Quantcast

Rave if you think the progressives are lying about their agenda over gun control

☆astac☆~PWCM 2013/01/06 21:40:27
Even though the facts point out that the progressives are wanting to confiscate and ban all weapons. Why is it they outright lie on sites like this and on the MSM news shows.
Do you believe anything the progressives say about the gun control debate
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Will of Truth 2013/01/09 08:13:36
  • Sherry 2013/01/08 23:54:49
    Sherry
    +1
    They are smart enough to know where gun confiscation of any sort, ends. So yes, the answer is they would love to eventually see all guns banned. Then the gangs, terrorists already here, groups such as the Black Panthers, and the gov't. will be, except for the military of course, the only ones with guns- I can't give them credit for just being stupid enough to believe that all the bad guys would be without the guns they are trying to ban now even. They know better. That's the ones who will always have them, always have had, and always will, no matter what they ban. Hell, this gov't. armed the drug cartel who murdered many innocent people with those guns, which is what they were hoping to happen in order to go after our 2nd Amendment rights, only they didn't think they'd get caught out. That's already known. So, since this gov't. is friends w/the Black Panthers, inviting drug cartel across our borders, and we have Obama's sleeper cell buds in our states, who do you think these libs want to see armed? It isn't the law abiding responsible citizens who would even save their hide when the shyt hits the fan.
  • "Shooter" E-7 ™ 2013/01/08 21:44:52
    "Shooter" E-7 ™
    +1
    Liberals lie gun control agenda or not!!

    lying liberals liberals lie gun agenda
  • auxarc 2013/01/08 20:44:06 (edited)
    auxarc
    "Well regulated" as stated in the 2nd amendment gives the federal government the right to regulate the militias it was protecting, created from the Articles of Confederation (paragraph IV, Article VI) and the "arms" they kept "in public stores". There has never been in the federal constitution, or in any admendment, any statement about an "individual's right" to keep and bear arms. It was the "people's right", and that meant "well regulated militias". But if you NRA people (and the activist justices you stuff the supreme court with) want to say that the 2nd amendment "implies" the right of the people to keep and bear "private" arms, that is fine. . . just as long as you acknowledge the "right" of the federal government to "well regulate" them.



    Now, you could become a part of the solution to prevent mass killings of 1st graders in elementary schools by defining the "arms" to be "well regulated" in the hands of private citizens or "well regulated militias". For I would really like this definition established before 225 years of "arms" evolution leads to Anthrax, Sarin Gas, or Dirty Nukes in the hands of private citizens. . . they already have assault weaponry with 30 bullet magazines. . .
  • ☆astac☆... auxarc 2013/01/09 04:11:18
    ☆astac☆~PWCM
    Actually you are wrong about the well regulated part. The 2nd was put in place so we can fight back against the government, so why in hell do you think the founders would think it would be the feds to regulate it. Tell us you are not this ill-informed on this issue, or are you just lying.

    Now you can be part of the solution by rejecting your evil progressive ideology
  • auxarc ☆astac☆... 2013/01/09 16:40:52
    auxarc
    astac,
    Fighting against the government is treason. The constitution has a clause on treason, Aricle 3, Section 3:

    "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

    The 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights was clearly putting paragraph 4 of the sixth article of The Articles of Confederation into the newly adopted constitution:

    ". . . but every state shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage."


    Those Bushmaster assault rifles used in both Newtown, CT, as well as Webster, NY, need to be "well regulated" and kept "in public stores", and not in the hands of deranged, private citizens. . . Why don't you be part of the solution by withdrawing YOUR support of the concept of "a license to kill". . .
  • snipe 2013/01/08 20:31:07
    snipe
    +2
    They talk assault weapons, but they really mean all weapons.
  • ☆astac☆... snipe 2013/01/09 04:11:38
    ☆astac☆~PWCM
    +1
    We all know that, yet look at the liberals lying here
  • Wulfdane 2013/01/08 18:45:21 (edited)
    Wulfdane
    +2
    Lying and Liberalism go hand in hand, there is no such thing as an honest Liberal.

    All Liberals lie, even if out of ignorance.
  • Drue-AFCL 2013/01/08 16:38:21
    Drue-AFCL
    +3
    That is a BIG 10-4 Good buddy.
  • WinterLynn 2013/01/08 15:18:00
  • sjalan WinterLynn 2013/01/08 23:55:54
    sjalan
    You're a real Laugh! You haven't a clue about what you support nor where the political boundaries lie between liberal progressives and Conservative Fascists. Suggest you study up just a little. Hitler was a totalitarian conservative Fascist. Lenin was a totalitarian communist. Our President is neither of these. Your attempt to make that association is a total failure.

