Spartanmack said:

If you need to feel like you're getting under my skin with your moronic posts I couldn't possibly care less. I find most of your posts amusing - the serious ones at least. I do however find your need to twist my words as much as or more than MC as a sign of your need to disagree with virtually everything I say (oops, I mean "type") - clearly I've touched a nerve.

I'm not even going to bother with your defense of bob - he's legitimately delusional and a complete moron. And by the way, everyone's concerns with healthcare are shared by 10s of millions - that doesn't legitimize his moronic solutions or make his incoherent rants any less moronic. The reference to for-profit prisons is a running joke about his frequent incoherent anti-GOP rants. If you've read more than 5 of his posts, chances are you've read one of those.

Click to expand...

I am so glad I do not think like you or anyone like you. Because you are just one stupid human being.

biggunsbob said:

I am so glad I do not think like you or anyone like you. Because you are just one stupid human being.

Click to expand...

Powerful stuff coming from you bob. Powerful stuff.

You would have been a lot more accurate if you just ended your post after "I am so glad I do not think."

Spartanmack said:

Powerful stuff coming from you bob. Powerful stuff.

You would have been a lot more accurate if you just ended your post after "I am so glad I do not think."

Click to expand...

How's it feel that most Americans do not believe in the old antiquated thinking like yours. Your just a fool who is easily lead by clowns . Heck you don't even know when your getting torched . Again I am glad you liked my words because I do not want anything to do with people like you.

Former Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger on the 2nd amendment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo

Ouch. and Burger was a fairly conservative Nixon appointee.

More (link) "Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn?t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual?s right to own a gun until 2008..."

turok said:

This handsome specimen of a feminine is largely responsible for the cray cray that Floriduh is, and the gunsmoke stench emitting from it, that permeates other states as well. Trayvon Martin's blood is on her hands, as well as thousands more indirectly from gun violence.

"Parkland students gathered in Tallahassee earlier this week to meet with legislators and advocate for gun control measures. In a speech after the meeting, sophomore Tanzil Philip called Marion Hammer directly out by name."

"To Marion Hammer," he said, "and to everyone at the NRA and everyone affiliated at the NRA: We are not afraid of you, we will not be silenced by anything you have to say. We are here, our voices are loud, and we’re not stopping until change happens."

https://www.bustle.com/p/who-is-mar...profiled-floridas-gun-rights-champion-8308010

This she-beast is quite vengefully formidable, and I wish these youngsters good fortune in their mission to shake things up in that state. She is cold hard proof of the NRA's many tentacled control and influence over Republicans in local, state, and federal government for decades.

Click to expand...

I read a bio of Marion Hammer somewhere else recently. what an awful human being... just shameless, sick, and twisted.

People like her - willing to push policies that result in more Americans, including innocent children getting shot and murdered just to sell more guns, and profit off the blood and suffering - are absolutely sociopaths, in the truest sense of the word. Some of them might be outright psychopaths as well.

I just donated to the Brady Campaign today. drop in the bucket compared to what goes to the NRA, but at least we have moral dignity and justice on our side.

michchamp said:

I read a bio of Marion Hammer somewhere else recently. what an awful human being... just shameless, sick, and twisted.

People like her - willing to push policies that result in more Americans, including innocent children getting shot and murdered just to sell more guns, and profit off the blood and suffering - are absolutely sociopaths, in the truest sense of the word. Some of them might be outright psychopaths as well.

I just donated to the Brady Campaign today. drop in the bucket compared to what goes to the NRA, but at least we have moral dignity and justice on our side.

Click to expand...

She so richly deserves to wake up and find herself in an IRL Saw-like gauntlet....along with Wayne LaPierre and the other NRA HQ ghouls.

michchamp said:

Former Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger on the 2nd amendment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo

Ouch. and Burger was a fairly conservative Nixon appointee.

More (link) "Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn?t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual?s right to own a gun until 2008..."

Click to expand...

Damn...I actually vaguely remember when Nixon appointed Burger, in 1969.

I was a little kid. Pretty much the first big thing Nixon did.

Burger left the SCOTUS over 30 years ago and been departed over 20 years.

And Heller was decided 10 years ago already?

Seems only yesterday I was driving in my car, listening to Scalia's majority decision being read and discussed on news radio.

Fuck.

tinselwolverine said:

I think it's more of a wing than the whole party.

A lot of Democrats are elected from constituencies with a lot of gun owners.

In the immediate aftermath of Sandy Hook, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid paid a little lip service to increase gun regulation, but at the end of the day, President Trump (and I still cringe about the way he often comports himself) President Trump has in a few day pushed forward more meaningful gun safety regulation than Obama and Reid did at that time.

I like the way this CNN (Commie News Network) commie (actually a two C commie, as her name puts it):

...they put a Democrat lawmaker on air or a former Republican lawmaker who shares their point of view to complain that Republicans will never do anything about guns. They never, these journalists, ask those lawmakers what Democrats did about gun control when they had the White House, House and Senate for two years under Barack Obama. Because the answer is NOTHING.

