100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 2nd Ammendment, NRA and Obama-care are one | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about a real issue instead of arguing over kids dragging guns to school... AndyBgood...you were busted stating that no child should have the 2nd amendment right to take guns to school "PERIOD".... and instead of admitting to your hyprocrisy, you instead try to make it go away by trying to claim that kids dragging guns to school isn't a real issue ...wow you and others sat in this forum crying crocodile tears about how the tyrannical government is taking away your 2nd amendment Rights...but yet look how you are so easily willing to dismiss the 2nd amendment rights of children |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm surprise she hasn't shot Brad yet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"the right to bear arms" with the forefathers began with a flintlock and cannons and now today it's a 30 round magazine and nuclear warheads as technology advances and guns evolve, the right to bear arms will eventually evolve into arms that not everyone will have the right to bear or can be entrusted with a gun will evolve beyond using "standard issue bullets" and be able to take out an entire city block, this much power and the damage it could cause is why it's illegal now to have dynamite or the such without a license or certification and restrictions and the same will happen to gun owners or the right to bear arms the best way to deal with this problem now and keep the 2ND amendment intact is to make it a mental health issue which obama-care is attempting by providing free mental health care and by the NRA which in it's opening statement after the sandy hook incident has agreed to help fund mental health care for those with mental illness or issues also by invoking laws and the mentality that psychiatrists and lawyers and gun owners be held responsible for those that have made threats or are a threat to the public in general this is why by making it a mental health issue you can control who have guns, I mean let's face it...do you know anyone that's don't have mental illnesses or issues in some shape form or fashion by placing restriction on gun owners today will limit the right to bear arms and the technology that define arms to only "standard issue bullets" and nothing beyond that... by making it a mental health issue the 2ND amendment will still be a "right" but in reality it will be used to take away your rights to not actually have a right to any advance technology or weaponry without a license and/or certification and restrictions ...and how much are you willing to bet that will entail a mental health evaluation .. but anyway....all that have to be done is limit the right to bear arms to "standard issue bullets"....and the right to bear them will become more of a novelty or obsolete as technology advances beyond guns or the need for them making it into a mental health issue will evolve the 2ND admendment from a "right" to bear arms into a "privilege" to bear them for an elite few making it into a mental health issue will evolve the 2ND admendment from a "right" to bear arms into a "privilege" to bear them for an elite few This is the most relevant point of this entire thread. Do you think Feinstein is going to go out in public without armed security guards? Do you think those armed security guards would hesitate to shoot up a bunch of civilians if they felt her highness was in some sort "situation"? We are now being told that it is acceptable for american citizens to be assassinated based simply on what some secret cabal of appointed bureaucrats say they may do. This is a systematic dismantling of the core rights that were established to keep this kind of BS from happening. The complete disregard for the rule of law by this rogue out of control governmental elitist apparatus is not going to stop. Due process? screw it.. 2nd amendment? antiquated and not necessary because we would never summarily institute tyrannical policies that would endanger the rights of our peasants. We will give our peasants just enough to allow us to be flown around the world by our elite friends so we can f**k some underage poor girls and come back to our castle without the fear of judgement. Because the elite politicians know exactly what is good for their little peasant class.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I myself plan to shop for nuclear warheads at the mall today...bet I see F&L there......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
making it into a mental health issue will evolve the 2ND admendment from a "right" to bear arms into a "privilege" to bear them for an elite few This is the most relevant point of this entire thread. Do you think Feinstein is going to go out in public without armed security guards? is there a reason why Feinstein would need armed guards? Do you think those armed security guards would hesitate to shoot up a bunch of civilians if they felt her highness was in some sort "situation"? wouldn't you expect the same from the police? We are now being told that it is acceptable for american citizens to be assassinated based simply on what some secret cabal of appointed bureaucrats say they may do. you actually believe that it takes a secret cabal to give the orders to assassinate an american that is overseas plotting to kill Americans? This is a systematic dismantling of the core rights that were established to keep this kind of BS from happening. like when the founding fathers had slaves while drafting the bill of rights? The complete disregard for the rule of law by this rogue out of control governmental elitist apparatus is not going to stop. last time I heard..they were pulling the troops out Due process? screw it.. 2nd amendment? antiquated and not necessary because we would never summarily institute tyrannical policies that would endanger the rights of our peasants. especially if they want to get re-elected We will give our peasants just enough to allow us to be flown around the world by our elite friends so we can f**k some underage poor girls and come back to our castle without the fear of judgement. don't worry, Chris Hanson from Dateline NBC tv program "to catch a child predator" will be hiding behind a curtain with a camera crew Because the elite politicians know exactly what is good for their little peasant class.. and their "Super Pacs" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And...thinking you "need" a gun is a mental health issue to begin with.