    You're really not aware, obviously what has really happened in our country so a little education is necessary.

    The Four Headed Hydra of Fascism

    The Four Headed Hydra of Fascism began taking shape under Ronald Reagan with the Moral Majority vowing to take over or create its own party.

    Head One. The existing Political Party taken over by the Rabid Radical Political REICH.

    Head Two. The Rabid Radical Political REICH is Controlled by the Rabid Radical Religious REICH of the coalition of the Evangelical movement of Christendom.

    Head Three. The Ultra Rich industrialists in the vain of the Koch Brothers and other Billionaires PLUS the major fund raisers like Karl Rove.

    Head Four. The Propaganda arm under the guise of the Faux News owned by Rupert Murdock for TV and Newspapers PLUS the Radio groups owned by Clear Communications under BAIN CAPITAL featuring Rush Limbaugh and other mouthpie...

    >



    You're a real Laugh! You haven't a clue about what you support nor where the political boundaries lie between liberal progressives and Conservative Fascists. Suggest you study up just a little. Hitler was a totalitarian conservative Fascist. Lenin was a totalitarian communist. Our President is neither of these. Your attempt to make that association is a total failure.

    You're really not aware, obviously what has really happened in our country so a little education is necessary.

    The Four Headed Hydra of Fascism

    The Four Headed Hydra of Fascism began taking shape under Ronald Reagan with the Moral Majority vowing to take over or create its own party.

    Head One. The existing Political Party taken over by the Rabid Radical Political REICH.

    Head Two. The Rabid Radical Political REICH is Controlled by the Rabid Radical Religious REICH of the coalition of the Evangelical movement of Christendom.

    Head Three. The Ultra Rich industrialists in the vain of the Koch Brothers and other Billionaires PLUS the major fund raisers like Karl Rove.

    Head Four. The Propaganda arm under the guise of the Faux News owned by Rupert Murdock for TV and Newspapers PLUS the Radio groups owned by Clear Communications under BAIN CAPITAL featuring Rush Limbaugh and other mouthpieces. AND on the internet you have Glenn Beck

    There you have the Four Headed Hydra of Fascism as it has developed here in the US> Remember the words attributed to Sinclair Lewis It isn't IF but --

    WHEN FASCIST COMES TO AMERICA IT WILL BE WRAPPED IN THE FLAG CARRYING A CROSS.

    Your spreading of blatant lies and totally outrageous comments here make you nothing but a troll for the New American Fascist Party aka the Republican/Tea Party.
    (more)
  • ☆astac☆... sjalan 2013/01/09 04:12:04
    ☆astac☆~PWCM
    Still clueless
  • WinterLynn sjalan 2013/01/09 19:31:59
  • sjalan WinterLynn 2013/01/10 05:27:27
    sjalan
    Both you and *astac* are not even worth feeling anything for since you BOTH are totally without any education of the political history of the 1930's/1940's German and the rise of the Fascists' there. What I have described as happening in the US with the Republican/Tea Party is EXACTLY what happened in Germany.

    You two are just to ignorant of the REAL facts to understand how very dangerous to our basic civil rights what is happening REALLY is.
  • WinterLynn sjalan 2013/01/10 06:11:42
  • Lanikai 2013/01/08 15:14:25
    Lanikai
    +3
    Of course they are, they want to give obama all of OUR guns, so he can have his dictatorship. THis is just the opening salvo in his takeover of this once great nation, and the liberal media will help him.

    They won't catch on until THEY are in the camps.
  • whitewulf--the unruly mobster 2013/01/08 14:28:33
  • Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA 2013/01/08 13:30:05
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    +4
    After getting what they wanted in tax increases, the gun issue is being used as a distraction from the real problems of a $16.4 Trillion debt and a CBO report that says the new tax law adds $4 Trillion in additional debt and now claim that they want even higher taxes!...

    So what do the LibProgs do? SCREAM "GUN CONTROL!" Oh, let's save the children with new laws that wouldn't have done anything to save those kids at Sandy Hook School.
  • ☆astac☆... Adakin ... 2013/01/08 13:51:50
    ☆astac☆~PWCM
    +4
    And lets not forget obama, pelosi, and reid want to raise more taxes
  • WinterLynn ☆astac☆... 2013/01/09 19:33:22
  • Mark P. 2013/01/08 11:39:12 (edited)
    Mark P.
    +4
    All gun control will do is take guns away from law abiding citizens. Just look at Chicago. Strict gun laws with out of control gun crime. second amendment

    The last part of the Second Amendment answers the question. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
  • ☆astac☆... Mark P. 2013/01/08 13:52:24
    ☆astac☆~PWCM
    +2
    Which includes registration laws, they are infringing on our rights
  • whitewu... Mark P. 2013/01/08 14:29:33
  • joe.astro 2013/01/08 08:48:07
    joe.astro
    Dude, you're having unsubstantiated, paranoid delusions again. Get back on your meds!