These journalists never say: where was Democrats' courage? Were Democrats too afraid to lose their seats, like they did in 1994, to pass another assault weapons ban?

This doesn't mean I'm conservative or Republican - I'm conservative on some things, liberal on some things and in the middle on some things. I'm not a registered member of any political party.

That said, here's the link to yet another hot conservative chick (although she's not always that conservative).

Click to expand...

Trump hasn't done anything in over a year, except roll back by permitting those on SSD obtaining assault weapons, who have documented mental illnesses.

And UNLIKE Drumpfkopf, Obama entered his first term with both Iraq and Afghanistan still hotly burning, and a deep recession that had been hidden by the prior Bush regime since December of '07.

turok said:

And UNLIKE Drumpfkopf, Obama entered his first term with both Iraq and Afghanistan still hotly burning, and a deep recession that had been hidden by the prior Bush regime since December of '07.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that has a lot to do with doing anything about gun safety.

I'm virtually throwing up in my fingers posting anything positive about Trump.

The problem with partisans - on the left or right - you're both desparate to keep the truth from getting in the way of how you look at shit.

It wasn't Iraq, Afghanistan or the recession that caused Obama's fail in addressing gun safety reforms in the aftermath of Sandy Hook - actually, when McCain suggested that he and Obama should both temporarily leave the campaign trail to return to Washington to deal with the financial crisis in the fall of 2008, Obama's response was that he could handle more than one problem at a time.

It was Obama's utter inability to pull any sway over his own party's Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, whose constituency had a lot of gun owners - whatsoever.

EDIT: That was kind of C Cupp's point in the CNN opinion piece I linked to in my post that you quoted.

tinselwolverine said:

...

The problem with partisans - on the left or right - you're both desparate to keep the truth from getting in the way of how you look at shit.

...

Click to expand...

oh yeah, there are just two sides to this debate, and who's to say what is right?

I mean on the one side, you have gun & ammo manufacturers looking to maximize their profits, WHATEVER THE COST to Americans, and their extremely well-funded lobbyists in the NRA capable of spending 10-20 times more than the opposition and buying politicians...

and on the other side you have regular innocent American adults and kids just trying to go about their day without getting shot and killed.

Who's to say which side is right? They both just try to get you to believe their bullshit. One side wants everyone and their brother to have many guns and use them wherever they want, and the other side just doesn't want to see their kids cowering in fear in classrooms as some loony pumps rifle rounds into them...

shit! really FUCKING tough to pick a side here...

michchamp said:

oh yeah, there are just two sides to this debate, and who's to say what is right?

I mean on the one side, you have gun & ammo manufacturers looking to maximize their profits, WHATEVER THE COST to Americans, and their extremely well-funded lobbyists in the NRA capable of spending 10-20 times more than the opposition and buying politicians...

and on the other side you have regular innocent American adults and kids just trying to go about their day without getting shot and killed.

Who's to say which side is right? They both just try to get you to believe their bullshit. One side wants everyone and their brother to have many guns and use them wherever they want, and the other side just doesn't want to see their kids cowering in fear in classrooms as some loony pumps rifle rounds into them...

shit! really FUCKING tough to pick a side here...

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but it's also not like there's a side pushing any ideas that would make an impact. The NRA side is full blown crazy with no remotely logical argument about how the 2nd Amendment applies or could apply in some hypothetical scenario in the ways they act like it does. But on the other hand, even if you accept the idea that you could ban the right combination of assault weapons to eliminate mass murder (which I don't think you can) it would be a drop in the bucket of gun violence. The pro-gun control side isn't advocating gun control that would change gun violence numbers. Same old BS. We argue with great intensity and remain divided over things that won't really change anything.

michchamp said:

oh yeah, there are just two sides to this debate, and who's to say what is right?

shit! really FUCKING tough to pick a side here...

Click to expand...

After Sandy Hook, however many sides to the debate, there was only one side to what was done.

Nothing.

Thanks to Harry Reid.

Again - that was C Cupp's point in the link I posted.

I did not pick Harry Reid's side.

There is no such thing as being just a little bit pregnant.

There is blood on the hands on both sides of the aisle.

biggunsbob said:

How's it feel that most Americans do not believe in the old antiquated thinking like yours. Your just a fool who is easily lead by clowns . Heck you don't even know when your getting torched . Again I am glad you liked my words because I do not want anything to do with people like you.

Click to expand...

which part of my thinking is antiquated? which part don't most Americans believe? Are you saying most Americans want to scrap the 2nd amendment? I'd love to see your data on that. Do they want to bring back the assault weapons ban that didn't prevent Columbine from happening? Do you remember that? Kleibold and Harris bought and used a banned Tec 9 to kill 15 kids at their high school.

I'm not being led by anyone, I'm basing my opinions on the constitution and what I believe the real problems are - if anyone is drinking the Kool Aid it's fools like you who want to pass laws that won't prevent these things from happening while ignoring the real problems.

tinselwolverine said:

After Sandy Hook, however many sides to the debate, there was only one side to what was done.

Nothing.

Thanks to Harry Reid.

Again - that was C Cupp's point in the link I posted.

