider and ban assault rifles because then everyone will "feel better" and that's what is soooo important for Dear Leader Welfare Pimp Obama and his low information voter pawns." - MaxiMus

We all do what we can to "feel better." You "feel better" by having an AR15 or AK47 (or better yet, an arsenal of them) at your disposal. You "feel better" by boasting (lying) about your fictitious riches. So try to come up with something better than your "feel better" line to make your argument.

As for your Hoover Damn (sic) comment: in the first place, it's DAM, not DAMN. In the second place, it's called Hoover Dam for a reason - it was Herbert Hoover who was primarily responsible for its construction. If FDR had built it, it would have been called Roosevelt Dam. Obviously. Hoover had been pushing for building a dam on the Colorado River ever since 1921, when he was Secretary of Commerce. It wasn't until he became president that he was able to get passage by the House and Senate for its implementation. Construction began in 1930, while Hoover was still in office. Roosevelt dedicated it in 1935 and it was later named in honor of Hoover in 1947. Just sayin'.

This is an example of how facts don't really concern you. You just like to say things that make you "feel better" for having said them, I guess - facts and truth be dammed...er damned (pun intended), as far as you're concerned.

January 20, 2013 at 1:53 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

"easy, my USMC son was in the absolute center of Falluja during the first and seconds battles."

And?

"You want to give me your psychoanalysis of him today ?"

Wasn't planning on it considering I don't know him or you.

" Want to speculate as to whether he is dead or alive right now ?"

Why would I do that?

"I don't know much about jesse but I do know that you are not worthy of wiping the mud off his boots or the sweat off his testes."

Your opinion has been duly noted. You obviously have some deep-seated emotional issues. You should probably seek some professional help instead of venting here. My father would likely say the same thing about your son's unworthiness to clean my boots and my scrotum.

"I am done with you."

You're that initiated this dialogue, remember? I never addressed you until after you addressed me.

January 20, 2013 at 2:08 p.m.
limric said...

lkeithlu,

Certain aspects of your 11:54 a.m. post caused me to ponder (ooh that’s a sickening thought) How as gun owners, do so many have such a myopic and stereotypical view.

Myopic? “High capacity rapid shooting weapons, although cool, serve no purpose.” Who decides what ‘serves no purpose’, and to whom? I, as have thousands of others, hunted smaller varmints with an M-4 (AR-15) or variants. I, as are thousands of others, involved in shooting sports that make use of the ‘high capacity’ magazines in conjunction with their rapid firing (semi-auto) ‘Sturmgewehr’ (now that sounds scary) style rifles. A bunch of grownups have a heaping bowl of fun. Nothing more, nothing less.

Stereotypical? The afore mentioned events and or hunting are not the sole propriety of ‘wingnuts'. Participation is by all walks, male and female, and of all professions; doctors, dentists, truck drivers, cops, nurses etc. and sometimes active duty military. Semi-automatic gun owners are not a bunch of drunken rednecks running around shooting like happy Afghans. Nor are they a bunch of curmudgeons (except for Maximus - who I wouldn’t trust with ANY weapon at ANY range) grumbling under their breath, "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands."

The propaganda seems to be aimed at turning all semi-auto gun owners into frothing at the mouth nut jobs. It just ain’t so. And perception as of late is being horribly skewed. If you protest, you're in denial, therefore not stable...and around and around we go.

As an aside; I find it interesting that a Ruger Mini-14 (this is but one example), that has the exact same attributes/properties as any AR or AK, is never mention as an ‘assault rifle.’ Nor is a rifle I own that is so frightening looking that if New York's Gov. Cuomo or Diane Feinstein ever saw it would have DHS knocking at my door… but holds only 10 rounds, so the ‘assault weapon’ moniker does not apply.

Today’s knee jerk debate has no bearing in logic and is completely the result of reactionary emotion stoked by a know nothing, do as little research as possible media.

Oh, and Wayne LaPierre’s big mouth doesn’t help either. Neither does Maximus’s. First class Sh!theads both !

January 20, 2013 at 2:11 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Whatsthefuss said: ”Your conclusion to your convoluted story claiming things would be different if the weapons used at Columbine were purchased through a federally licensed dealer is absurd. The only thing that would be different is that an 18 year old women would have been prosecuted.”

What I said was "communities do need to step forward and regulation changes do need to be made, especially when to comes to these "private" gun sales." As to my post being convoluted, I don't think your claim is valid since Anderson was responsible for purchasing firearms for the teens responsible for the Columbine killing, and since those same firearms were used in the Coumbine killings, and since Anderson could not be prosecuted due to our muddled laws.

It seems to me that the only convulated thing going here are our muddled laws involving these “private” gun sales – along with your post, which seems to be adocating the status quo when to these muddled gun laws. In this particular case, I believe there are lots of law abiding citizens out there who would think twice about doing what Robyn Anderson did if there had been a law prohibiting the purchase of a of a long gun (rifle) from a private individual – for that matter, even Robyn Anderson might have declined to do what she did for these teens.

Indeed, if we didn’t have any laws prohibiting driving a vehicle while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, there is a high probability that we would be seeing a lot more drunk drivers on the road. If it wasn’t a criminal offense to rob a bank, I also suspect we would be seeing a lot more bank more robberies. I could go on and on here, but I’m sure you get my point.

January 20, 2013 at 2:14 p.m.
Rebus said...

Glad to see that others on here are catching on to the vapid child that is Easy/Nasty/useless, and most of all, clueless.

January 20, 2013 at 2:33 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Limric, I am sorry I gave the impression that I thought everyone who owned such weapons were wingnuts. That was not my intention. What point I was trying (unsuccessfully it seems) is that losing access to such weapons as civilians is a reasonable price to pay if it would keep them out of the hands of people that were sick enough to want to mow down innocents. I know very nice folks that have weapons of this nature, and no, they would NEVER want to harm anyone.

PS I do think they are cool. I know that sounds very un-liberal.

January 20, 2013 at 2:40 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack_Rebus_Dennis,

"Glad to see that others on here are catching on to the vapid child that is Easy/Nasty/useless, and most of all, clueless."

Such good company you're in with jesse and JonRoss. Heck, I'm sure joneses, tu_quoque, Maximus, and conservative would love to jump on board with you as well. LMFAO!

Everyone has already caught on to your ignorance, trollishness, and hypocrisy, Jack_Dennis. No one interacts with you unless to point out your ignorance, trollishness and hypocrisy.