If they assess all that want a gun for mental health issues, they will be able to eliminate some of the unnecessary gun violence. And then take the guns away from those irresponsible gun owners who let the kids get em and go shoot a whole school up...how they will do that, I don't know but it is needed. Make them renew their mental health certificate every year to keep the gun. Absolutely no multi firing weapons are needed at all. For any reason. And lets let the gun manufacturers suffer the same fate as the tobacco industry. Create something that kills, get sued over it. And remember that tobacco does do good things too so that is no defense if someone were to try to use it. I can go on and on but I am just expressing my views here not writing the book on it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Sat 02/09/13 09:33 AM
|
|
You see, this statement right here. You are trying to attack me based on something that has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. I am sorry if I upset you, no offense was intended, but lets try to stay on topic here. This comment was utterly pointless. my point was that you were abusing your self by using the term "overwhelming majority"....you might as well just said "more than a whole bunch" ...how would you know what an "overwhelming majority of parents agreed on" unless you're "Canank the Magnificient" and can read their minds I asked what you what you believed...but yet you tried to avoid answering the question by including what the "overwhelming Majority" of parent believed as an attempt to give truth to your answer so...er...why you trying to pull stuff like that on me?...How Rude Right here, i was merely responding to your wondering "how i seemed to know what parents are thinking" (which is another desperate attempt at an attack at my credibility). Based on crime reports there was no drop or rise in violence correlating with new laws prohibiting kids from bringing guns to school. (Remember i couldn't seem to find any before 1990?) Therefore, it was either the children who were already doing the right thing, or the parents. Unless you have a counter to that. all you are doing perhaps without realizing it, is attmepting to prove that the children are smarter than Adults when it comes to guns and that's why the children choose not to have them I believe i mentioned earlier where this argument also has little to do with the topic area because kids do not have the same rights adults making this inapplicable in reality. It not only falls under the critical thinking fallacy of straw-man (i think that's what its called), but also falls under another fallacy (or fallacy category) of oversimplification. Therefore this question cannot be answered honestly as either answer literally puts words in my mouth that i disagree with. The question is a trap. things happen to children the same as they happen to Adults but yet you are in here stating that children do not have the same 2nd amendment rights to protect themselves it appears that you guys are more on Obama's side on the gun control issue then you realize ...or willing to admit My use of the term "overwhelming" was merely to point out my hypothesis on a greater number than 51% of parents not wanting their kids to tote around loaded guns. The attempt at trying to spin my words on this is a nice try and would be called a "red herring", unless, of course, you disagree with the statement, in which case i would question what leads you to such a disbelief. In either case, you then proceed to spinning my acknowledgement on this into a personal attack on you. Your question baits a reader into two ultimatums, #1 being that one believes that children should carry loaded guns everywhere, or you believe that gun laws curb gun violence. Then it proceeds to making you support whichever side you pick whether or not you believe in it. Critical Thinking is a class required in our school systems (in maine anyhow) and your question (or baited statement) violates logic on several counts according to the professor/textbooks. Therefore, it should not be used in a logical/productive debate. I would have liked to have an intelligent, productive debate on this topic as i feel the notion of forcing further gun control is irresponsible and illogical based on statistics of gun violence. It seems that the method of arguing you have fallen into involves twisting words to make people seem "hypocritical". And, as you have pointed out, you believe that a hypocritical action or statement renders all other actions or statements illogical. Fortunately, to those in a logical state of mind this strategy of yours is painfully obvious. Therefore, it appears that an attempt to have a productive debate here is impossible and therefore deserves no more of my attention. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willowdraga
on
Sat 02/09/13 09:43 AM
|
|
I guess "libs" serve a purpose when needed eh? How hypocritical is that? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about a real issue instead of arguing over kids dragging guns to school... AndyBgood...you were busted stating that no child should have the 2nd amendment right to take guns to school "PERIOD".... and instead of admitting to your hyprocrisy, you instead try to make it go away by trying to claim that kids dragging guns to school isn't a real issue ...wow you and others sat in this forum crying crocodile tears about how the tyrannical government is taking away your 2nd amendment Rights...but yet look how you are so easily willing to dismiss the 2nd amendment rights of children Why do you think I said they HAVE TO CHECK THEM IN WHEN THEY ARRIVE? There is such a thing as some rare few schools in thee areas to have ARMORIES. That means NO GUNS IN THE SCHOOL PROPER! That does not mean they cannot arrive armed. They just CAN'T ATTEND ARMED. So I'm busted? How? You attempt again to put words into my mouth. The span of area between home and School does not count! So what part of CHECK IN YOUR GUN, do you also not get? Attempting to justify YOUR argument here? So again NICE TRY! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And...thinking you "need" a gun is a mental health issue to begin with. If they assess all that want a gun for mental health issues, they will be able to eliminate some of the unnecessary gun violence. And then take the guns away from those irresponsible gun owners who let the kids get em and go shoot a whole school up...how they will do that, I don't know but it is needed. Make them renew their mental health certificate every year to keep the gun. Absolutely no multi firing weapons are needed at all. For any reason. And lets let the gun manufacturers suffer the same fate as the tobacco industry. Create something that kills, get sued over it. And remember that tobacco does do good things too so that is no defense if someone were to try to use it. I can go on and on but I am just expressing my views here not writing the book on it. OK. As I said, take a Nature Hike in Alaska NO GUN AND NO GUIDE WITH A GUN! I will not wait for your return. In all reality your Phobia for gun is what most of us would consider at the minimum a personal issue but to some of us we can see you are the one who is really sick. You are so freaking scared of guns you are irrational. Making gun ownership a MENTAL HEALTH issue just dodges the fact sick people are being used to maintain job security for a select few. Law enforcement needs something to keep them busy. Lately we got a killer rogue cop out here and the local police are CRAPPING themselves right now! They already panic fired at three pickup trucks already and thankfully only injuries. So how about we disarm police since I AM SCARED THEY ARE GOING TO SHOOT ME IN THE BACK? Your WHOLE "opinion" does not make any rational sense. Get it now? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess "libs" serve a purpose when needed eh? How hypocritical is that? OH GOD YES THEY SERVE A PURPOSE! THEY PROVE THEIR OWN HYPOCRISY TIME AND TIME AGAIN! Are you going to Alaska this spring? I am sure a hungry bear or two is waiting for you!  I just made a funny rhyme!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You see, this statement right here. You are trying to attack me based on something that has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. I am sorry if I upset you, no offense was intended, but lets try to stay on topic here. This comment was utterly pointless. my point was that you were abusing your self by using the term "overwhelming majority"....you might as well just said "more than a whole bunch" ...how would you know what an "overwhelming majority of parents agreed on" unless you're "Canank the Magnificient" and can read their minds I asked what you what you believed...but yet you tried to avoid answering the question by including what the "overwhelming Majority" of parent believed as an attempt to give truth to your answer so...er...why you trying to pull stuff like that on me?...How Rude Right here, i was merely responding to your wondering "how i seemed to know what parents are thinking" (which is another desperate attempt at an attack at my credibility). Based on crime reports there was no drop or rise in violence correlating with new laws prohibiting kids from bringing guns to school. (Remember i couldn't seem to find any before 1990?) Therefore, it was either the children who were already doing the right thing, or the parents. Unless you have a counter to that. all you are doing perhaps without realizing it, is attmepting to prove that the children are smarter than Adults when it comes to guns and that's why the children choose not to have them I believe i mentioned earlier where this argument also has little to do with the topic area because kids do not have the same rights adults making this inapplicable in reality. It not only falls under the critical thinking fallacy of straw-man (i think that's what its called), but also falls under another fallacy (or fallacy category) of oversimplification. Therefore this question cannot be answered honestly as either answer literally puts words in my mouth that i disagree with. The question