I thought Conservatives just LOVED the Constitution?

[WinterBorn]

I don't have a problem with citizens owning firearms for their protection. I do have a problem with nut-bags who believe the 2nd amendment is a license to have the same weaponry as the US Army, or is against any restrictions on killing power.

I strongly support a screening process where where killers like Jared Lee Loughner cannot get a 'legal' weapon.

Prior to his murderous shooting, was there anything in his actual records that would stop him from having a gun?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I don't have a problem with citizens owning firearms for their protection. I do have a problem with nut-bags who believe the 2nd amendment is a license to have the same weaponry as the US Army, or is against any restrictions on killing power.

there's a problem with your reasoning. The framers WANTED the people to have firepower equal to that of the standing army, as General Washington has been known to say. So you would be wrong, but i'm sure you would consider it a different time and that such force is no longer needed. Being a liberal and all. right?

I strongly support a screening process where where killers like Jared Lee Loughner cannot get a 'legal' weapon.

there already is a federal background check process in place. what more would you propose?

 

[Bfgrn]

Prior to his murderous shooting, was there anything in his actual records that would stop him from having a gun?

He had mental issues, but he didn't have to reveal them. Maybe there needs to be a more comprehensive process. We can never stop all nuts, but watch THIS


Q: How easy is it for criminals, the mentally ill, or drug abusers to buy guns in Arizona?

A: As easily as buying a hamburger with fries at the local McDonald's.

Hear No Evil, Suspect No Evil at an Arizona Gun Show

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s office released several videos this morning detailing the city’s recent undercover investigation into the ease with which one can buy guns at a gun show in Arizona — even if you tell the seller you probably wouldn’t pass a background check, and even in the wake of the Jan. 9 Tucson shootings.

While private, unlicensed sellers at gun shows are not required to run background checks, it is against the law to sell guns to people that sellers suspect are felons, mentally ill or are otherwise prohibited from buying guns.

In the video above, an undercover investigator doing a remarkably good impression of a marble-mouthed, sweaty-palmed gun seeker (“I’m looking for something like this, you know, 9 mil with stopping power, and uh, something that’s concealable, know what I mean?”) has the following exchange with a dealer.

Buyer: You’re not one of those, you know, dealer guys, right?

Seller: No. No tax, no forms, you don’t have to do transfers or nothing. Just need to see an Arizona ID and that’s it with me.

Buyer: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So no background checks?

Seller: No.

Buyer: That’s good, ’cause I probably couldn’t pass one, know what I mean?

At this, the seller smiles knowingly and shakes his head, then completes the transaction.

All the videos, shot Jan. 23 at the Crossroads of the West Gun Show in Phoenix, are viewable at Gunshowundercover.org.



* 30% of illegally trafficked guns are connected to gun shows, according to the ATF.

* 63% of private sellers broke the law during a 2009 investigation by completing a sale to a buyer who they thought could not pass a background check.

* 81% of gun owners in a 2011 bipartisan poll said they support background checks for all gun sales.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

zero credibility with bloomberg crime of straw buying.

 

[Bfgrn]

there's a problem with your reasoning. The framers WANTED the people to have firepower equal to that of the standing army, as General Washington has been known to say. So you would be wrong, but i'm sure you would consider it a different time and that such force is no longer needed. Being a liberal and all. right?



there already is a federal background check process in place. what more would you propose?

I knew you were the retarded nut-bag on this issue...SO, YOU should be able to possess F-16's, aircraft carriers, stinger missiles that can take down commercial aircraft and thermonuclear weapons?

YOU sir are a F U C K I N G moron...

 

[Bfgrn]

your misinterpretation of the founders quotes is highly disturbing.

what do YOU think the founders created the government for?

I did NOT misrepresent Thomas Jefferson's words...

http://books.google.com/books?id=2D0gAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA388&lpg=PA388&dq=The+equal+rights+of+man,+and+the+happiness+of+every+individual,+are+now+acknowledged+to+be+the+only+legitimate+objects+of+government&source=bl&ots=goD8QXNzuo&sig=D4Mo8AIHcKlTPgK0Q_eKNxWMSyI&hl=en&ei=RDVcTb-lHYa8lQeFlcnkCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20equal%20rights%20of%20man%2C%20and%20the%20happiness%20of%20every%20individual%2C%20are%20now%20acknowledged%20to%20be%20the%20only%20legitimate%20objects%20of%20government&f=false

Our founders created government for exactly what Jefferson SAID: "The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government."

 

[Bfgrn]

zero credibility with bloomberg crime of straw buying.

BULLSHIT! Watch the video.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So, let me get this straight, then, you could not do away with Social Security, Medicaide and Medicare, but only those people who could prove they were destitute and had no other options would get help from the government?

Giving people more money in their pockets would cure the ills of society, with more money people would automatically give more to charities.

Seems very unrealistic and simplistic to me.

Yes, you would structure SS, Medicare, Medicaid so that they were the final safety net. For those that had no other option.

No one said giving people more of their money would cure the ills of society. That is simply nonsense.

I also did not state people would automatically do anything. But the line of the left that the only way people will be taken care of is if we have the government force others to take care of them is absurd.

 

[zappasguitar]

Of course I've called in...even got to humiliate Mike Gallagher on the air once or twice.

zappa has avoided this question like the plague...why? because he knows to answer it will prove him wrong.

Oh. My. Gawd.

Could you be any more willfully ignorant?

There's me above...answering your question and NOT AVOIDING IT like you claimed.

But hey...what's one more Yurtard lie when we've already had to deal with so many?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Of course, you'd also have to do away with the tax deductions for charitable contributions because that's the libertarian thing to do and just hope that rich people increase their charitable contributions out of the goodness of their hearts. Good luck with that.

Rana.... the above is the exact type of nonsense I am referring to. Nigel truly believes that the rich won't contribute, blah blah blah.....

Despite the examples set by Gates, Buffett, Rockefeller, Kennedy etc.... where the wealthy DO set up foundations to help take care of the less fortunate.

Not only that but he pretends that it is only the rich that we would rely on. It is simply absurdity that has become a staple of the left wing diet.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Listen you little fucking ignorant asshole...I just DID hear an example of your 'libertarian' bullshit. The debate over Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were made years ago. MILLIONS of Americans lives were bettered and even saved by those programs...charity and family existed BEFORE those programs...it FAILED.

Once again you show your ignorance. You try to misconstrue what I wrote and then label all libertarians by what you imagined was said.

There is nothing wrong at all with having those programs. Provided we limit them to those that truly need them and don't simply provide blanket coverage to everyone.

You right wing zealots who CALL yourselves 'libertarians' want to castrate government and remove the founder's intent FOR government. You SAY you want to turn it over to private entities...that is NOT what our founding fathers did. What you are really saying is you refuse to participate in a civil society. You will garner all the benefits of living in this country...just don't ask you to take any responsibility or PAY anything for those benefits. If people die, or are harmed, you slimy cocksuckers can feel you are still a decent human being...you try to turn narcissism into some virtue...it's NOT.

tell me genius... if the founders truly intended such things for our government.... why is it they didn't implement such programs?

You again spout off nonsense about Libertarians. Libertarians are ALL about personal responsibility you fucking moron. We have no problem with paying taxes for those things the government does need to do.

You have a very odd idea of what it means to live in a 'civil' society.

 

[Phantasmal]

Rana.... the above is the exact type of nonsense I am referring to. Nigel truly believes that the rich won't contribute, blah blah blah.....

Despite the examples set by Gates, Buffett, Rockefeller, Kennedy etc.... where the wealthy DO set up foundations to help take care of the less fortunate.

Not only that but he pretends that it is only the rich that we would rely on. It is simply absurdity that has become a staple of the left wing diet.

Stats do show, SF, that the rich do not give according to their means in most cases. There are those, like Buffet, whom I greatly admire, he is a perfect example of a generous person.

I saw a stat the other day that the rich are giving 33% less than in the past, even though they have seen a sharp rise in their wealth. This is what I was talking about, having more doesn't necessarily translate into giving more.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Oh. My. Gawd.

Could you be any more willfully ignorant?

There's me above...answering your question and NOT AVOIDING IT like you claimed.

But hey...what's one more Yurtard lie when we've already had to deal with so many?

i did not see that, as i was replying to your post right before that...so it wasn't a lie....but its hilarious when you "remember" me saying something i never said and call me a liar for denying, and then i prove you wrong, that you didn't "lie", you were merely wrong...nice intellectual dishonesty you fucking hack

NOW....do you deny that callers are asked to turn off their radio lest it interfere with the broadcase in the station?

i find it hard to believe you've called into a station and not been told to turn your radio off so it doesn't interfere....every station i've ever listened to says the same to thing to all callers

so once again....zappa gets wrong that stations will not forced to listen to content

 

[DamnYankee]

Could you be any more willfully ignorant?

Oh look, Zap's plagiarizing TaiChiLiberal.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I knew you were the retarded nut-bag on this issue...SO, YOU should be able to possess F-16's, aircraft carriers, stinger missiles that can take down commercial aircraft and thermonuclear weapons?

YOU sir are a F U C K I N G moron...

YOU, sir, are the fucking moron. you might want to take a history lesson or two about the revolutionary war, like how PRIVATELY OWNED battleships participated in the war.

Now, IF you think the government would use fighters, bombers, carriers, and nuclear weapons against the citizenry, then hell fucking yes we should be able to own them as well.

IF you think they wouldn't, then no. BUT if they would employ machine guns, grenades, and OTHER pieces of armament that an individual COULD carry, then by all means we damn well should be able to own them.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

BULLSHIT! Watch the video.

I've seen the video. there is no law that mandates a background check for a PRIVATE sale. what you SHOULD be concerned about is why Bloomberg hasn't been charged with breaking federal law by trying to straw purchase weapons.

WHY aren't you?

 

[zappasguitar]

i did not see that, as i was replying to your post right before that...so it wasn't a lie....but its hilarious when you "remember" me saying something i never said and call me a liar for denying, and then i prove you wrong, that you didn't "lie", you were merely wrong...nice intellectual dishonesty you fucking hack

NOW....do you deny that callers are asked to turn off their radio lest it interfere with the broadcase in the station?

i find it hard to believe you've called into a station and not been told to turn your radio off so it doesn't interfere....every station i've ever listened to says the same to thing to all callers

so once again....zappa gets wrong that stations will not forced to listen to content

Once again...stations ask callers to turn down their radios because the station operates on a 7 second delay. This is done so whackjobs can't call in and just blurt out "Fuck you" on the air for their jollies.

What you hear coming out of the radio is 7 seconds behind real time...so if you try and listen to your radio, you will only wind up getting confused.

When a person from...oh lets say...Houston calls in to the Rush Limbaugh show...which originates from Rush's compound in Florida, the board operator at the station in Houston doesn't have to do a thing. He simply monitors the broadcast and listens for SILENCE. WHILE he is doing this, he is also checking computer programming to see if the upcoming news segment is programmed correctly, if the commercials are loaded in the proper order for play during the next stopset(radio lingo for commercial break) and other minor duties he can attend to while at the same time keeping an ear to the radio. He doesn't need to listen to every single word to know that the show is operating correctly.

But I waste my time...

I am sure Yurt learned all that during his couple semesters of college radio...

 

[DamnYankee]

ZapTard's all upset that Yurt has radio experience...

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Once again...stations ask callers to turn down their radios because the station operates on a 7 second delay. This is done so whackjobs can't call in and just blurt out "Fuck you" on the air for their jollies.

What you hear coming out of the radio is 7 seconds behind real time...so if you try and listen to your radio, you will only wind up getting confused.

When a person from...oh lets say...Houston calls in to the Rush Limbaugh show...which originates from Rush's compound in Florida, the board operator at the station in Houston doesn't have to do a thing. He simply monitors the broadcast and listens for SILENCE. WHILE he is doing this, he is also checking computer programming to see if the upcoming news segment is programmed correctly, if the commercials are loaded in the proper order for play during the next stopset(radio lingo for commercial break) and other minor duties he can attend to while at the same time keeping an ear to the radio. He doesn't need to listen to every single word to know that the show is operating correctly.

But I waste my time...

I am sure Yurt learned all that during his couple semesters of college radio...

so now you're changing your stance. this is good, you're almost ready to admit you're wrong. now its, they do in fact listen, not just to every word. you actually admit they are listening for the words fuck you.

thats all i was saying, is that someone will indeed be forced to listen. it doesn't matter if its every word, someone will in fact be forced to listen. you could have saved your self all this time and effort frothing at the mouth and just admitted in the first place instead of falsely relying howard stern like a blithering idiot and claim NO ONE will be forced to listen which you now admit is not true.

you should work on your anger problems because you just made a complete ass out yourself over nothing.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

ZapTard's all upset that Yurt has radio experience...

and he is upset because i am right, so he bags on my experience. it all he has, because he is wrong, he has to mock to make himself feel superior....