Also, "vapid"? Pot meet kettle...AGAIN! All you do here is troll. You offer nothing of consequence.

January 20, 2013 at 2:43 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Limric asks: "what 'light' are NRA members (aka gun nuts like me) supposed to see?

For starters, Obama isn’t proposing to get rid of the Second Amendment. . . He’s proposing some more responsible laws and regulations involving guns. If some of these gun owners were less paranoid, they would probably be able to understand this. . . What do you think?

Speaking of guns, I note there has just been another shooting. This time in New Mexico:

“A teenage boy fatally shot two adults and three children inside a home in Albuquerque, NM, police say.

Bernalillo County sheriff's spokesman Aaron Williamson said that investigators found several guns at the home, one of which was a "semi-automatic military-style rifle," according to the AP.

The boy has been booked on two charges of murder and three counts of child abuse resulting in death, according to authorities.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/albuquerque-new-mexico-shooting-2013-1#ixzz2IXwW67J2

January 20, 2013 at 2:49 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Maximus said... "Yes, our plan emminating from the..."

Wow. Somebody call Vanderbilt, again. Maximus gave up trying to spell emanating after three times. Embarrassing for the Commidor, Commahdore, Komudor... &%@$ it!

January 20, 2013 at 2:55 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Limric,

Our society is awash in guns. So much so that those who love their guns cannot even see how obsessive they are about them. Practically every other industrialized country sees us for what we are - a nation of gun-crazed lunatics. America truly has an over-the-top fascination (obsession) with guns.

Just because weapons like the AR15 and AK47 and other high-powered weapons with high-capacity magazines enjoy such widespread fascination and use among so many sectors of society doesn't mean that they should not be heavily regulated. Just because you and many others get your rocks off by hunting or target-shooting with them does not mean that just anybody should be able to buy one without some sort of thorough background check and limitations on use. They were originally designed as implements of war and should never have been made available to the public. But now that they have been in circulation for so long, gun enthusiast have dubbed them "sporting" rifles and thus tried to make them seem more innocuous. But they are what they are, and that is weapons of mass destruction.

While many sane, respectable, and law-abiding citizens might use them for recreation and never cross the line into madness and murder, the sad fact is that they have become the weapons of choice for madmen/murderers and there is no reason they should be so easy to come by. There is no reason that we should not have some kind of reasonable restraints against their purchase and use.

You are saying, in essence, that you think your "right" to enjoy target shooting or hunting with them should not be inconvenienced in any way, that if innocent people get sprayed with bullets at a school, mall, or movie theater, well, that's just the price we pay so that you gun enthusiasts can enjoy your "freedoms" with your "sporting" rifles and your magazines/drums that hold 30 or 100 rounds. It's all in good fun, right? That's what freedom is all about, right? That's just the American way, right?

January 20, 2013 at 3:18 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Rebus said... "...sort of like that idiot, dude_."

That's hurtful, Reeb. See, I've even got you on a first syllable basis. You gotta let go of the hate. I guess all the gun show people that got shot this week are geniuses. Would these be the people that would volunteer to guard our schools? Would five wounded children a week work for you? C'mon, ReeRee, you can think this through.

January 20, 2013 at 3:27 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"PS I do think they are cool. I know that sounds very un-liberal." - lkeithlu

Cool? Really? Please elaborate on that. What is so cool about them? Their macho, menacing look? The fact that they make such a wicked-cool sound when they go bang or rat-a-tat-tat? Or is it the way the bodies are bloodied and mangled when the bullets hit? Seriously, I want you to think about what you just said and then explain to me what is so cool about them.

January 20, 2013 at 3:28 p.m.
jesse said...

Well you done went and done it now Lu!!

You said sumpin that don't fit in w/roo's world view!

Gonna be on your " wing nut" arz now for sure!!

prob.. out huntin a piece of NEW rope right now!

January 20, 2013 at 3:39 p.m.
Rebus said...

Roo is falling apart before our very eyes.

January 20, 2013 at 3:44 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Since January 2012 pharmacies have to keep and maintain a data base of purchases of over the counter cold medication. This, as we all know, was to curb the use and manufacturing of meth and make it harder to obtain those ingredients. How has that turned out? Last year meth production in Tennesse was up 6% while making it harder for a typical law abiding citizen to purchase an item for relief of a cold and more cumbersome and expensive for the retailer. Why would one believe making it difficult for two neighbors or hunting partners to swap shotguns have any effect. Just like the meth example, it's all a ruse to make it look like politicans are doing something.

January 20, 2013 at 3:46 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Rebus, you fell apart a long time ago. I'm not concerned with the criticisms of a delusional old fool. Same goes for jesse...that always fair-minded, un-opinionated, clear voice of reason that he "thinks" he is.

January 20, 2013 at 3:54 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Ouch! Rebus runs for cover!

January 20, 2013 at 3:56 p.m.
Rebus said...

Rebus ain't running from you punks. Get real.

January 20, 2013 at 4:21 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Rickaroo, it may sound odd coming from a liberal (and female) but there is a cool factor. No, not in terms of hurting people and blood flying. But the power of military hardware has a certain attraction for most people. Having grown up around military bases I find the stuff fascinating (I particularly like aircraft, but hey to each his own) I would like to claim purity of ideals-there is only one reason for these weapons to be made and that is for killing, but I am human. Does that mean I want to own such weapons? No, but I can see why some people do, even those that are not paranoid about the government.

Again: my point is that keeping these weapons out of the hands of civilians is not a violation of the second amendment, and a small price to pay for reducing the chance of another Newtown.

January 20, 2013 at 4:21 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

You do realize a 6% increase is very small, right? What would that increase be if those restrictions weren't in place? Surely you can deal with a little inconvenience at Walgreens to keep meth makers from getting tons of new ingredients.

Your "meth example" blew up in your face as soon as you said "up 6%". Try again.

January 20, 2013 at 4:23 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack_Rebus_Dennis,

"Rebus ain't running from you punks. Get real."

You've already run..away from intelligent conversation, meaningful dialogue, the topic. Take your own advice, punk, and get real. Will you ever stop trolling?

January 20, 2013 at 4:25 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

limric said... "BRP, Did you watch the video? If you listen, Bill Maher is saying there is a lot more at stake than the Second Amendment. "

I had not, until you pointed me back at it. Thank you for sharing. He is absolutely right.

Let me tell you all a true story, from about 10 years ago. This event changed my view of government forever.