is a trap. things happen to children the same as they happen to Adults but yet you are in here stating that children do not have the same 2nd amendment rights to protect themselves it appears that you guys are more on Obama's side on the gun control issue then you realize ...or willing to admit My use of the term "overwhelming" was merely to point out my hypothesis on a greater number than 51% of parents not wanting their kids to tote around loaded guns. oh so now it's your "hypothesis" that an "overwhelming majority" of parents agree with you? ....is it also your "hypothesis that an "overwhelming Majority" of Leprechuans also agree with you? .... those that hide behind "fantasy hypothesis" do so to give themselves "fake false evidence" ...don't "fake false evidence" sound like "overwhelming majority"? The attempt at trying to spin my words on this is a nice try and would be called a "red herring", unless, of course, you disagree with the statement, in which case i would question what leads you to such a disbelief. In either case, you then proceed to spinning my acknowledgement on this into a personal attack on you. Your question baits a reader into two ultimatums, #1 being that one believes that children should carry loaded guns everywhere, or you believe that gun laws curb gun violence. Then it proceeds to making you support whichever side you pick whether or not you believe in it. Critical Thinking is a class required in our school systems (in maine anyhow) and your question (or baited statement) violates logic on several counts according to the professor/textbooks. Therefore, it should not be used in a logical/productive debate. nope, what I did was simply give you enough rope to hang yourself....in your attempt to avoid answering questions you in fact stated things that contradict your own beliefs... I would have liked to have an intelligent, productive debate on this topic as i feel the notion of forcing further gun control is irresponsible and illogical based on statistics of gun violence. well if you like to have an intelligent debate...then try reading up on the subject a little more, then one day you may actually be able to have that intelligent debate It seems that the method of arguing you have fallen into involves twisting words to make people seem "hypocritical". And, as you have pointed out, you believe that a hypocritical action or statement renders all other actions or statements illogical. Fortunately, to those in a logical state of mind this strategy of yours is painfully obvious. yep, and you want to know why?......both you and AndyBgood claim that children shouldn't have the 2nd amendment right to protect themselves the same as Adults even though both face the same dangers, but yet at the same time claim that you should have your 2nd amendment rights without restrictions because having restriction does nothing to curb gun violence.....sure seem hypocritical Therefore, it appears that an attempt to have a productive debate here is impossible and therefore deserves no more of my attention. "Drivinmenutz"...I'm so sorry that I couldn't give you the one-sided debate you were hopeful for once you made the statment that perhaps it was the children which perhaps made the decision to give up their 2nd amendment rights to carry guns to school...you at that point in time proved that you were willing to say anything...even go against your own beliefs to appear "right"...er..no pun intended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about a real issue instead of arguing over kids dragging guns to school... AndyBgood...you were busted stating that no child should have the 2nd amendment right to take guns to school "PERIOD".... and instead of admitting to your hyprocrisy, you instead try to make it go away by trying to claim that kids dragging guns to school isn't a real issue ...wow you and others sat in this forum crying crocodile tears about how the tyrannical government is taking away your 2nd amendment Rights...but yet look how you are so easily willing to dismiss the 2nd amendment rights of children Why do you think I said they HAVE TO CHECK THEM IN WHEN THEY ARRIVE? There is such a thing as some rare few schools in thee areas to have ARMORIES. That means NO GUNS IN THE SCHOOL PROPER! That does not mean they cannot arrive armed. They just CAN'T ATTEND ARMED. So I'm busted? How? You attempt again to put words into my mouth. The span of area between home and School does not count! So what part of CHECK IN YOUR GUN, do you also not get? Attempting to justify YOUR argument here? So again NICE TRY! sorry AndyBgood....you stated that children shouldn't be allowed to carry guns to school "period" ...if you forgot what you posted I've supplied the link below so that you can go back and read it POSTED BY andyBgood: By all rights children have no business bringing a gun to school PERIOD! http://mingle2.com/topic/show/344508?page=11 post 13 it's so fun watching you guys try to weasal out of the things you post/say .....just like the politicians you're complaining about |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about a real issue instead of arguing over kids dragging guns to school... AndyBgood...you were busted stating that no child should have the 2nd amendment right to take guns to school "PERIOD".... and instead of admitting to your hyprocrisy, you instead try to make it go away by trying to claim that kids dragging guns to school isn't a real issue ...wow you and others sat in this forum crying crocodile tears about how the tyrannical government is taking away your 2nd amendment Rights...but yet look how you are so easily willing to dismiss the 2nd amendment rights of children Why do you think I said they HAVE TO CHECK THEM IN WHEN THEY ARRIVE? There is such a thing as some rare few schools in thee areas to have ARMORIES. That means NO GUNS IN THE SCHOOL PROPER! That does not mean they cannot arrive armed. They just CAN'T ATTEND ARMED. So I'm busted? How? You attempt again to put words into my mouth. The span of area between home and School does not count! So what part of CHECK IN YOUR GUN, do you also not get? Attempting to justify YOUR argument here? So again NICE TRY! sorry AndyBgood....you stated that children shouldn't be allowed to carry guns to school "period" ...if you forgot what you posted I've supplied the link below so that you can go back and read it POSTED BY andyBgood: By all rights children have no business bringing a gun to school PERIOD! http://mingle2.com/topic/show/344508?page=11 post 13 it's so fun watching you guys try to weasal out of the things you post/say .....just like the politicians you're complaining about I am not weaseling out of anything. A teenager is not a 11 or 12 year old. At 13 kids deserve to bear SOME responsibility. But a 16 year old is a minor technically but they are allowed to drive. But young children in an area where they would need a gun to protect themselves SHOULD BY ALL RIGHTS HAVE A RESPONSIBLE ADULT OR TWO WHO IS ARMED PRESENT TO INSURE THEY DON'T GET MUNCHED BY A BEAR! BTW, considering the threats to children these days I am insistent an armed police officer be present during school hours! If I lived in Alaska I would insist a gun be present on the grounds in case a bear did decide to have a little grade school lunch! Ya see Cyclone fencing means nothing to any 1000 pound animal. A minor inconvenience is all a cyclone fence provides! But here in the Big City? Too many crazy pedos and gibbering nut cases loose. I have known 13 year olds who are more responsible than most adults I know! But below 12 to me is a child. At 13 they are young adults to me. At 18 they are now full blown adults! But here you are drawing clear black and white lines. Look do I need to get hyper specific with you while you dump these crappy one line responses at me and others? Seems a little Passive Aggressive to me. Again your argument is not all too valid here. Would you like to attempt more validation to possibly risk invalidation? Ya see we as a society seem to have rather hypocritical views towards "children." Some are tried as adults for their actions but they are not considered responsible until 18? Technically a car is a deadly weapon. It has lethal capacities! Yet we don't ban teenage drivers at High Schools! And yet people die in car related fatalities all the time. And some kids actually do stupid crap like pop wheelies with motorcycles and burning rubber to impress their friends. But driving is a revokable privilege. And yes kids can be denied parking privilege on the school grounds BUT they cannot be denied parking on the street near by! So now I unleash a crack in the ice here. Ready for the cold plunge of logic to get deeper? I might toss you a rope if you ask politely if you fall in! You act like I have advocated a 9 year old to take a gun to school. If anyone is busted here it is you! Shall I post where I said at a certain age if they need protection an armed parent or two should be present to get them on the bus to school? An Armed bus Driver? Well, they are trusted with the safety of our children in the first place. Why not train them to carry a gun for the defense of the children? Or better yet a seat for the friendly local police officer? A 14 or 15 year old riding on horseback to get to school is not unheard of in some areas of America city boy! And most of those areas the parents INSIST their kids pack a long arm in case something tries to eat him or her and their horse! You are evidently acting like this is some wild west show where everyone has something to prove. Well, so far you have proven nothing... At least to me cowboy! So now the big red rubber ball hit the wall instead of me AGAIN! NEXT! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you actually believe that it takes a secret cabal to give the orders to assassinate an american that is overseas plotting to kill Americans? Is it legal to assassinate a suspect now? Do you understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty? Or is it Innocent until proven guilty or assassinated? If they can legally do this to Americans abroad, how much of a stretch would it take to extend that to our own country. Then it will eventually be legal to assassinate suspected terrorists. Do you know what it takes to be a suspected terrorist? Having a farmer's almanac and a map in your car, is one. Being an ex military with post dramatic stress is another. Having had any kind of mental evaluation where some kind of drug was prescribe is another. People will begin to fear even seeking any help for mental problems or stress. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
