Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Y'all Qaeda

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Axel
    replied
    Joey wrote: View Post
    Sorry, I may have sidetracked your thread ... haha
    Yup

    Leave a comment:


  • raptors999
    replied
    Joey wrote: View Post
    But it wouldn't. Yes, I was flippant with my usage of the word "crazy", but if you looked into what Obama is actually proposing, it is just ensuring that background checks are done essentially. If the person has been diagnosed as Mentally Unstable and a Violent threat, then there are now ways to prevent them from getting guns. I don't see how that's bad.
    Right now, if you buy guns at Conventions, for example, there are ZERO background check as I understand it; Obama wants to make sure there IS background checks. What is so wrong with that?
    But I'm angry now

    Leave a comment:


  • slaw
    replied
    Bendit wrote: View Post

    This is in effect all that the gun control side is trying to achieve.

    And please dont muddy the waters bringing in the issue of "civil rights" into this asinine stance of misguided people in Oregon.

    My understanding is the "civil rights" movement began around the time when Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus. She did not pull out a gun to stand up for her rights as a US citizen. Is this what is occurring to the Bundy clan and his supporters in Oregon? Did the Fed. govt. deny anyone anything based on their "civil rights" there?

    "Right kinds of people"? Jeebus.
    First sentence is bullcrap.

    It is a civil right. You don't like it? Amend the constitution.

    You clearly have no idea about the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks? Good grief. And, actually, as with Joey, I suggest you look up a book called This NonViolent Stuff'll Get You Killed, by Charles Cobb, which is all about how important armed self defense was to the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks? Come on....

    Yes, the kind of people Bendit likes have the right to occupy parks, government buildings, downtown cores, universities, etc., but the kind of people not on Bendit's team are armed insurrectionists or terrorists or whatnot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joey
    replied
    slaw wrote: View Post
    Absolutely, amend the constitution. I've got lots of ideas, too.

    As for 'crazy people', well, who decides who is crazy? You should look up C.O. Chin and the 'crazy negroes' who protected all the non-violent civil rights protestors. They were called 'crazy'.

    And, in fact, the vast majority of crazy people aren't violent (it's only about 4%). Why would anyone support eviscerating the constitutional rights of a large group who will never be violent?


    It's also patently untrue that anyone can buy a gun in the US. Every state has varying degrees of checks, etc., and there are piles of laws already on the books.
    But it wouldn't. Yes, I was flippant with my usage of the word "crazy", but if you looked into what Obama is actually proposing, it is just ensuring that background checks are done essentially. If the person has been diagnosed as Mentally Unstable and a Violent threat, then there are now ways to prevent them from getting guns. I don't see how that's bad.
    Right now, if you buy guns at Conventions, for example, there are ZERO background check as I understand it; Obama wants to make sure there IS background checks. What is so wrong with that?

    Leave a comment:


  • raptors999
    replied
    'Crazy Negros' 😁

    Leave a comment:


  • slaw
    replied
    Joey wrote: View Post
    And Constitutions haven't been amended in the past to accommodate changing world views and societal norms?

    And by "crazy", I meant (very callously I admit) those who have been diagnosed as mentally unstable. Right now, depending on how you go about it, ANYONE can get a semi-automatic assault rifle in the States. Legally. Its ridiculous and completely unconscionable.

    You disagree with closing loopholes that allow people diagnosed as mentally unstable to get guns?
    Absolutely, amend the constitution. I've got lots of ideas, too.

    As for 'crazy people', well, who decides who is crazy? You should look up C.O. Chin and the 'crazy negroes' who protected all the non-violent civil rights protestors. They were called 'crazy'.

    And, in fact, the vast majority of crazy people aren't violent (it's only about 4%). Why would anyone support eviscerating the constitutional rights of a large group who will never be violent?

    It's also patently untrue that anyone can buy a gun in the US. Every state has varying degrees of checks, etc., and there are piles of laws already on the books.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bendit
    replied
    slaw wrote: View Post
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politi...oll-americans/

    Yep, just the crazy 52% of Americans..... silly people who believe in their constitutional rights. Everyone knows civil rights are only for the right kinds of people.
    You forgot about this (from your link)....

    Other polls have shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support expanding background checks to private sales and sales at gun shows, where people can buy guns without undergoing a background check.
    This is in effect all that the gun control side is trying to achieve.

    And please dont muddy the waters bringing in the issue of "civil rights" into this asinine stance of misguided people in Oregon.

    My understanding is the "civil rights" movement began around the time when Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus. She did not pull out a gun to stand up for her rights as a US citizen. Is this what is occurring to the Bundy clan and his supporters in Oregon? Did the Fed. govt. deny anyone anything based on their "civil rights" there?

    "Right kinds of people"? Jeebus.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joey
    replied
    slaw wrote: View Post
    Sometimes they are.....
    Then change the Constitution.

    Leave a comment:


  • slaw
    replied
    Axel wrote: View Post
    Ensuring safe regulations are in place for those guns, isn't unconstitutional.
    Sometimes they are.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Joey
    replied
    Axel wrote: View Post
    Ensuring safe regulations are in place for those guns, isn't unconstitutional.
    Sorry, I may have sidetracked your thread ... haha

    Leave a comment:


  • Joey
    replied
    slaw wrote: View Post
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politi...oll-americans/

    Yep, just the crazy 52% of Americans..... silly people who believe in their constitutional rights. Everyone knows civil rights are only for the right kinds of people.
    And Constitutions haven't been amended in the past to accommodate changing world views and societal norms?

    And by "crazy", I meant (very callously I admit) those who have been diagnosed as mentally unstable. Right now, depending on how you go about it, ANYONE can get a semi-automatic assault rifle in the States. Legally. Its ridiculous and completely unconscionable.

    You disagree with closing loopholes that allow people diagnosed as mentally unstable to get guns?

    Leave a comment:


  • Axel
    replied
    slaw wrote: View Post
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politi...oll-americans/

    Yep, just the crazy 52% of Americans..... silly people who believe in their constitutional rights. Everyone knows civil rights are only for the right kinds of people.
    Ensuring safe regulations are in place for those guns, isn't unconstitutional.

    Leave a comment:


  • slaw
    replied
    Joey wrote: View Post
    And when Obama suggests making it tougher for crazy people to get guns, these are the types that get all pissed off ... surprise surprise.
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politi...oll-americans/

    Yep, just the crazy 52% of Americans..... silly people who believe in their constitutional rights. Everyone knows civil rights are only for the right kinds of people.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joey
    replied
    And when Obama suggests making it tougher for crazy people to get guns, these are the types that get all pissed off ... surprise surprise.

    Leave a comment:


  • SkywalkerAC
    replied
    The Hammonds are (smartly) distancing themselves from this Yall Qaeda "support".

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X