One evening I was in bed asleep in my home in a nice neighbourhood outside of Chattanooga. I was awakened by a knock on my bedroom door and my roommate asking me to come out. I got up, half asleep, in my underwear and opened my bedroom door to find 4 policemen standing just outside the door with their hands on their side arms. I asked them what the %&^ they were doing outside my bedroom door and told them to get out of my house. Nothing doing. I had to prove to them I was rightfully in this house. Well, I was naked except for my briefs so I had this notion that I needed to go get my pants and my wallet so I could show them "my papers" to prove to them that I had a right to be sleeping in my bed. This was a BIG problem. They did not want to let me close that door to retrieve my pants and wallet in private (no doubt because they were concerned that I might return to the door armed). I guess even these "public servants" realised that this person standing half naked in front of them with sleep not long ago in his eyes probably was a rightful occupant of the home and they could let him get his ID without an armed police escort to his britches.

So, I was able to get and show them my ID and they explained that neighbourhood watch had reported something suspicious going on in my yard. When my roommate (who was in pajama bottoms and a t-shirt) could not present an ID with the correct address on it they forced him to lead them to my bedroom to find someone who could prove they belonged there.

So. My rights to privacy come secondary to police policy. It was imperative for them to enter my home with arms at the ready to prove to themselves that I had a right to be in my own home. Just because some rent-a-cop thought he might have seen something... I was woken by an overwhelming armed police presence in my own home to prove that I belonged there. I could not get the police to leave my own home without first proving to them that I lived there.

January 20, 2013 at 4:34 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

If I had not been SOUND asleep when the police gained entrance, and had heard anything suspicious, I might well have come to that door with a weapon at the ready. How might that have turned out?

Ever since that night I have been suspicious of this notion that we are protected from government abusing our God given rights. All they need is an excuse to believe there is some kind of problem and all rights go out the window and officer safety trumps our civil liberties. All it takes is a phone call from somebody and your home can become a "civil rights free zone".

We live in a police state people. For some reason the press is complicit and does not do their job of drawing attention to the problem.

January 20, 2013 at 4:34 p.m.
Easy123 said...

BRP,

"Ever since that night I have been suspicious of this notion that we are protected from government abusing our God given rights."

Ever since that night I have been suspicious of this notion that we are protected from government abusing our government-given rights.

I fixed it for you. You weren't given any rights by any god. The Bill of Rights isn't in any holy book. Our government created these rights.

However, you are correct about the quasi-police state.

January 20, 2013 at 4:39 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Government only takes rights away. It cannot give rights.

January 20, 2013 at 4:48 p.m.
conservative said...

Demoncrat Representative ( that means people voted for her) Sheila Jakson Lee wants the death penalty for a gun when it kills.

"This senseless killing shows what happens with guns," Tweeted Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Rep.TX). "I favor the hardest penalty you can think of for any gun that kills or injures a living creature, including humans."

January 20, 2013 at 4:49 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Rebus said... "Rebus ain't running from you punks. Get real."

That's what that guy that used to be you said. What's next, Threebus?

January 20, 2013 at 5:10 p.m.
Easy123 said...

BRP,

"Government only takes rights away. It cannot give rights."

Wrong. Wrong again.

The only reason you have rights is because of our government.

January 20, 2013 at 5:29 p.m.
Easy123 said...

dude_,

"That's what that guy that used to be you said."

I laughed out loud because of that quip. Very funny.

January 20, 2013 at 5:31 p.m.
dude_abides said...

BigRidgePatriot said... "Government only takes rights away."

Yeah, like the right to own slaves.

January 20, 2013 at 5:31 p.m.
conservative said...

Demoncrat Sheila Jackson Lee co-sponsored a bill limiting capital punishment:

H.R. 1038, S.233:

"To place a moratorium on executions by the Federal Government and urge the States to do the same, while a National Commission on the Death Penalty reviews the fairness of the imposition of the death penalty ."

http://house.ontheissues.org/TX/Sheila_Jackson_Lee_Crime.htm

However, she would impose the death penalty for any gun (an inamimate object) that kills or injures a living creature, including humans."

Notice the creature came first. Notice also the creature had to be living, she gives dead creatures a pass though.

Could this statement, if Owebama is serious about mental illness disqualify Demoncrat Sheila Jackson Lee from ever legally owning a gun?

January 20, 2013 at 5:34 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative being blatantly dishonest...AGAIN.

"However, she would impose the death penalty"

Show us where she said that. I bet you can't. 1st degree murder would carry a maximum sentence of the death penalty. I guess you didn't think that far into your stupid argument.

"for any gun (an inamimate object)"

She obviously meant "gun owner".

"Notice the creature came first."

Humans are living creatures. Jackson even added that to be clear.

"Notice also the creature had to be living, she gives dead creatures a pass though."

You can't kill or injure something that is already dead.

Could these statements, if Obama is serious about mental illness, disqualify conservative from ever legally owning a gun?

January 20, 2013 at 5:42 p.m.
conservative said...

Easy, once again you are wrong. Read her statement again.

"This senseless killing shows what happens with guns," Tweeted Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Rep.TX). "I favor the hardest penalty you can think of for any gun that kills or injures a living creature, including humans."

January 20, 2013 at 6:13 p.m.
raygunz said...

Rebus,I don't want to take sides,but,most of your one-line posts are superfluous after all,and the constant whining is getting pretty tedious too. Jus' sayin'.

January 20, 2013 at 6:38 p.m.
Sailorman said...

BRP: "Government only takes rights away. It cannot give rights."

I think that's a rather severe view. As with most things, it depends on your definition. The government most certainly can grant rights, or privileges if you prefer. It can take those same rights or privileges away.

Easy: The only reason you have rights is because of our government.

If you mean because they protect the rights we have, I would agree completely. If you mean the ONLY rights we have are those granted us by the government, as opposed to natural or unalienable human rights, I would disagree.

If the belief is we have a natural human right to defend ourselves (for example) , the discussion turns to the tools we use for that purpose i.e. semi-auto guns vs any guns at all vs golf club etc etc. and who can have them. All these hundreds of posts shows clearly how contentious that can be.

"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase is meant to exemplify the "unalienable rights" with which all human beings are endowed for the protection of which they institute governments.[1]

Natural Rights discussion (among hundreds)

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v2/2/

Freedom is a messy business sometimes.

January 20, 2013 at 6:48 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Rebus... What name do you have for the man who said one of Obama's daughters looked kind of butch? You okay with that? Surely you have a harsher name for him than for somebody who calls out a grown man. Your legitimacy (what's left of it) rides on your response to his trashing of a young girl. What about it?