making it into a mental health issue will evolve the 2ND admendment from a "right" to bear arms into a "privilege" to bear them for an elite few This is the most relevant point of this entire thread. Do you think Feinstein is going to go out in public without armed security guards? is there a reason why Feinstein would need armed guards? Do you think those armed security guards would hesitate to shoot up a bunch of civilians if they felt her highness was in some sort "situation"? wouldn't you expect the same from the police? We are now being told that it is acceptable for american citizens to be assassinated based simply on what some secret cabal of appointed bureaucrats say they may do. you actually believe that it takes a secret cabal to give the orders to assassinate an american that is overseas plotting to kill Americans? This is a systematic dismantling of the core rights that were established to keep this kind of BS from happening. like when the founding fathers had slaves while drafting the bill of rights? The complete disregard for the rule of law by this rogue out of control governmental elitist apparatus is not going to stop. last time I heard..they were pulling the troops out Due process? screw it.. 2nd amendment? antiquated and not necessary because we would never summarily institute tyrannical policies that would endanger the rights of our peasants. especially if they want to get re-elected We will give our peasants just enough to allow us to be flown around the world by our elite friends so we can f**k some underage poor girls and come back to our castle without the fear of judgement. don't worry, Chris Hanson from Dateline NBC tv program "to catch a child predator" will be hiding behind a curtain with a camera crew Because the elite politicians know exactly what is good for their little peasant class.. and their "Super Pacs" is there a reason why Feinstein would need armed guards? maybe because she is a multi millionaire senator that feels she needs to be safe amongst the mongrel masses that vote for. wouldn't you expect the same from the police? I guess if Suge Knight paid them enough.. you actually believe that it takes a secret cabal to give the orders to assassinate an american that is overseas plotting to kill Americans? The average person has a drone base set up in their backyards just in case their neighborhood gang leader decides they need to do a fly by. like when the founding fathers had slaves while drafting the bill of rights? I dont give a flying f**k about the founding fathers or whether Jefferson f**ked his slaves. You or I can't do a mother f**king thing about what happened 300 years ago. You keep bringing this up like someone cares. Nobody fning cares what Jefferson did in his free time. He's dead.. You want to negate the document because the writers were hypocrites so be it. You apply that BS across the board then you negate just anything the government has done or will do. last time I heard..they were pulling the troops out WOW.. is this obama the messiah worship? he has SAVED us.. Praise be Barack.. Barack, I love mingle.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
making it into a mental health issue will evolve the 2ND admendment from a "right" to bear arms into a "privilege" to bear them for an elite few This is the most relevant point of this entire thread. Do you think Feinstein is going to go out in public without armed security guards? is there a reason why Feinstein would need armed guards? Do you think those armed security guards would hesitate to shoot up a bunch of civilians if they felt her highness was in some sort "situation"? wouldn't you expect the same from the police? We are now being told that it is acceptable for american citizens to be assassinated based simply on what some secret cabal of appointed bureaucrats say they may do. you actually believe that it takes a secret cabal to give the orders to assassinate an american that is overseas plotting to kill Americans? This is a systematic dismantling of the core rights that were established to keep this kind of BS from happening. like when the founding fathers had slaves while drafting the bill of rights? The complete disregard for the rule of law by this rogue out of control governmental elitist apparatus is not going to stop. last time I heard..they were pulling the troops out Due process? screw it.. 2nd amendment? antiquated and not necessary because we would never summarily institute tyrannical policies that would endanger the rights of our peasants. especially if they want to get re-elected We will give our peasants just enough to allow