Sarah Palin??

Originally posted by leonheartmm
erm, put in a law which requires all firearms to be sold back to the government maybe............................ with penalties for those who dont. and why wud it turn citizens into hardened criminals seeing as they have bought gund under the pretext of PROTECTION?????? {or am i right and is self defence only a superficial cover for people who love to own, use and live by GUNS?} . also, the posessing of any weapons would net you a hefty fine/jail time, that shud work well for deterrance. and since people cant carry weapons around anymore, it would deter the illegal ones just as much.

You obviously completely miss the point. All you've done is enforce my previous idea, that under your system, the prisons would be full of gun owners who had never intended to use them illegally. By putting these people in prison, you are essentially turning a normal person into a criminal.

There's over 300 million people in the U.S and even more guns, good luck with your idealistic plan.

I think she is a jock.

^it isnt about good people or bad people, it is about laws, and enforcing them, to stop the large scale consequences of not enforcing these laws. wouldnt you put a person in jail if they had a truck full of plastic explosives in their garage? even if they didnt plan on USING them. if not jail, then atleast some penalty so they wudnt do it AGAIN.

Entirely different thing.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes i have. hunting is a sport involving killing animals for fun. not even duscussing the moral issues,the FREEDOM to hunt, is outweighed by the risks to the safety of the society. if u bothered to read, ud know i mentioned this before. the protection point has been debunked, posessing guns, rarely translated into being available at the time one is being robbed etc and then further being useful enough to disable the threat without loss of life. and ur arguing facts, it isnt more effective as self defence requires STOPPING POWER, and the tazer has more than the 9mm. intimidation is the ONLY factor, in which case an empty gun or a gun with ruber bullets would suffice just as well.

as always you PROVE that your retarted with every ensuing reply. and you havent replied to any of points. ***** and moan.

No, you made illogical and idiotic analogies about nuclear weapons and brought up "tasers" in a moronic fashion to prove that people shouldn't be allowed guns because they could buy a taser instead, you certainly didn't debunk anything.

Fact: Not all hunting is just for the sake of needlessly killing animals. People do hunt and eat what they kill. In areas where predators (wolves, coyotes and what have you) have been decimated, hunting is a necessity in regards to population control, least the animals over-breed and then starve due to lack of food. Also, your dislike of hunting (I dislike it to, generally) is no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to hunt in a sanctioned and legal fashion.

Fact: People have a right to protect themselves and a gun is far more effective than a taser, which generally is a one-shot item. If you're going to ban guns from everyone because the very few use them for illegal reasons (this is of course ignoring that criminals still manage to get guns illegally in heavily gun-controlled areas), then using your retard-logic, we better ban cars too, because I could easily mow-down 20+ people to death in my 2+ ton car.

Now considering those two facts above and your nonsense rants about your little feelings, you most definitely proved yourself the proper moron yet again, good job.

No one is saying that guns should be taken away from people. What has been said is that a reasonable limit to the notion must be understood, even when people don't want it. Most gun owners in this country do not own hundreds of guns. Most people, my mother included, one a single weapon which they keep in their home to protect themselves from the possibility of home invasion. What is blatanty apparent is that most Americans are not carrying their guns on their hips like this is the old west. This is contrary to the accusation made by many on the right that these people are looking to protect themselves from the "bad guys" when they're ordering a 4 dollar cup of coffee from their local gas station on their way to their 40 to 70 hour a week job, as though the vast majority of the guys in line behind you are those "bad guys". What's more obvious is that the average American citizen is not thinking that they need automatic and illegal weapons to "defend" themselves from an uppity government that is going to knock on your door and take your children or your laptop and all of your books. In fact, I am certain that the average American citizen that walks around with a gun strapped to his hip is not "average". If an American wants to own a legal firearm, then they should certainly be allowed to do so. Does he need 50? Sure. If that's what he wants. Does he need 3 legal firearms and 47 illegal firearms? No. What makes them illegal? Not their effectivness against an uppity government, but their potential to obviously harm the rest of the American citizens. How many times have we heard of a group that stockpiled weapons that weren't considered a threat to their fellow citizen? Not once. The average American gun owner is not interested in harming their fellow citizens. Sadly, those folks aren't the citizens that make up the majority of individuals that represent the numbers reported.