January 20, 2013 at 6:54 p.m.
Maximus said...

Rickaroo and Dude....sorry you guys are not successful like me. Somebody has to be on food stamps...right? As for my spelling I have to admit that I spent very little time on the Vanderbilt liberal arts campus where AlGore got his degree in Religion or some such crap. I got my Vandy MBA at the business school $$$$!

January 20, 2013 at 7:12 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

lkeithlu, I get the "cool" factor about these guns. The sense of power and machismo that comes with handling such a weapon can be intoxicating for a lot of people. But I think that that enthrallment is misplaced and childish. Those who feel that they "need" such a weapon to feel protected are extremely insecure and paranoid. Unfortunately, it is these insecure and paranoid people who are screaming the loudest about their fear of losing their sacrosanct second amendment rights. As others have pointed out on this forum, we have already given up so many of our rights as a result of this overblown "war on terror," but it is only their precious second amendment rights that seem to matter to the gun nuts. They think that as long as they have their guns, they are protected from whatever harm a "tyrannical" government might inflict upon them. But they don't even comprehend that what makes the government so tyrannical in the first place is that big business and powerful lobby groups (big oil, big pharma, the NRA, and others) own our government, forcing it to bend the rules and implement laws in their favor; and that is what makes the government something to be feared.

Another point as to the cool factor of these guns: I'm willing to bet that not one parent or loved one of any of the children killed in Newtown thinks there is anything the least bit "cool" about an AR15 or a Glock or Sig Sauer.

January 20, 2013 at 7:13 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Maximus...sorry that you're such a small-minded twit that the only gauge you know for measuring success is money. Actually, those who think that money is the only, or even the primary, measure of a person's worth are themselves not really successful in any true sense of the word. You are a very pathetic little person.

January 20, 2013 at 7:24 p.m.
dude_abides said...

TOES (maxi's former name) ain't got no money, Rickaroo. He's an odd fellow out of Pennsylvania that works putting seat belts and such in automobiles. I guess he feels that's not decent work so he makes up crap and pretends to be the pig you see before you. It really is sad, because even what he wants to be is pathetic.

January 20, 2013 at 7:37 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Dude, I've always known that he's a liar but even if he were telling the truth about himself, he would still be pathetic. I'm not sure which is worse - to be a poor nobody who is jealous about other people's money or to be a rich SOB who thinks that his money and possessions are what make him a somebody. One is pathetic, the other is an arrogant a-hole. In both cases....losers.

January 20, 2013 at 7:48 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Obviously, Vanderbilt didn't require English or a room-temperature IQ as prerequisite to get into the MBA program. LMFAO!

January 20, 2013 at 8:48 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

Show me what I was wrong about or shut up. Pasting the quote again means nothing. Support your claims or you'll continue to be wrong.

January 20, 2013 at 8:50 p.m.
Rebus said...

EasyL "Meaningful dialogue"? You've got a pair, child. All I've seen outta you is one slur after the next. Hardly meaningful dialogue. you want to try again? bwahahaha

dude_: What do the Obama girls have to do with me? I've never mentioned them. Not once. Kids should be off limits.

Raygunz: I would say you're the whiner, pal. Plus I'm pretty sure I'm not really interested in your critique.

January 20, 2013 at 9:14 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack_Rebus_Troll,

""Meaningful dialogue"?"

Absolutely.

"You've got a pair, child."

I do, coffin dodger.

"All I've seen outta you is one slur after the next."

No, you haven't. I've seen plenty from you though.

"Hardly meaningful dialogue."

Exactly my point. There is no such thing as "meaningful dialogue" with Jack_Rebus_Dennis.

"you want to try again? bwahahaha"

Would you like to, Troll? LMFAO! This is all you do. You troll. That's it. That's why people insult you and point out your hypocrisy, ignorance, etc. It's impossible for you to grasp that fact. I've had plenty of meaningful debates with others here but never with you. I don't even try anymore. You're an old man with nothing, and I mean NOTHING, worth reading/discussing/debating in his brain. I dare you to say something intelligent/on topic/not insulting here. I bet you cash money that you cannot and will not.

January 20, 2013 at 9:35 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack_Rebus_Dennis,

"What do the Obama girls have to do with me? I've never mentioned them. Not once. Kids should be off limits."

Maximus did. You don't seem to be calling him a punk or chastise him for using slurs/insults/etc.

"I would say you're the whiner, pal. Plus I'm pretty sure I'm not really interested in your critique."

Pot meet kettle, King of the Whiners. Welcome to everyone else's view of your posts.

January 20, 2013 at 9:37 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Rebus said... "Kids should be off limits."

Fair enough. Could we agree, therefore, that Maximus is a punk?

January 20, 2013 at 9:38 p.m.
raygunz said...

Oh well rebus,I intended that post to be "words to the wise", but apparently it was "casting my pearls before swine". Feel free to carry on in the manner which suits you.

January 20, 2013 at 9:42 p.m.
conservative said...

Easy, this will be at least your 3rd try. Look at what you said, Look at what I said, Look at what she said and think, and you just might figure out why you are wrong.

Read her statement again.

"This senseless killing shows what happens with guns," Tweeted Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Rep.TX). "I favor the hardest penalty you can think of for any gun that kills or injures a living creature, including humans."

January 20, 2013 at 9:52 p.m.
Rebus said...

words to the wise from raygunz. boy, that's rich.

January 20, 2013 at 9:59 p.m.
Rebus said...

dude_: I'll reserve the punk label for you and your little punk ass buddy, easy.

January 20, 2013 at 10:09 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

This will be at least your 3rd try. Look at what you said, look at what I said, look at what she said and think, and you just might figure out why you are wrong.

Show me what I was wrong about or shut up. Pasting the quote again means nothing. Support your claims or you'll continue to be wrong. You don't support them because you know you don't have any valid claims.

January 20, 2013 at 10:12 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack_Rebus_Troll_Dennis,

"dude_: I'll reserve the punk label for you and your little punk ass buddy, easy."

"All I've seen outta you is one slur after the next." -Rebus

Hypocrite. You're a lot more ignorant than you let on. You don't even try to hide it anymore. You bitch and whine, then you go and do the exact thing you just got done bitching and whining about. I think I'll leave the "punk ass" label for the guy that had to change his "handle" because he was supposedly getting mail and phone calls to his house. That was the same week you accused everyone else of having "multiple handles".

Come on, Rebitch! Surely, you can do better than this.

January 20, 2013 at 10:16 p.m.
Rebus said...

Easypunk: Which "for profit" college to you attend?

January 20, 2013 at 11:20 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rebitch aka Jack_Dennis,

"Which "for profit" college to you attend?"

I do not nor have I ever attended or been enrolled in a for-profit institution. Which one of your three lame jokes/insults will you regurgitate next?

Seriously, is that the best you can do? I get it. I'm the bane of your existence and you don't have a formal college education. But can you add to the conversation for once? I dare you.

January 20, 2013 at 11:30 p.m.
Rebus said...

I don't really care, easy punk. I just like to push your idly biddy buttons. It's soooooeasy.

January 21, 2013 at 12:25 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack_Rebus_Dennis,

"I don't really care, easy punk."

For someone that doesn't care, you sure do talk about it a lot, Rebitch.

"I just like to push your idly biddy buttons."

You aren't pushing my buttons despite what you may think. LMFAO! Online college/JUCO jokes! They push so many of my buttons! LMFAO! Say something about acne or my age next!

"It's soooooeasy."

Then why have you yet to do it? Your jokes/insults/trolls aren't the least bit witty, novel, or even remotely accurate. I don't even have to address you directly to push your tender, fragile, little buttons. This all started because I addressed someone else's post. You got all butt-hurt because I used a big word accurately and you've trolled all the day long.

You're really getting worse this. You hit rock-bottom a long time ago and you just kept digging.

January 21, 2013 at 12:39 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

IS THE REPUBLICAN PART STILL RELEVANT?

Back in 2009 when young Barack Obama first took office he had a wonderfully naïve dream of leading America back to prosperity from a calamitous economic implosion. He knew Congress was gridlocked by partisan politics so he decided to talk to republicans.

He believed republicans would support legislation that included republican ideas. Little did he know that House and Senate republicans, along with a number of the usual GOP suspects, had secretly agreed to oppose him at every turn.

In the Affordable Care Act, for instance, the President included the individual mandate provision instead of the more popular single payer option (Medicare For Everyone). After all, republican governor Mitt Romney included the individual mandate provision in his Massachusetts health care reform.

Remarkably, republicans called their own individual mandate unconstitutional and railed against it.

When the President was crafting a stimulus bill he asked republicans for their input. They demanded less spending on infrastructure and more tax cuts. Obama said ‘okay,’ reduced money for roads and bridges, proposed the largest middle tax cut in history, but republicans still called it unconstitutional and railed against it.

It slowly dawned on Barack that republicans were going to oppose everything he supported and it was killing him at the polls. Instead of persuading republicans to compromise he got stuck pushing legislation he didn’t completely believe in.

But the President has finally wised up. Instead of begging for republican support – which he will never get – he is proposing popular legislation that republicans will automatically oppose.

For instance, 90% of Americans want background checks on anyone who wants to buy gun. It makes no sense that gun shows and Internet sites can sell weapons to people on the terrorist no-fly list. The majority also want a ban on assault weapons, and high capacity clips. Republicans oppose those measures and even criticize funding for armed police officers. Wait - isn't that what Wayne the Brain demanded?

Obama will continue to propose popular legislation, knowing republicans – trapped in a partisan political pickle – will offer nothing more than knee jerk opposition. This strategy has managed, so far, to make democrats look reasonable, responsible, and trustworthy. No small accomplishment.

So here’s today question: Is the republican party still relevant?

January 21, 2013 at 12:55 a.m.
fairmon said...

See the 2ND amendment. Why would the law not be that no gun will be allowed outside the owners home unless the owner is called to serve in a militia. The amendment doesn't say anything about the right to hunt and kill animals. The fish and game commission could call to militia duty those volunteering to eradicate a specific number of a species in an identified area.

New laws not enforced any better than current laws will make little to no difference.

January 21, 2013 at 3:34 a.m.
patriot1 said...

fairmon....the 2nd ammendment does not give a gun owner the right to own a gun. The men put together the constitution recognized this right already existed without any action on their part. It is a natural right, an inalienable right, a right that cannot be transferred or taken away. They did not grant the right. The language simply states the right shall not be infringed. Since the authors of the constituion were about brevity, many thought this was redundant and not necessary, so why state the obvious? Thank God for George Mason, the holdout for the Bill of Rights.

January 21, 2013 at 7:27 a.m.
conservative said...

Easy, this will be at least your 4th try. Look at what you said, Look at what I said, Look at what she said and think, and you just might figure out why you are wrong.

Read her statement again.

"This senseless killing shows what happens with guns," Tweeted Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Rep.TX). "I favor the hardest penalty you can think of for any gun that kills or injures a living creature, including humans."

January 21, 2013 at 8:16 a.m.
patriot1 said...

conservative....She gave a pass to shooting "dead creatures", good thing too, since trying to get a point across to some is like "shooting a dead horse."

January 21, 2013 at 8:25 a.m.
Rebus said...

Easypunk: I doubt you possess the necessities to inflict any "butthurt". (your new favorite word). But dream on, son. It's ok....some lads have a rougher journey thru puberty than others. Has your voice changed yet?

January 21, 2013 at 8:31 a.m.
Maximus said...

Rickaroo....don't let anyone fool you...IT IS ABOUT THE MONEY.

Average salary for UT Vols Football Coaches...$345,000 Bill Clinton made $90 million last year giving speeches. Al Gore sells Apple Stock and Current TV earns millions $$$$. New Jersey scams over $60 billion in borrowed money for Sandy Relief. Average cost for a Super Bowl Ad....$6 million for 30 seconds.

January 21, 2013 at 8:49 a.m.
Rebus said...

President Barack Obama averaged a 49.1 percent job approval during his first term in office, among the lowest for post-World War II presidents, according to a new Gallup poll. Only Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford had lower job approval averages in their first terms, Gallup reported.

Despite a fawning and corrupt press

January 21, 2013 at 9:03 a.m.
Rebus said...

jesse: How about this one? 🍼

January 21, 2013 at 9:10 a.m.
jesse said...

I just like messin w/him!

He's so predictable and foamin at the mouth it's fun to watch him go ballistic!

January 21, 2013 at 9:19 a.m.
Rebus said...

or this one: 💩

January 21, 2013 at 9:27 a.m.
limric said...

Mountainlaurel,
Re. your 2:49 p.m post.

I wasn’t trying to imply that Obama is proposing the subjugation or dismantlement of the second amendment. But, the Presidents proposed “more responsible laws and regulations involving guns” is just another way of saying ‘gun control’. See New York's instant “more responsible laws and regulations.”