us to be flown around the world by our elite friends so we can f**k some underage poor girls and come back to our castle without the fear of judgement. don't worry, Chris Hanson from Dateline NBC tv program "to catch a child predator" will be hiding behind a curtain with a camera crew Because the elite politicians know exactly what is good for their little peasant class.. and their "Super Pacs" is there a reason why Feinstein would need armed guards? maybe because she is a multi millionaire senator that feels she needs to be safe amongst the mongrel masses that vote for. wouldn't you expect the same from the police? I guess if Suge Knight paid them enough.. you actually believe that it takes a secret cabal to give the orders to assassinate an american that is overseas plotting to kill Americans? The average person has a drone base set up in their backyards just in case their neighborhood gang leader decides they need to do a fly by. like when the founding fathers had slaves while drafting the bill of rights? I dont give a flying f**k about the founding fathers or whether Jefferson f**ked his slaves. You or I can't do a mother f**king thing about what happened 300 years ago. You keep bringing this up like someone cares. Nobody fning cares what Jefferson did in his free time. He's dead.. You want to negate the document because the writers were hypocrites so be it. You apply that BS across the board then you negate just anything the government has done or will do. last time I heard..they were pulling the troops out WOW.. is this obama the messiah worship? he has SAVED us.. Praise be Barack.. Barack, I love mingle..  LOLZORZ! Did you buy your nuklear weapons yet? Do your children have access to the launcher? Would you get mad if they brought your nuklear weapon to school to show off? Is my sarcasm too over the top? I WANT LITTLE TIMMY AND LITTLE SUZI TO PACK AN UZI WHILE LEARNING THE GOLDEN RULE JUST SO THEY CAN FEEL SAFE AT SCHOOL! Sarcasm and a funny poem. I am reaching for new heights! But the fact is some people just want to see and hear what they want to see and hear no matter what the rest of us have to say. Suddenly WE need to become enlightened. To what I am not use of any more in this thread! All I know is Laws and Gun control are a joke these days and a bad one because no one gets it. We as a nation are too hung up on this "no man left behind" mentality so all these whacky minority political groups are jumping like Piranha to "Be heard" and impose their views on us through law. Of course there are these "intellectuals" who try to attack the arguer, not their argument. A fallacious tactic as it may be? What is the attempted justification I am supposed to acknowledge or what is this fantastic wisdom someone is leaving us out on? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not weaseling out of anything. A teenager is not a 11 or 12 year old. At 13 kids deserve to bear SOME responsibility. But a 16 year old is a minor technically but they are allowed to drive. AndyBgood....what must a 16 year old and/or an adult first do before they are allowed to drive?.... are you saying the same should be done with having guns? you're the one that brought it up...so try to weasal out of that one without sounding like Obama |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you actually believe that it takes a secret cabal to give the orders to assassinate an american that is overseas plotting to kill Americans? Is it legal to assassinate a suspect now? JennieBean...when was it ever not legal? ...spies and officers were always assassinated in times of war Do you understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty? I guess you believe that on the battlefield before the troops shoot anyone they first hold a trial ...hey don't shoot at that foxhole at that person that is shooting at you because the person in it didn't have a trial yet Or is it Innocent until proven guilty or assassinated? in times of war..if someone is shooting at you or plotting to kill Americans..perhaps more than likely they are guilty..or perhaps we can all just sit around and wait until they fly another jumbo jet into a skyscraper and then the conspirsy theorists such as yourself can once again blame it on a President If they can legally do this to Americans abroad, how much of a stretch would it take to extend that to our own country. perhaps you should read about the civil war Then it will eventually be legal to assassinate suspected terrorists. is it legal to assassinate them if they break into your home? Do you know what it takes to be a suspected terrorist? Having a farmer's almanac and a map in your car, is one. Being an ex military with post dramatic stress is another. Having had any kind of mental evaluation where some kind of drug was prescribe is another. well if the person you are describing is carrying weapons..would you view them as a suspected terrorist? ...or perhaps as "a person of interest"? People will begin to fear even seeking any help for mental problems or stress. it's Free under Obamacare...people like free |
|
|
|
|
