- 1,341
- 271
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2012
The are limits on your first amendment rights. You can't yell fire in a theater. I don't see anybody going nuts and claiming they taking our riiiiiiights!
Guns? **** that you should be able to have bazookas if you want. It's your 2nd amendment right! If the government has drones, so should you!
Never mind the whole "well regulated" part of the amendment. Rights!
Nobody is taking your guns. It's not feasible. It will never happen. There are a hundred million around the country if not more.
- 10,637
- 10,998
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
My dude; I don't think you realize how ridiculous you sound with this comment. Unless you can provide actual facts with this outrageous claim, don't say anything.
- 18,373
- 33,982
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2004
I share in your fear. Any day now they will take away our pressure cookers.
I found the perpetrator:
View media item 368489
I found the perpetrator:
View media item 368489
jchambers
Banned
- 5,282
- 2,025
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
Way to go there, buddy.You aren't even addressing my statement, or the original argument. Just admit that the Sandy Hook massacre initiated tons of support for anti gun laws from many citizens and that the government monopolized on this by attempting to pass numerous laws.
- 9,423
- 4,741
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
Last edited:
- 18,373
- 33,982
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2004
Not trying to digress but that pitch was way out of the strike zone....
edit: you changed the pic.
edit: you changed the pic.
Last edited:
- 9,423
- 4,741
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
Nike Jordan
Supporter
- 33,754
- 80,531
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2002
The new Pig Love everyone!
Way to go there, buddy.You aren't even addressing my statement, or the original argument. Just admit that the Sandy Hook massacre initiated tons of support for anti gun laws from many citizens and that the government monopolized on this by attempting to pass numerous laws.
jchambers
Banned
- 5,282
- 2,025
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
Yeah, you are right. The Second amendment states " The rights of the Police and Military to possess firearms shall not be infringed."
I am not here to debate the constitutionality of gun control laws. He stated that there was no reason for false flags, and that they are useless anyways. This is not true and it can be proven.
"Immediately following the devastating school shooting Friday in Newtown, Conn., a new poll suggests a bump in support for stricter gun laws, with half of Americans saying they support making the nation's gun laws stricter.
The new HuffPost/YouGov survey found that 50 percent of Americans say gun laws should be made more strict than they are now, compared to 43 percent who said that they should remain the same (29 percent) or be made less strict (14 percent). The poll also found support for banning semi-automatic weapons (51 percent to 33 percent) as well as magazine clips holding more than 10 rounds (54 percent to 32 percent).
The main weapon used by shooter Adam Lanza was a semiautomatic assault rifle, and he carried several high capacity magazines, though that information had not been released while the poll was being fielded. On Saturday White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters that reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 "does remain a commitment" of President Barack Obama. On Sunday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) announced that she would be introducing a new assault weapons ban bill on the first day of the new Congress.
YouGov's previous survey on the issue in August of this year found 44 percent supporting stricter gun control laws and 47 percent supporting gun laws remaining the same or less strict. A month before that, shortly after the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., the percentage saying gun laws should remain the same or less strict was as high as 50 percent. No previous YouGov survey has found support for stricter gun control as high as 50 percent, though shortly after Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot support reached 48 percent on one poll.
Generally speaking, mass shooting incidents have made little lasting impact on public support for stricter gun laws. The Columbine shooting 13 years ago is one event that did cause a noticeable bump in public support for stricter gun laws. Columbine was the largest school shooting incident in American history until Friday, and the story was the single-most followed news story of 1999, as measured by the Pew Research Center.
The new HuffPost/YouGov poll shows signs that the Sandy Hook shooting may be a story of similar magnitude: Among the poll's respondents, who were surveyed Friday evening and Saturday, 70 percent said they had heard a lot about the shooting and another 24 percent had heard a little. Only two percent said they had heard nothing at all, and three percent said they weren't sure. Still, support for stricter gun control laws in the new survey is nowhere near the levels reached on several polls in 1999 and 2000, when upwards of 65 percent supported stricter gun control laws.
The poll found little sympathy for the argument frequently made by gun rights advocates that Americans would be better protected by more, rather than fewer, guns. Forty-six percent of Americans said that stricter gun control laws and enforcements were most likely to lead to fewer mass shootings, while only 34 percent said that allowing more private citizens to carry guns for protection would be the more protective measure.
Most respondents to the poll said that current gun laws contribute at least somewhat to mass shooting incidents, but they were divided over whether the days immediately following mass shootings are the right time to discuss changes to the nation's gun laws. The survey found that 25 percent of Americans say current gun laws contribute a great deal to mass shooting incidents, while another 26 percent say they contribute somewhat. Thirty-nine percent of respondents said they do not contribute at all. Still, poll respondents were equally divided, 44 percent to 43 percent, over whether the days following mass shooting incidents are the right time for a discussion of the nation's gun laws or the wrong time.
The HuffPost/YouGov poll was conducted Dec. 14-15 among 1,000 U.S. adults. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points, though that inherent variation does not take into account other potential sources of error, including statistical bias in the sample. The poll used a sample selected from YouGov's opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population. Factors considered include age, race, gender, education, employment, income, marital status, number of children, voter registration, time and location of Internet access, interest in politics, religion and church. Crosstabs for the poll are available here."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/gun-control-laws-sandy-hook-poll_n_2309324.html
To state that the Sandy Hook massacre didn't increase support and attempts at anti gun legislation is absurd. You guys do live in the United States, don't you?
Last edited:
- 1,341
- 271
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2012
Way to go there, buddy.You aren't even addressing my statement, or the original argument. Just admit that the Sandy Hook massacre initiated tons of support for anti gun laws from many citizens and that the government monopolized on this by attempting to pass numerous laws.