Quote: “If some of these gun owners were less paranoid, they would probably be able to understand this.” This, along with Rickaroo’s 3:18 p.m & 3:28 p.m. accusatory diatribes aimed at lkeithlu and me is essentially a type of psychobabble. As I said earlier, knee jerk reaction is labeling semi-auto gun owners as frothing at the mouth nut jobs. (Rickaroo’s posts pretty much stated as much) But it just ain’t so. If you protest, you're in denial, therefore there is an aura of guilt or paranoia...and around and around we go. Sort of like the loaded question, “Have you stopped beating your wife” An unfalsifiable question/assumption?

See the light? As a range safety officer, I believe passionately that any person wishing to purchase a firearm (anywhere) must be subject to A: A background check. B: Proof of successful completion of a training and safety course. And C: Familiarization with the laws of the state where said firearms are to be purchased. Sensible while not being draconian.

I’ll close by quoting Fairmon, “New laws not enforced any better than current laws will make little to no difference.”

P.S. Not to add fuel to the fire, the video below will REALLY piss off some people. No I don't have one and don't plan on getting one.

January 21, 2013 at 9:54 a.m.
chatt_man said...

Here's a link to the Athens story GrouchyJohn referred to January 20, 2013 at 8:58 a.m.

http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-of-Athens.html

January 21, 2013 at 10:05 a.m.
patriot1 said...
January 21, 2013 at 10:18 a.m.
conservative said...

patriot 1

I have not fired a true M-16 since Vietnam and I am mostly unaware of what is out there in fire arms. I shoot pellet guns several times a week (ammo is a lot cheaper than 22s). A single shot pellet gun can fire 1000 ft per second, close to a 22, and both can kill.

That demo was awesome! Just makes the point that gunmakers will always be ahead of lawmakers.

It is truly remarkable how Liberals will not go after the criminal and mentally unstable, because they are the ones using guns, knives, bats, tire irons, bricks, cars, fists or whatever is handy to commit their evil deed.

I wish Liberals would watch that film clip and notice how fast the man changed those magazines. Now, the Owebama proposal would limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds. There are probably millions of larger capacity magazines out there already and 2 ten 10 round magazines could be joined together to make a 20 round magazine, but why bother, just carry a couple of extra 10 round mags and accomplish your criminal mischief. It took that man 1-2 seconds to change magazines!

The mental deficiency of Liberals is astounding!

January 21, 2013 at 11:06 a.m.
fairmon said...

Limric...

I own several guns but don't want or need one like in the video. In fact I wonder why anyone outside the military would need a gun like that. I have wondered about all the improved equipment and technology the hunters have while the animals still have only their natural survival instincts, nothing new for them. Ever wonder why some species proliferate inspite of the hunters growing advantage while others are threatened with extinction? I think if you catch and keep fish or kill an animal you should be required to eat it or pay to have it prepared for consumption by the hungry and/or homeless.

January 21, 2013 at 12:08 p.m.
fairmon said...

Aren't executive orders more like "go do's" than they are laws? Do executive orders require congress approval if spending to follow the directive is involved? Presidents get a lot of credit or blame even when they are essentially impotent if congress doesn't fund a presidential initiative. Why should a member of congress support a position different than the majority of their constituents and risk not being elected again?

January 21, 2013 at 12:17 p.m.
Rebus said...

New term beginning..Wondering if BHO's first order of bidness will be closing Gitmo? Just wondering.

January 21, 2013 at 1:19 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Limric said: “I wasn’t trying to imply that Obama is proposing the subjugation or dismantlement of the second amendment.”

Ok . . . I wasn’t sure. . . The NRA is certainly peddling the claim.

Limric said: “But, the Presidents proposed “more responsible laws and regulations involving guns” is just another way of saying ‘gun control’.”

I’m not sure what you’re saying here, Limric. Surely, you’re not suggesting that you’re opposed to any kind of “gun control” in the U.S. Are you?

Limric says about ML’s statement: “This, along with Rickaroo’s 3:18 p.m & 3:28 p.m. accusatory diatribes aimed at lkeithlu and me is essentially a type of psychobabble. As I said earlier, knee jerk reaction is labeling semi-auto gun owners as frothing at the mouth nut jobs. . . But it just ain’t so.

Since there are lots of paranoid gun owners out there claiming that President Obama is trying to get rid of our Second Amendment, I don’t think my statement “If some of these gun owners were less paranoid, they would probably be able to understand this” is psychobabble or a knee jerk reaction. . . . To be honest, Limric, it’s really hard for me to believe there is anyone out there over the age of 18 who hasn’t heard as you say some of these “semi-auto gun owners. . .frothing at the mouth nut jobs,” especially a gun advocate like yourself.

Limric said: I’ll close by quoting Fairmon, “New laws not enforced any better than current laws will make little to no difference.”

Interesting, but as we all know Fairmon is the kind of guy who would be the first to scream if his local law enforcement agency dared to take steps to hire enough staff to effectively enforce the laws that Fairmon is claiming they aren’t enforcing. . . Know what I mean? . . . I also noted that Fairmon didn’t share any specifics as to which gun laws aren’t being enforced.

I did like Fairmon’s “gun tax idea” though. It certainly makes sense, especially if the tax money was used to supplement funding for law enforcement agencies. Let’ face it, gun related crimes take up a lot of their time in wide variety of ways. Indeed, I read that a gun kept in the home to be 43 times more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than to be used in self-defense.

January 21, 2013 at 1:47 p.m.
Maximus said...

Noooga.....it is still about the money and I give to my church according to my faith. You can't take it with you but you certainly can help a LOT of people with the money you earn by the grace of God and the sweat of your brow. I am very comfortable with my salvation and my off shore accounts. Being poor is not noble especially if you have the health and hopefully the work ethic to pull yourself out of poverty and welfare. Slothfullness is a sin that many Obama voters suffer from. Sad.

January 21, 2013 at 2:08 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Inauguration Day 2.0 for President Obama

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/obama-inauguration/

January 21, 2013 at 2:16 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Limric...Not exactly sure what point you were trying to make with that video. Just to piss off people like me? I was not the least bit pissed off. Just wondering how in the world you boys with your lethal toys can marvel at something like that. I'm sure that you personally are very responsible with your arsenal (collection) of weapons, and I imagine that most gun owners are. I also believe in the saying, "different strokes for different folks," but I have a really hard time getting how you guys in love with deadly weapons for sport get so adolescently emotional about them, to the point where you have to have whatever more powerful, faster firing gun or rifle comes off the assembly line. I have never fired a gun more high-powered than an M-1 rifle, back in the day, and I have no desire to even pick up an M-1 again or anything equivalent. I have a simple .22 rifle at home and if that's not enough to protect me from an intruder or whatever wild animal I might encounter here in the woods where I live, then so be it.