What I think has ended up being the dividing factor between the people that have participated in the last 2 pages of this thread are the words espoused by the supporter of the gun issue in the 3 pages that preceeded it. That person has said that there is no reasonable limit to the weapons that an American citizen can or should own that don't infringe on a citizen's 2nd amendment rights. This is a shit idea. No one buys a nuclear weapon with out maintaining the idea that it might come to using it. Neither does a person buy a beretta without thinking it's use might be needed. However, the actual implementation of one far outweighs the use of the other. However, the mindset that brought one of them to buy that nuke does not represent the mindset of the person that bought the beretta. If you buy a 9 mm as a response to your concern for your family or property safety, then you are being somewhat realistic. If you buy a case of handgrenaids or 45 automatic riffles or a nuclear bomb, you don't do so without the very dangerous assumption that will HAVE to use it, which does nothing to stop you from assuming that using it is an obligation.

Originally posted by Devil King
No one is saying that guns should be taken away from people.

That idiot is, see his nuclear weapons analogies and taser rants.

I agree with you otherwise.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, you made illogical and idiotic analogies about nuclear weapons and brought up "tasers" in a moronic fashion to prove that people shouldn't be allowed guns because they could buy a taser instead, you certainly didn't debunk anything.

Fact: Not all hunting is just for the sake of needlessly killing animals. People do hunt and eat what they kill. In areas where predators (wolves, coyotes and what have you) have been decimated, hunting is a necessity in regards to population control, least the animals over-breed and then starve due to lack of food. Also, your dislike of hunting (I dislike it to, generally) is no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to hunt in a sanctioned and legal fashion.

Fact: People have a right to protect themselves and a gun is far more effective than a taser, which generally is a one-shot item. If you're going to ban guns from everyone because the very few use them for illegal reasons (this is of course ignoring that criminals still manage to get guns illegally in heavily gun-controlled areas), then using your retard-logic, we better ban cars too, because I could easily mow-down 20+ people to death in my 2+ ton car.

Now considering those two facts above and your nonsense rants about your little feelings, you most definitely proved yourself the proper moron yet again, good job.

nice claim, now lets see you prove it

hunting is a necessity only because the enviornment was messed with to begin with, its akin to putting a man in a psyche ward for 8 years and when he goes insane, using that as an excuse to give him acid to help with his symptoms. it isnt justified if the problem is created by the same people in the first place. hunting isnt necessary for most people who own hunting rifles. its a sport. my dislike of hunting isnt a good enough argument, but the morality behind killing animals for game is unjustified, legal or otherwise, its immoral.

FACT: people have right to feal safe in their country, and that right is taken away by the phenomenon of private ownership of guns. and again and again i have told you that tasers have proven to have more firepower than 9mm and again and again you avoid it. you dont need extended firefights for self defence. and cars arent made for killing, unlike guns. and their record is far cleaner when compared to guns. and cars are quite necessary, UNLIKE guns.

so again, you failed to prove me wrong, dick.

Originally posted by Robtard
That idiot is, see his nuclear weapons analogies and taser rants.

I agree with you otherwise.

says the idiot who cant produce a single argument that stands. guns are not necessary. people whud not own guns. your world wont end without guns. if you cant live without firing guns, than keep and shoot em at gun ranges. simple.

Originally posted by Devil King
No one is saying that guns should be taken away from people. What has been said is that a reasonable limit to the notion must be understood, even when people don't want it. Most gun owners in this country do not own hundreds of guns. Most people, my mother included, one a single weapon which they keep in their home to protect themselves from the possibility of home invasion. What is blatanty apparent is that most Americans are not carrying their guns on their hips like this is the old west. This is contrary to the accusation made by many on the right that these people are looking to protect themselves from the "bad guys" when they're ordering a 4 dollar cup of coffee from their local gas station on their way to their 40 to 70 hour a week job, as though the vast majority of the guys in line behind you are those "bad guys". What's more obvious is that the average American citizen is not thinking that they need automatic and illegal weapons to "defend" themselves from an uppity government that is going to knock on your door and take your children or your laptop and all of your books. In fact, I am certain that the average American citizen that walks around with a gun strapped to his hip is not "average". If an American wants to own a legal firearm, then they should certainly be allowed to do so. Does he need 50? Sure. If that's what he wants. Does he need 3 legal firearms and 47 illegal firearms? No. What makes them illegal? Not their effectivness against an uppity government, but their potential to obviously harm the rest of the American citizens. How many times have we heard of a group that stockpiled weapons that weren't considered a threat to their fellow citizen? Not once. The average American gun owner is not interested in harming their fellow citizens. Sadly, those folks aren't the citizens that make up the majority of individuals that represent the numbers reported.

What I think has ended up being the dividing factor between the people that have participated in the last 2 pages of this thread are the words espoused by the supporter of the gun issue in the 3 pages that preceeded it. That person has said that there is no reasonable limit to the weapons that an American citizen can or should own that don't infringe on a citizen's 2nd amendment rights. This is a shit idea. No one buys a nuclear weapon with out maintaining the idea that it might come to using it. Neither does a person buy a beretta without thinking it's use might be needed. However, the actual implementation of one far outweighs the use of the other. However, the mindset that brought one of them to buy that nuke does not represent the mindset of the person that bought the beretta. If you buy a 9 mm as a response to your concern for your family or property safety, then you are being somewhat realistic. If you buy a case of handgrenaids or 45 automatic riffles or a nuclear bomb, you don't do so without the very dangerous assumption that will HAVE to use it, which does nothing to stop you from assuming that using it is an obligation.

so why cant tazers and other non lethal wepaons{with often greater stopping power} suffice. as you said, its a difference of MAGNITUDE between the idea of having to use a nuke and having to use a 9mm parabellum baretta. to ME the intention of using a 9mm baretta is also unaceptable, just like the nuke, namely, because it KILLS. so why cant tazers/stun grenades etc suffice. and btw rob isnt really agreeing with you seeing that he considers a need to kill "self defence".

Originally posted by leonheartmm
nice claim, now lets see you prove it

hunting is a necessity only because the enviornment was messed with to begin with, its akin to putting a man in a psyche ward for 8 years and when he goes insane, using that as an excuse to give him acid to help with his symptoms. it isnt justified if the problem is created by the same people in the first place. hunting isnt necessary for most people who own hunting rifles. its a sport. my dislike of hunting isnt a good enough argument, but the morality behind killing animals for game is unjustified, legal or otherwise, its immoral.

FACT: people have right to feal safe in their country, and that right is taken away by the phenomenon of private ownership of guns. and again and again i have told you that tasers have proven to have more firepower than 9mm and again and again you avoid it. you dont need extended firefights for self defence. and cars arent made for killing, unlike guns. and their record is far cleaner when compared to guns. and cars are quite necessary, UNLIKE guns.

so again, you failed to prove me wrong, dick.

Don't really have to, as their facts, ya goon.

Regardless of why hunting is a necessary in some situations/areas (ie lack or natural predators), it would still be a necessity, you imbecile. That is besides the point that people have a right to hunt legally, be it for food or sport, no matter what your personal little feelings about "morality" are, you oppressive buffoon.

Fact: People feel safe by owning a gun they know they'll most likely never, ever have to use, even lawfully. No, tasers are not more effective, they're generally a one-shot device and a taser against some armed criminal(s) isn't as effective, you complete douche.

You ignore known facts and spout more nonsense like a moron, as you have a habit of doing with any topic you choose to rant your shit-thoughts about.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
says the idiot who cant produce a single argument that stands. guns are not necessary. people whud not own guns. your world wont end without guns.

if you cant live without firing guns, than keep and shoot em at gun ranges. simple.

Another senseless thought, no surprise. It's not a matter of the "world ending", it's a matter of personal freedom, having the right to protect yourself, sporting/hunting and the fact that the vast majority of noncriminals (criminals would own a gun regardless of the law, since they're criminals) who own guns, do not use them to kill people, another fact, which you'll disagree with and probably rant that your average American gun-owner randomly shoots people.

Wait, now you're okay with people owning guns; just as long as they use them for nonviolent activities? Guess what, the vast majority of gun-owners already do that, you moron. Funny, you just proved yourself and your previous idiotic rants to be just that, idiotic, good job.

Originally posted by leonheartmm

accidental shooting and gun crimes are off the charts in america. compare it to canada.

Originally posted by red g jacks
aren't guns legal in canada?

Don't worry, his "logic" is impervious to facts.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so why cant tazers and other non lethal wepaons{with often greater stopping power} suffice. as you said, its a difference of MAGNITUDE between the idea of having to use a nuke and having to use a 9mm parabellum baretta. to ME the intention of using a 9mm baretta is also unaceptable, just like the nuke, namely, because it KILLS. so why cant tazers/stun grenades etc suffice. and btw rob isnt really agreeing with you seeing that he considers a need to kill "self defence".

Are you actually saying that if I keep a nine under my pillow in the event of a burglary, that I also might as well replace it with a nuke and hammer & chisel? If so, let's hope no punk breaks into my house or half the city's gonna pay the price.

Originally posted by Devil King
Ronald Reagan? You mean that hollywood elitist? You mean that president that cut and ran in the middle east? I didn't say that governors made bad presidents. I said that simply because some one was a governor doesn't mean they will make a good president. It is your argument, not mine. Yeah, you call him Hussein just because it's his name. Again, call him Hussein all you like, it's his name.

Once again you look at nothing but the bad things and cant keep an open mind, typical American liberal. And history has shown us there have been plenty of good presidents that have been governors, how many community organizers made great presidents? Yeah, I do call him hussein because its his name, now whats your excuse for FRAU Palin? Or "Well..its sorta her title, in German!!!11"

Originally posted by Devil King

My grandfather is a fairly wealthy person by today's standards and he has both. The majority of those benefits go to the retired and elderly. He's also none too pleased with Mr. Bush.

You Grandfather is probably old and senile..like you Democrats like to call McCain. How would universal healthcare help the rich? They would pay for the GREAT majority of it, but have no use for it since they have their own insurance provider. Tell me how that is "fair"?

Originally posted by Devil King
Ronald Reagan? You mean that hollywood elitist? You mean that president that cut and ran in the middle east? I didn't say that governors made bad presidents. I said that simply because some one was a governor doesn't mean they will make a good president. It is your argument, not mine. Yeah, you call him Hussein just because it's his name. Again, call him Hussein all you like, it's his name.

[QUOTE=11178101]Originally posted by Devil King
[B]
As well funded does not mean he wants to spend 515 billion dollars on the peace corps. You're just making shit up now. Don't you support our troops? They hate us for our freedom!

As well funded = equally funded. Disagree with me all you want, but dont argue the English language. So please tell me how spending 500 billion dollars, like Obama himself said he would, on the Peace Corps would be beneficial. Or is it not the Peace Corps now? Just a bunch of men in brownshirts patrolling the neighborhood, no worries!

Originally posted by Devil King

I'm still not seeing these well-armed and gun-toting, yet safe and law-abiding citizens all over the place. I never have. Apparently, they've decided for themselves not to apply the 2nd amendment to every moment of their lives as you seem to be saying they are.

Do you need the definition of conceiled AGAIN? Not even for the debate, just look it up for your own benefit in life.

Originally posted by Devil King

You don't have to eagerly await it. He said he supported the 2nd amendment in your own link.

But you see, the thing is, some of us see actions as being louder then words. Some people out there can blindly stare at a man and nod their heads agreeing with every word he says. Other people like to look into facts and what has been done behind the scenes..such as signing a questionarre stating he would support a ban on the sale of guns. But once again "WRONG!! HE TOLD ME HE WOULDNT!"

Originally posted by Devil King

No one has said they will take away the 2nd amendment rights. The do not have the right to stockpile illegal weapons. If we were to consider what the founding father's meant when they said "arms", then we would be talking about powder-loaded muskets with a bayonet on the end of it. A machine gun that sprays 200 bullets a minute was not what they were talking about. Technically those cases happened because their weapons were illegal. But they actually happened because those people were breaking the law. What does someone like Mr. Koresh need with 100 crates of handgrenaids and 200 automatic weapons? Let's not forget these situations escelated out of control. They didn't start with the FBI or ATF rolling up to their compounds in a tank, they ended that way.

How do you know that is not what they are talking about? Did they said powder loaded muskets? Did they say only weapons that are present in our time? They said 'arms'..arms = weaponry..broad definition that should be applied to today. Do you believe guns should be banned? How should the second amendment be applied to us today? Just muskets?

Originally posted by Devil King

People like you are the jackasses because you're not that much different from a lot of the people that accepted the loans. If you knew you had bad credit but the bank convinced you that you could afford it anyway, you are only really guilty of believing the people that are lying to you; people that are representing a financial istitution that most people would believe spoke with some authority on the subject. How much is your mortgage every month?

LOL what a load of shit. So they were trickde into taking out the loans then? They had no idea they didnt have a steady job that they could lose? No idea they didnt make that much money? They were lied to by the evil bankers right? Those same evil bankers made them have a shit credit score as well, right? If they knew they had bad credit, why would they go and try and buy a house in the first place?

Originally posted by Devil King

Then as soon as you get to your property line, carry your legal gun around all you want. But a public city street is not your private property.

Unfortunetly I wouldnt be able to go buy a gun if someone starts up a bill to ban the sale of guns in the US, I wonder if Obama would veto it..his past says no.

Originally posted by Devil King

Curiosity. You aren't answering beccause you don't own one? You keep claiming that all these people are walking around with a gun in their back pocket to protect themselves, you must be one of them.

Do I have to go march and protest in order to just believe in the first amendment?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so why cant tazers and other non lethal wepaons{with often greater stopping power} suffice. as you said, its a difference of MAGNITUDE between the idea of having to use a nuke and having to use a 9mm parabellum baretta. to ME the intention of using a 9mm baretta is also unaceptable, just like the nuke, namely, because it KILLS. so why cant tazers/stun grenades etc suffice. and btw rob isnt really agreeing with you seeing that he considers a need to kill "self defence".

I'm affraid I can't comprehend your logic. Many police use non-lethal weapons when confronting a crowd of protestors. But to say that a tazer will suffice in hunting is kind of out there. It's hard to skin and eat a deer that is waking up from a good tazering.

Originally posted by KidRock
Once again you look at nothing but the bad things and cant keep an open mind, typical American liberal. And history has shown us there have been plenty of good presidents that have been governors, how many community organizers made great presidents? Yeah, I do call him hussein because its his name, now whats your excuse for FRAU Palin? Or "Well..its sorta her title, in German!!!11"

Are you on crack? It is your argument that Mrs. Palin will be a good president because she's been a governor. I am simply saying because she's been a governor does not mean that she will be. Why am I having to explain your own argument to you? No, it's not meant to be German. She would never have been nominated in Germany. It's meant to arouse the mental image so many of you have of her; that she's this dominatrix, splayed out on the hood of a corvette ready to spank your repressed ass with the bible. Did you watch the debate last night on CNN? The moment, and I do mean the EXACT moment, McCain mentioned her husband the men numbers dropped like a ****ing rock. I'm so disgusted by the mainstream comedians and sitcoms where the man is the dumb **** that's just lucky enough to get the much smarter woman, but that really showed me how often and concentrated on thinking with their dick some men are.

Originally posted by KidRock
You Grandfather is probably old and senile..like you Democrats like to call McCain. How would universal healthcare help the rich? They would pay for the GREAT majority of it, but have no use for it since they have their own insurance provider. Tell me how that is "fair"?

Yeah, and you can go **** your mother in her dusty puckered ass hole. See, there's no need to get personal about the other's family. My grandfather is far from senile. The argument is not that universal healthcare will help the rich, it is that it won't hurt them. How is it fair for a person to have guarenteed healthcare but can't pay for it because the insurance company guarentees that some one will pay?

Originally posted by KidRock
As well funded = equally funded. Disagree with me all you want, but dont argue the English language. So please tell me how spending 500 billion dollars, like Obama himself said he would, on the Peace Corps would be beneficial. Or is it not the Peace Corps now? Just a bunch of men in brownshirts patrolling the neighborhood, no worries!

You're still just making shit up. Obama didn't say that, you said he said that.

Originally posted by KidRock
Do you need the definition of conceiled AGAIN? Not even for the debate, just look it up for your own benefit in life.

No, I don't need to look it up. I simply don't know of anyone, not one other human being, in a family full of conservatives, that walk around with a gun. I have many family members that own them and use them, but not one single person that I know carries a gun around with them. Even you don't. Likely because you don't own one, you just feel the need to cling to the issue because you dislike the idea of a negro being president. You're so against it that you have said you don't like your own candidate but he's the "lesser of two evils".

Originally posted by KidRock
But you see, the thing is, some of us see actions as being louder then words. Some people out there can blindly stare at a man and nod their heads agreeing with every word he says. Other people like to look into facts and what has been done behind the scenes..such as signing a questionarre stating he would support a ban on the sale of guns. But once again "WRONG!! HE TOLD ME HE WOULDNT!"

Sorry, I'm just pointing out what he said in your own link, the one you posted to say he would take away our guns and shred the constitution.

Originally posted by KidRock
How do you know that is not what they are talking about? Did they said powder loaded muskets? Did they say only weapons that are present in our time? They said 'arms'..arms = weaponry..broad definition that should be applied to today. Do you believe guns should be banned? How should the second amendment be applied to us today? Just muskets?

Because it was the 1700's, that's how I know they weren't talking about automatic machine guns. I'd personally have no issue with us getting rid of guns. How do you know they weren't talking about the same things leonhearted or what ever his name is, has said? Tazers? Would you feel better if you could stop the boogey man from coming on your property without killing him? It would give you enough time to knock him out and then call the cops so they can come and shoot him while he's unconscious, maybe sprinkle a little crack on him.

Originally posted by KidRock
LOL what a load of shit. So they were trickde into taking out the loans then? They had no idea they didnt have a steady job that they could lose? No idea they didnt make that much money? They were lied to by the evil bankers right? Those same evil bankers made them have a shit credit score as well, right? If they knew they had bad credit, why would they go and try and buy a house in the first place?

They were convinced. There's a difference. They knew better but took the word of the people in a position of authority. I'm not saying this applies to all of them, but a very great deal of them. What strikes me is how much superior you think you are to them because you are living on mommy and daddy's money, in school, letting them take the financial bullet for you. That sounds a hell of a lot like the opinion you have of everyone who votes democrat; always telling them they think they're smarter, always telling them they spend too much time reading books and passing judgment. Now, how much is your mortgage every month?

Originally posted by KidRock
Unfortunetly I wouldnt be able to go buy a gun if someone starts up a bill to ban the sale of guns in the US, I wonder if Obama would veto it..his past says no.

Unfortunately, you can't protect your home when you don't own one and aren't anywhere near it while you're toting your gun around. Nope, again, you're lying. He has never said that he would take away your guns or your ability to purchase them. See, I actually read your link and understood it.

Originally posted by KidRock
Do I have to go march and protest in order to just believe in the first amendment?

Thank you, you don't even own a gun. You seem to be speaking for this vast majority of people, but it seems it's just a bunch of bullshit. How is it that you tell every democrat that they want to speak for everyone when you do it yourself?

Originally posted by Devil King
Are you on crack? It is your argument that Mrs. Palin will be a good president because she's been a governor. I am simply saying because she's been a governor does not mean that she will be. Why am I having to explain your own argument to you? No, it's not meant to be German. She would never have been nominated in Germany. It's meant to arouse the mental image so many of you have of her; that she's this dominatrix, splayed out on the hood of a corvette ready to spank your repressed ass with the bible. Did you watch the debate last night on CNN? The moment, and I do mean the EXACT moment, McCain mentioned her husband the men numbers dropped like a ****ing rock. I'm so disgusted by the mainstream comedians and sitcoms where the man is the dumb **** that's just lucky enough to get the much smarter woman, but that really showed me how often and concentrated on thinking with their dick some men are.

You're a sick individual. You say Frau Palin to create an imige of a dominatrix spread out on the hood of a car? a) how does frau represent that? b) nobody thinks that, you live in a fantasy world. It is my arguement that being a governor gives good experience in governing things..which is obviously does.

Originally posted by Devil King

Yeah, and you can go **** your mother in her dusty puckered ass hole. See, there's no need to get personal about the other's family. My grandfather is far from senile. The argument is not that universal healthcare will help the rich, it is that it won't hurt them. How is it fair for a person to have guarenteed healthcare but can't pay for it because the insurance company guarentees that some one will pay?

But where is your defense of people calling McCain senile? or Frau Palin? Or making fun of Palin's retarded baby? It is all ok to do it to someone else, but when its to you, you cry. And it will hurt them..who will pay for it? They will. Will the quality of health care go down? Sure it will. What the hell are you talking about how is it fair that a person has guaranteed healthcare but cant pay for it because the insurance company guarantees that some one will pay?

Originally posted by Devil King

You're still just making shit up. Obama didn't say that, you said he said that.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Devil King

No, I don't need to look it up. I simply don't know of anyone, not one other human being, in a family full of conservatives, that walk around with a gun. I have many family members that own them and use them, but not one single person that I know carries a gun around with them. Even you don't. Likely because you don't own one, you just feel the need to cling to the issue because you dislike the idea of a negro being president. You're so against it that you have said you don't like your own candidate but he's the "lesser of two evils".

I sure do know people that carry guns around with a CC permit. In before "No, you dont! Liar!". Once again you bring up race, this world cannot move forward with racists like yourself in it..such a shame you're holding a race other then yours own..hell you're holding your own down as well by looking so ignorant.

Family full of conservatives? Like your grandfather voting for Obama? LOL

Originally posted by Devil King

he would take away our guns and shred the constitution.

I'm glad you finally realize it.

Originally posted by Devil King

Because it was the 1700's, that's how I know they weren't talking about automatic machine guns. I'd personally have no issue with us getting rid of guns. How do you know they weren't talking about the same things leonhearted or what ever his name is, has said? Tazers? Would you feel better if you could stop the boogey man from coming on your property [b]without killing him? It would give you enough time to knock him out and then call the cops so they can come and shoot him while he's unconscious, maybe sprinkle a little crack on him.
[/B]

Why injure him at all? The sight of a gun would make him run and never come back. And a tazer wont do much if he enters my home carrying a gun of his own, since you know, banning things doesnt prevent criminals from getting them.

Originally posted by Devil King

They were convinced. There's a difference. They knew better but took the word of the people in a position of authority. I'm not saying this applies to all of them, but a very great deal of them. What strikes me is how much superior you think you are to them because you are living on mommy and daddy's money, in school, letting them take the financial bullet for you. That sounds a hell of a lot like the opinion you have of everyone who votes democrat; always telling them they think they're smarter, always telling them they spend too much time reading books and passing judgment. Now, how much is your mortgage every month?

No, I am for people taking responsibility for themselves. Would "I was convinced I had to kill that person!" hold up in court? Of course it wouldn't, because people choose in the end to do something and they knew they couldnt afford it but did it anyway. Defend these people all you want, you will be paying for their mortgage now as well.

My house? I bought it in cash money, big briefcase full of it. Sorry, I dont discuss my financials with simpletons *raises pinky*

Originally posted by Devil King

Unfortunately, you can't protect your home when you don't own one and aren't anywhere near it while you're toting your gun around. Nope, again, you're lying. He has never said that he would take away your guns or your ability to purchase them. See, I actually read your link and understood it.

Once again: He said he would support it.

Originally posted by Devil King

Thank you, you don't even own a gun. You seem to be speaking for this vast majority of people, but it seems it's just a bunch of bullshit. How is it that you tell every democrat that they want to speak for everyone when you do it yourself?

It isnt relevant whether or not I own a gun. I speak for the majority of people yes, the ones that support the 2nd amendment and their right to exercise it. Learn it, love it, and use it if you choose to..HOOO YAAA.

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't really have to, as their facts, ya goon.

Regardless of why hunting is a necessary in some situations/areas (ie lack or natural predators), it would still be a necessity, you imbecile. That is besides the point that people have a right to hunt legally, be it for food or sport, no matter what your personal little feelings about "morality" are, you oppressive buffoon.

Fact: People feel safe by owning a gun they know they'll most likely never, ever have to use, even lawfully. No, tasers are not more effective, they're generally a one-shot device and a taser against some armed criminal(s) isn't as effective, you complete douche.

You ignore known facts and spout more nonsense like a moron, as you have a habit of doing with any topic you choose to rant your shit-thoughts about.

no they are personal oppinions LACKING any facts to back em up.

yes and if ud READ what i wrote before, ud know that i said the even BARRING any moral issues reguarding hunting, the simple FREEDOM that people feal they ought to have in regards of hunting what they want isnt justification enough to own guns as doing so tramples on the much BIGGER right of the population in general to feal safe in their country{which gun ownership seriously threatens}.

fact: tasers have more stopping power than 9 mm, until you can learn to accept this fact, theres no point in continuing the debate. and its more than enough for DEFENCE.

you havent given me any known fact, infact you deny known facts and go in circles while chasing your own tail.