What does support matter if both democrats and republicans are voting against any and every law?
Maybe you haven't been keeping up but nothing has come from this. Pro gun people are failed to pass anything
That background check bill is going to be GUTTED more than it already is considering you can sell a gun to a friend, co worker, fam member and neighbor under the current proposed bill
That's before the house puts any spin on it
And then MAYBE Bohener allows a vote.
That anti gun support has been bubbling up for over a decade. Yes sandy hook brought it to the max. But nothing has come from it. Which leads me to think that it wasn't done on purpose because they can't even do anything with all that public support.
- 18,373
- 33,982
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2004
you caught my edit too.
jchambers
Banned
- 5,282
- 2,025
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
Way to go there, buddy.You aren't even addressing my statement, or the original argument. Just admit that the Sandy Hook massacre initiated tons of support for anti gun laws from many citizens and that the government monopolized on this by attempting to pass numerous laws.
What does support matter if both democrats and republicans are voting against any and every law?
Maybe you haven't been keeping up but nothing has come from this. Pro gun people are failed to pass anything
That background check bill is going to be GUTTED more than it already is considering you can sell a gun to a friend, co worker, fam member and neighbor under the current proposed bill
That's before the house puts any spin on it
And then MAYBE Bohener allows a vote.
That anti gun support has been bubbling up for over a decade. Yes sandy hook brought it to the max. But nothing has come from it. Which leads me to think that it wasn't done on purpose because they can't even do anything with all that public support.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
I never once said that Sandy Hook was done on purpose as a false flag attack. It is definitely too early to even speculate on this Boston Incident. You were questioning the efficacy and purpose of a false flag attack. That is what I was addressing.
Last edited:
- 1,341
- 271
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2012
I said they weren't nessesary. Not that in theory false flags can't work.
If they wanted to fail at passing gun laws they could have done that without sandy hook.
If they wanted to fail at passing gun laws they could have done that without sandy hook.
- 10,637
- 10,998
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
JChambers I am still waiting on proof of these so called, "numerous unconstitutional laws are being written as we speak."
jchambers
Banned
- 5,282
- 2,025
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
So you agree that "in theory" they can work? So you agree that ,hypothetically,some people might find it beneficial to initiate false flag attacks?
Last edited:
jchambers
Banned
- 5,282
- 2,025
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
Way to go there, buddy.You aren't even addressing my statement, or the original argument. Just admit that the Sandy Hook massacre initiated tons of support for anti gun laws from many citizens and that the government monopolized on this by attempting to pass numerous laws.
What does support matter if both democrats and republicans are voting against any and every law?
Maybe you haven't been keeping up but nothing has come from this. Pro gun people are failed to pass anything
That background check bill is going to be GUTTED more than it already is considering you can sell a gun to a friend, co worker, fam member and neighbor under the current proposed bill
That's before the house puts any spin on it
And then MAYBE Bohener allows a vote.
That anti gun support has been bubbling up for over a decade. Yes sandy hook brought it to the max. But nothing has come from it. Which leads me to think that it wasn't done on purpose because they can't even do anything with all that public support.
Here you go:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...es-newtown-sandy-hook-shooting_n_2478418.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/04/connecticut-gun-control-sandy-hook-law_n_3011625.html
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...ewtown-passion-moves-senate-vote-on-guns?lite
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/15/politics/senate-gun-laws/?hpt=hp_t1
http://rense.com/general85/obs.htm
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...key-votes-on-gun-laws-since-newtown-shootings
Last edited:
- 13,153
- 14,577
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
Even in a thread about tragic events, we can't keep arguing / bickering out of it. 
cmon NT
cmon NT
- 1,341
- 271
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2012
If the goal was to take guns away they did a miserable job didn't they?
So how are they sophisticated enough to plan sandy hook yet they can't even get the laws passed?
Calling this a false flag is a gigantic reach. Or are you saying we are about to ban pressure cookers?
At this point I'm just waiting to see if someone takes blame or not
Last edited:
jchambers
Banned
- 5,282
- 2,025
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
That remains to be seen. Seems that it worked perfectly in Connecticut and New York. I never said that they planned Sandy Hook!!! I haven't seen any evidence that the Boston incident is a false flag attack either, nor have I even suggested that.You guys are on a witch hunt for conspiracy theorists around here.
You sir, are the official king of Red Herring arguments. I salute you.
Last edited:
- 160,015
- 141,434
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
You do understand that the Family Guy episode had nothing to do with Alex Jones? He just happened to be in the link. HE didn't make the video.
Nice try though.
- 160,015
- 141,434
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
Again, he is a photographer. The goal of a photographer (professional) is to get pics that others don't get.
And this idea that just because someone is taking a picture means that they could/should help is beyond me.
And what did we want this photographer do? The person was already getting assistance.
I can't agree with the, "If you had a heart you wouldn't sell a picture to the news." I mean he is a photographer..
- 796
- 114
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2013
Looting
- 2,605
- 454
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
enough of all the ********! Lets keep the thread about the Boston tragedy.
Man After seeing some of the pictures of the victims I am heart broken. I feel so bad for that guy who was running in the Boston Marathon. His 8 year old son was killed, his daughter lost a leg, and his wife is in the hospital fighting for her life as we speak.
Praying for the victims.
Man After seeing some of the pictures of the victims I am heart broken. I feel so bad for that guy who was running in the Boston Marathon. His 8 year old son was killed, his daughter lost a leg, and his wife is in the hospital fighting for her life as we speak.
- 160,015
- 141,434
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
I never understand statements like that.enough of all the ********! Lets keep the thread about the Boston tragedy.
What do you want people to do/say?
We aren't allowed to talk about the actual operation?
Should we only talk about how sad we are and how humans are so much worse than they were 30 years ago?