You think that semi-automatics and automatics with their high-capacity clips have their due place in our society. I don't. I think they were made for military/ war-time use and that is where they should have stayed. But of course, that Pandora's Box was opened a long time ago and there's no closing it after the fact. The best we can do is to regulate them as best we can, but there are lots of gun owners (and these are the ones whom I call the nuts) who think that any kind of regulation at all is an infringement of their second amendment rights, or who always whine about a "slippery slope" leading to a ban on all of their guns, or who are so paranoid about a government takeover that they stockpile weapons for reassurance. I'm glad to know that you at least see the necessity of common-sense regulation. As for these high-powered weapons of mass destruction and their place in a civilized society...well, we will just have to agree to disagree.

I said this earlier, about the "cool" factor of these types of guns and I'll say it again: I'm willing to bet that not one parent or loved one of any of the children killed in Newtown thinks there is anything the least bit "cool" about an AR15 or a Glock or Sig Sauer or any other gun for that matter. That video you posted...they would probably look at it with revulsion or else break down and cry.

January 21, 2013 at 2:38 p.m.
Rebus said...

Riveting, Roo. Riveting.

January 21, 2013 at 3:11 p.m.
jesse said...

Conservative is DOWN on SIN!!!

ROO is DOWN on GUNS!

Same mind set just different subject!

January 21, 2013 at 3:21 p.m.
Maximus said...

Barry has no excuses now and Bush can't save his butt. It's all on you Barry and I think by the end of the next four years the Republicans will be back in power for the forseeable future. You can't spend your way to prosperity with no regard to debt. Barry says he is all about the children but the children will be paying Barry's bills for the decades to come. Barry will have done his job of REDUCING the quality of life for every American all in the interest of fairness.

January 21, 2013 at 3:24 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

And jesse spits out the same typical drivel for his two cents' worth. You are so simple minded that you cannot grasp the nuance of an argument. You can't even differentiate between the intangible/hypothetical(sin) and the tangible (guns). Whether I'm right or wrong, at least I'm basing my argument on something that exists and can actually be debated. Bible thumpers base their arguments on a make-believe God and devil that exist only in their heads. If you think that there is no difference in our arguments, then try utilizing your brain for something other than a bandana holder.

You think that just because one side represents the liberal and the other the conservative, they are both wrong. But, you know, there just might be truth spoken on one side or the other from time to time...if you would not be so quick to brand both sides as just two sides of the same coin. Your smug, middle of the road, independent, fence-sitting stance is just a cop-out. You are just as opinionated as anybody posting here, and your opinion is no more correct than anybody else's.

January 21, 2013 at 3:55 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Rickaroo, I certainly agree with you on one point: the cool factor is gone when a gun like these is used to kill innocents. What I was trying to convey is an understanding why people like these weapons. You could say the same thing about violent video games; the attraction may be lost to someone who has experienced real as opposed to virtual violence. But I have friends who own weapons like this, and they don't own them because they fear zombies or rogue cops, nor could they conceive of using them to kill anything, much less humans (odd, I know, given that this is exactly why they are made) Even when I stop to think why we build elegant and fearsome attack helicopters, I still get a charge watching them fly. Doesn't make sense, and I guess anyone who feels like I do cannot be called a true pacifist.

January 21, 2013 at 4:20 p.m.
limric said...

Whoa, hold on thar Miss ‘Mountain- too busy to be a homecoming queen- Laurel’. ;-)

You’re missing the point of my psychobabble comparison. The underlying message of your “If some of these (some of these? Hmm.) gun owners were less paranoid, they would probably be able to understand this,” the 4th paragraph of Rickaroo’s 3:18 P.M yesterday and much of the 1st paragraph of his 2:38 p.m. post today are pretty close as I illustrated.

To wit: Protestation/opposing viewpoint is essentially denial; therefore there is an aura of guilt, paranoia or immaturity. Are they not a re-wording of, “Have you stopped beating your wife”?? Sure seems so to me.

I have serious reservation about the recent executive orders and pending legislation.

Why Limric? How can you possibly question commonsense ‘gun control’?

Because the devil is ALWAYS in the details. I have no objection to states doing background checks that makes use of federal crime databases and such to make sure a Chattanooga felon can’t stroll on down to Florida and buy a gun. I’ve said as much earlier.

However, when you add in more subjective issues like mental health I start to get nervous. (Whoops there’s that pesky paranoia again) Example: If a woman wants treatment for post-partum depression, does she have to choose between her mental health and the ability (right) to own a gun in the future? What about a teen diagnosed with depression or ADHD, who tries to buy a gun at age 30. Does a past single issue matter? Will it follow them for the rest of their lives? The prospect of abuse, manipulation or simple negligence by any number of bureaucratic agencies is too great to ignore. I’m sure you’re familiar with the TSA’s imbecilic ‘no fly list’. I guarantee this will happen.

Two questions that must be asked:

1) What is the specific problem that these regulations will supposedly fix, and

2) Will they? If the answer to the first is "Sandy Hook" the answer to the second is "No." Therefore supporting my earlier assertion “Today’s knee jerk debate is completely the result of reactionary emotion stoked by a know nothing, do as little research as possible media.”

Furthermore, I would keep a healthy dose of skepticism considering any new firearms regulations until the Attorney General and the BATFE, who supplied arms to drug lords and murderers, or the MIC doing same around the world, are held to the same accountability standards as are we.

January 21, 2013 at 4:26 p.m.
limric said...

No Rickaroo, I was not aiming the video at you personally. It was more of a, If you think regular AR’s etc. are nasty, wait till you see what this. It was just a goof. These are gimmicks. Just as are large drum magazines. The Slide Fire and the Defender bump fire stocks do nothing to increase accuracy and will, if you view the videos shake an expensive rifle to pieces sooner than later. Big drum mags. are a heavy, clunky, noisy pain in the ass. Standard AR’s aren’t really meant for them…that’s why there are machine guns.
And if I may be so bold as to use your own Judeo Christian guilt trip to paraphrase a retort. I'm willing to bet that not one parent or loved one of any of the children killed in Middle Eastern countries thinks there is anything the least bit "cool" about streaking missiles. They ARE cringing in fear and look at them and their operators with revulsion and hatred - they break down and cry every day.