I did not pick Harry Reid's side.

There is no such thing as being just a little bit pregnant.

There is blood on the hands on both sides of the aisle.

Click to expand...

there are two sides:

gun manufacturers, the NRA, the politicians they've bought regardless of party affiliation, and the ammosexuals (psychopaths) that buy it, and... everyone else.

we need new labels; D & R are meaningless; there are politcians who are bought and paid for, and ones that aren't. The latter are few and far between.

michchamp said:

oh yeah, there are just two sides to this debate, and who's to say what is right?

I mean on the one side, you have gun & ammo manufacturers looking to maximize their profits, WHATEVER THE COST to Americans, and their extremely well-funded lobbyists in the NRA capable of spending 10-20 times more than the opposition and buying politicians...

and on the other side you have regular innocent American adults and kids just trying to go about their day without getting shot and killed.

Who's to say which side is right? They both just try to get you to believe their bullshit. One side wants everyone and their brother to have many guns and use them wherever they want, and the other side just doesn't want to see their kids cowering in fear in classrooms as some loony pumps rifle rounds into them...

shit! really FUCKING tough to pick a side here...

Click to expand...

your side is (once again) the immoral side. You lie about what the argument is about (it's not even remotely about profits and the gun lobby doesn't own politicians - that's been roundly disproved) so you can falsely claim the moral high ground while you attempt to rob Americans of more and more rights. You stand on the graves of innocent Americans in an attempt to shame people for defending their rights you want to take away.
All your methods will do is penalize law abiding citizens and prevent them from defending themselves to make yourself feel better.

Spartanmack said:

your side is (once again) the immoral side. You lie about what the argument is about (it's not even remotely about profits and the gun lobby doesn't own politicians - that's been roundly disproved) so you can falsely claim the moral high ground while you attempt to rob Americans of more and more rights. You stand on the graves of innocent Americans in an attempt to shame people for defending their rights you want to take away.
All your methods will do is penalize law abiding citizens and prevent them from defending themselves to make yourself feel better.

Click to expand...

there are no rights here to defend, the 2nd amendment doesn't say or mean what the NRA claims it does.

the fact that this didn't even become an issue until the late 70's, when the NRA stopped being a sportsman's organization and became a sales lobby for gun manufacturers is telling... except for saps like you.

michchamp said:

there are no rights here to defend, the 2nd amendment doesn't say or mean what the NRA claims it does.

the fact that this didn't even become an issue until the late 70's, when the NRA stopped being a sportsman's organization and became a sales lobby for gun manufacturers is telling... except for saps like you.

Click to expand...

there's at least one right to defend - the right to bear arms. you may have heard that once or twice during these arguments. Defending that right from further and further encroachment doesn't make an organization or a person immoral.

michchamp said:

there are two sides:

gun manufacturers, the NRA, the politicians they've bought regardless of party affiliation, and the ammosexuals (psychopaths) that buy it, and... everyone else.

we need new labels; D & R are meaningless; there are politcians who are bought and paid for, and ones that aren't. The latter are few and far between.

Click to expand...

You have no argument from me.

You might know this about me; I'm blessed/cursed with this sick ridiculous memory.

I remember Sandy Hook like it was yesterday. I remember you and I arguing with the "unfettered 2nd Amendment Forever" advocates that something/anything - needed to be done to keep assault weapons out of the hands of nutjobs like that Lambert kid. That was back in the day of the old ESPN Michigan board.

ZZYXT was arguing that psychos could kill people with loud noises and that nanobots would eventually cure all human ills anyway, and that moron MaizeAndBlue09 was trying to argue with me - who literally drove through the fucking LA riots - that AR 15s had been instrumental in suppressing the LA riots.

Obama had been elected about a month and a week before that. He would take office about a month and a week after that.

The Sandy Hook incident was still high in the public discussion at that time, and you and I both expressed our disappointment - actually to each other - that Harry Reid, elected from a high gun owning constituency, despite lip service, had decided to table ANY Senatorial discussions on any restrictions on AR - 15s.

Going on 10 years ago now.

Do you remember any of the board discussions I'm remembering?

Spartanmack said:

there's at least one right to defend - the right to bear arms. you may have heard that once or twice during these arguments. Defending that right from further and further encroachment doesn't make an organization or a person immoral.

Click to expand...

the right to bear arms... as a member of a well-organized militia.

The pyschopaths who shoot up schools or public gatherings are never members of well-organized militias.

why is it so difficult for you to grasp what's going on?

Spartanmack said:

there's at least one right to defend - the right to bear arms. you may have heard that once or twice during these arguments. Defending that right from further and further encroachment doesn't make an organization or a person immoral.

Click to expand...

I will repeat what I posted in 232 - there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant.

The more than reasonable AR 15 restrictions that this president wants are encroachments on the 2nd Amendment.

In his majority decision on Heller (ten fucking years ago, for the love of God) Justice Scalia wrote that an individual's right to bear arms in no way precluded the government's prerogative to impose reasonable restrictions, nevertheless.

Scalia was right on that tenet, or he wasn't.

There is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant.