guns

island1fox

Well-Known Member
Personal Responsability. Think about it. A Black man from a single Mom overcame the statistics and did not just educate himself or just get a good job------He became President of the United States !!!

What excuse does everyone else have ?
opportunity?
racism?
Education?

Or just look in the mirror.
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
So, island, are we to have a war on poverty? And what do you suggest we do in that war?

The sad truth is the democrats aren't interested in reducing poverty. Poverty creates dependency, dependency creates democrat voters. People who are independent, and don't require government assistance don't vote democrat generally speaking so the democrats are all for higher poverty to help fill their voter rolls.
 

p228

Well-Known Member
The newtown shooter was trained , along with his "DOOMSDAY PREPPER" mother by trainers at their local gun range. For MONTHS, this irresponsible GUN OWNER mother took her mentally unstable son to a range to TEACH him how to shoot the BUSHMASTER.223 and her MANY semi automatic pistols she was "hoarding", while they waited for the "end of america as we know it" scenario that is pushed around by RIGHT WING KOOKS.

By the way, in the last 4 mass shootings, ALL the primary assault weapons JAMMED and the shooters went to secondary weapons until they either killed themselves or were captured.

Having mommy take you to the range is not the same as having professional training taught to law enforcement/military. Despite popular belief, there is more to tactical training than standing in front of a stationary target firing round after round. Active shooters are so successful in their killing because they are facing an unarmed and untrained force. Put up against a trained force, they wouldn't stand a chance. Most highly regarded law enforcement/military trainers teach that the primary goal when dealing with an active shooter is to find him and shoot/kill him. If you are the first unit on scene that means get your rifle and armor and go in. No waiting half an hour for the SWAT team. The longer you wait the more lives will be lost.

As for weapon transitions, nearly all school shootings involved more than one firearm. Merely playing a video game can instill the need to switch to a from a primary to secondary weapon. It doesn't speak for their knowledge on the subject. It simply shows how hellbent they are on shedding innocent blood.

Cowards with guns, a common trait amongst gun owners.

What would you call being afraid of an inanimate object?

You asked why would a teacher have a weapon in a locked drawer? Seriously? Do you want to live in a country where our teachers have to have a weapon on their person in a classroom full of children? Is this afghanistan? Are we to teach our children that "We" americans are a violent society and should not be trusted? Do we teach children that we have to be prepared to kill each other with guns because we grow up to threaten each other?

Do you want to live in a country where a waste of human life can walk into a school and cause a massacre unchecked?


Please. Guns would have to be kept secured, locked up so that children couldnt have access to them and kill someone by accident. Did you forget kids kill kids with guns every year in homes across america because parents are too stupid to lock them up?

Which is why they would stay on one's person. If you are so opposed to teachers carrying then perhaps you are more open to the idea of armed guard/police presence. Several years ago, there was a threat made to a local school. In response the police stationed officers at the entrances until the end of the school year. The only ones who complained were the politicians because of excessive overtime. No one claimed it was oppressive or harming the learning environment, it was seen as a safety measure.
 

trickpony1

Well-Known Member
The sad truth is the democrats aren't interested in reducing poverty. Poverty creates dependency, dependency creates democrat voters. People who are independent, and don't require government assistance don't vote democrat generally speaking so the democrats are all for higher poverty to help fill their voter rolls.

Don't forget the "sense of entitlement" that is passed through their generations.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
The sad truth is the democrats aren't interested in reducing poverty. Poverty creates dependency, dependency creates democrat voters. People who are independent, and don't require government assistance don't vote democrat generally speaking so the democrats are all for higher poverty to help fill their voter rolls.

Again, another RUSH LIMBAUGH listener giving us the rhetoric of the right wing. I got a little news for you "DITTOHEAD", take a look at the states with the highest WELFARE ROLES and then ask yourself, why are they republicans?

fdc1b63cc7e9bae9f22ab2fd6c928b69.png


RED STATES have the highest percentage of FOOD STAMP use in the country. 13 of the top 15 states are RED STATES that vote purely REPUBLICAN, yet, you post that food stamp people turn out to be democrats?

Please.

Find a new source for your information.

Peace

TOS
 

island1fox

Well-Known Member
1BW,

TOS probably made that map up himself. In a RUSH he made a few errors.:happy-very:

Beside the fact that he seems to believe that all of the people-100%- in a Blue State are Democrats and Left --and all of the people that live in Red States 100%- are Republican and right.

Does not work that way .

Who knows? --do food stamp people list Political party when they sign up ??

For example a State such as true blue Texas could have 40% of people on food stamps and 98% of that 40% are illegal or liberals:wink2:


TOS should know that many people will try to FOOL you with percentages. Look at the last UPS strike --the Teamsters claimed over 90% of the members voted for strike authorization --statement is true --BUT --the rest of the story --Less than 10% of the total membership showed up to vote. Pretty slick !! So in reality only 7 to 8 percent of the total members voted --not 90 %

P.S The color scheme on the map was misleading --was not showing what state was red or blue --just usage.
The map should have used colors not associated with either or any political party.
 

island1fox

Well-Known Member
:happy-very: Let me give you some very Intelligent LIBERAL thinking.

Proud Liberal Bob Beckel compared apartheid to gun ownership.

He claimed ALL white people (the bad) owned all the Guns in South Africa--All the Blacks (the good) did not have guns .
He went on to explain the whites that thought they were good --were really bad so-SO --SO --Beckel went on to say :

Lets look at America and the NRA today --they want the "good" to have guns and the "bad" not to .

"I cannot tell the difference between the good or bad--so no one should have any gun " ???????

This is the LIBERAL thought process. A gangbanger,drug dealor,murderer or-- soberups ---Beckel could not see the difference ??????:sick:
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
Washington is a totally blue state, actually. I believe Oregon is, too. Correct me if I am wrong, Soberups.

Oregon is a blue state only because of the Willamette Valley. The big cities (Portland, Eugene, Salem, Albany) are pretty much liberal enclaves, the rest of the state is far more rural and conservative.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
"First they came for the blacks, and I spoke up because it was wrong, even though I'm not black.
Then they came for the gays, and I spoke up, even though I'm not gay.
Then they came for the Muslims, and I spoke up, because it was wrong, even though I'm an atheist.
When they came for illegal aliens, I spoke up, even though I'm a legal immigrant.
Then they came for the pornographers, rebels and dissenters and their speech and flag burning, and I spoke up, because rights are not only for the establishment.
Then they came for the gun owners, and you liberal ****bags threw me under the bus, even though I'd done nothing wrong. So when they come to put you on the train, you can friendg choke and die.
~~~
Or you can commit seppuku with a chainsaw. I really don't care anymore. This is the end of my support for any liberal cause, because liberals have become anything but."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Good stuff. I am a liberal on many issues, but unfortunately a lot of so-called "liberals" are just as bigoted and intolerant as the right wing conservatives they condemn.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Excuse me...again. Nobody is coming for the gun owners and the sad comparison to truly oppressed people is pathetic. Don't be a D-bag.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Incorrect. There is possibly a slight majority in the Senate and at least a substantial minority in the House that will vote "yes" on any bill that has the words "assault weapon ban" in it. The wont read it. They wont understand it. They wont have any real comprehension of any of the details of what they are actually voting for. Their eyes will gloss over and their jaws will go slack and they willl get a warm and fuzzy feeling just by voting "yes" on it. Who needs factual and reasoned debate when it comes to those icky poopy scary guns? If it will save one child.......

incorrect. Reid won't let it happen. Won't risk making his majority take that vote. But he understands it the same way you and I do. The ban would be a feel good, do nothing piece of law. He is best served by letting Nugent and Lapierre rage on and on.
 
Top