January 21, 2013 at 4:38 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Sailorman said... (Government only takes rights away. It cannot give rights.) "I think that's a rather severe view. As with most things, it depends on your definition. The government most certainly can grant rights, or privileges if you prefer. It can take those same rights or privileges away."

Then I think you disagree with our founding fathers whereas I agree with them, on this point. They found rights to be self evident and coming from (their) creator and they where only acknowledging these rights and protecting them with the Constitution. I suggest you read "The Law" by Fredrick Bastiat. It is a quick read and will be well worth your time.

January 21, 2013 at 5:10 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Limric, as I said earlier...we will just have to agree to disagree. We are a country that is awash in guns and gun violence and unfortunately there are too many people who think that's perfectly acceptable. Or if not acceptable, they think the only way to curb it is by adding even more guns to the equation. The gun culture is so much a part of our make-up that the gun enthusiasts cannot even begin to think in terms of a society without guns or even a diminution of guns. Yet, all of the other industrialized countries have gotten along perfectly well without them, or at least with far fewer of them than we have, and without even close to the same degree or extent of violence. And I daresay the citizens there are not any closer to being taken over by their government than we are or ever will be.

You are probably correct in that more gun controls will have little, if any, effect. But I am not prepared to resort to the only solution being armed guards in every school, mall, movie theater, or public establishment; nor am I willing to throw up my hands and say, "If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em" and strap on a pistol every time I go out. If it truly comes to that, I will look for another country to call home and leave this country to the gun lovers. They can turn the whole friggin' place into one huge shooting range if they so choose and carry pistols everywhere they go. Hell, they can shoot each others' brains out for all I care and pledge allegiance to the flag as they do so. Guns and Amurika...yippe-ki-yay.

January 21, 2013 at 5:29 p.m.
Sailorman said...

BRB

I've read it . I stand by what I said. Example - the "right" to drive on a public road.

And read the second part of the original post

January 21, 2013 at 6:27 p.m.
Sailorman said...

BRB

I've read it . I stand by what I said. Example - the "right" to drive on a public road.

And read the second part of the original post

January 21, 2013 at 6:27 p.m.
limric said...

Rickaroo,

We will just have to agree to disagree.” Ok, that’s fine. I too am not prepared to resort to solutions being armed guards in schools, malls, movie theaters, or public establishments; and am not throwing up my hands. And I don’t strap on a pistol every time I go out. I think our ultimate goals in this respect aren’t so very different. It’s how we get there that is.

If you, Miss ‘Mountain- too busy to be a homecoming queen- Laurel or the ever so lovely lkeithlu wish to try your hands at scary ‘Sturmgewehr’ style rifles, I’d be proud to show y’all how to ‘safely’ operate one. You’d surely wind up with smile as large as Barack Obama watching Rush Limbaugh trip down a flight of stairs.

January 21, 2013 at 6:58 p.m.
patriot1 said...

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jan/21/police-officer-dead-family-murder-suicide-vegas/?br..

If only we could get those guns out of the hands of police officers....oh wait

January 21, 2013 at 7:22 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Sailorman said... "I've read it . I stand by what I said. Example - the "right" to drive on a public road."

Good for you (The Law).

Certainly, in the past, everyone understood that they had a right to travel on public roads. The government has worked hard to take this right away and turn it into a privilege. So you have just proven that government only takes rights away. It can either recognise "natural" rights or it can deny them.

January 21, 2013 at 7:54 p.m.
Lr103 said...

patriot1 said... I fonly we could get those guns out of the hands of police officers...oh wait

Maybe not a bad idea. In Britain, only specialized police units carry guns. Some retired top cops have already suggested there may come a day in America when it might have to disarm its police force.

January 21, 2013 at 7:54 p.m.
Sailorman said...

BRB

"Certainly, in the past, everyone understood that they had a right to travel on public roads. The government has worked hard to take this right away and turn it into a privilege. "

Excellent point.

January 21, 2013 at 8:19 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Limric says: “You’re missing the point of my psychobabble comparison. . . Protestation/opposing viewpoint is essentially denial; therefore there is an aura of guilt, paranoia or immaturity. Are they not a re-wording of, “Have you stopped beating your wife”?? Sure seems so to me.”

Well, I can’t speak for Rickaroo, but it seems to me the only people using psychobabble to defend their position are gun owners who simply refuse to consider the tragic impact that America’s lax attitude and lax gun laws are having on our society. I believe it’s good they feel some guilt about supporting the status quo, especially when you consider their political position and look at the statistics. In 2010, 8,000 people died in the U.S. due to gun violence.

Limric promises ML and Ikeithlu: “If you wish to try your hands at scary ‘Sturmgewehr’ style rifles, I’d be proud to show y’all how to ‘safely’ operate one. You’d surely wind up with smile as large as Barack Obama watching Rush Limbaugh trip down a flight of stairs.”

I can’t speak for Ikeithlu, but I believe you’re being a little too smug about those smiles you’re promising, Limric. As the mighty quail hunter Dick Cheney has demonstrated, when it comes to guns other outcomes are always possible. Sometimes mighty hunters shoot friends instead of quail. . . even at guns shows celebrating their beloved Gun Appreciation Day, some of these mighty hunters manage to shoot either themselves or somebody else in the foot. . . so to speak

“Accidental shootings at gun shows in North Carolina, Indiana and Ohio left five people injured Saturday, the same day that thousands of gun advocates gathered peacefully at state capitals around the U.S. to rally against stricter firearm limits.”

In North Carolina “at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show in Raleigh, a 12-gauge shotgun discharged as its owner unzipped its case for a law enforcement officer to check at a security entrance, injuring three people, state Agriculture Department spokesman Brian Long said.”

In Indianapolis, police said a 54-year-old man was injured when he inadvertently shot himself while leaving a gun show. Emory L. Cozee was loading his .45-caliber semi-automatic when he shot himself in the hand as he was leaving the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife show at the state fairgrounds, state police said. Loaded personal weapons aren't allowed inside the show.”

And in Ohio, “a gun dealer in Medina was checking out a semi-automatic handgun he had bought Saturday when he accidentally pulled the trigger, injuring his friend, police said. The gun's magazine had been removed from the firearm, but one round remained in the chamber, police said.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/gun-show-shootings_n_2513057.html?utm_hp_ref=crime

January 22, 2013 at 11:03 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.