    You could probably label me as a "progressive", but I don't want to take any law-abiding citizen's guns away, but I do think that they should be harder to get and registered and regulated like automobiles are.
  • Adakin ... joe.astro 2013/01/08 13:33:11 (edited)
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    +2
    So Joe, if I don't take my "assault weapon", machine gun, granade launcher, tank or bazooka on public roads, it's okay w/you if I only use my weapons on private land?... Just like automobiles are?

    Indy race car
  • joe.astro Adakin ... 2013/01/08 15:06:34
    joe.astro
    *Sigh* Something tells me that your "question" is nothing more than an attempt to bait the liberal into admitting that he's just another ban-happy lefty. Sorry to disappoint, but the answer is still "no, I don't want to ban firearms, I just want to regulate them better." But since you require less nuance (perhaps because you're a bit fuzzy on the concept of the "analogy"), I'll elaborate.

    Obviously (I hope), allowing any schmuck to easily and anonymously obtain an instrument of siege warfare (tank, bazooka, mortar, etc.) or combat-grade high explosive (grenades, mines, plastic explosives, etc.) should be pretty darn illegal. Same goes for heavy machine guns like the SAW, .50 Cal, or Vulcan Minigun (do I really have to spell this out?). Yes, this is more restrictive than standard vehicle ownership law, but your Chevy wasn't designed and built for the express purpose of killing human beings at range, so we have to take some extra precautions to "promote the general welfare" in this regard.

    As for other types of small arms, they should be regulated like automobiles in the sense that 1) sales of such items between licensed vendors and/or individuals need to be tracked and registered, 2) you need a permit to obtain a firearm, with certain weapons (like an AR 15 or AK 47) or more...
    *Sigh* Something tells me that your "question" is nothing more than an attempt to bait the liberal into admitting that he's just another ban-happy lefty. Sorry to disappoint, but the answer is still "no, I don't want to ban firearms, I just want to regulate them better." But since you require less nuance (perhaps because you're a bit fuzzy on the concept of the "analogy"), I'll elaborate.

    Obviously (I hope), allowing any schmuck to easily and anonymously obtain an instrument of siege warfare (tank, bazooka, mortar, etc.) or combat-grade high explosive (grenades, mines, plastic explosives, etc.) should be pretty darn illegal. Same goes for heavy machine guns like the SAW, .50 Cal, or Vulcan Minigun (do I really have to spell this out?). Yes, this is more restrictive than standard vehicle ownership law, but your Chevy wasn't designed and built for the express purpose of killing human beings at range, so we have to take some extra precautions to "promote the general welfare" in this regard.

    As for other types of small arms, they should be regulated like automobiles in the sense that 1) sales of such items between licensed vendors and/or individuals need to be tracked and registered, 2) you need a permit to obtain a firearm, with certain weapons (like an AR 15 or AK 47) or more than a certain number of weapons requiring a special permit, 3) said permit(s) should only be issued after the individual has completed a certified safety course, and 4) firearms purchased need to be inspected on a regular basis to ensure that they are still in possession of the registered owner. I could go on, but I think that would be a good start for bringing the country somewhere in the vicinity of reasonable gun regulation.
    (more)
  • Adakin ... joe.astro 2013/01/08 18:01:27 (edited)
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    RE: "siege warfare (tank, bazooka, mortar, etc.) or combat-grade high explosive (grenades, mines, plastic explosives, etc.) should be pretty darn illegal."

    Joe, first off, all of the above ARE illegal, in that they are 'Class III' weapons and require extensive registration, licensing and substantial fees paid in order to own them.

    My comment was to merely point out the disparity that people often make when, like Al Gore did when he compared auto ownership requirements to firearms ownership.
    == == ==
    RE: "As for other types of small arms, they should be regulated like automobiles in the sense that 1) sales of such items between licensed vendors and/or individuals need to be tracked and registered, 2) you need a permit to obtain a firearm, with certain weapons (like an AR 15 or AK 47) or more than a certain number of weapons requiring a special permit, 3) said permit(s) should only be issued after the individual has completed a certified safety course, and 4) firearms purchased need to be inspected on a regular basis to ensure that they are still in possession of the registered owner"

    What exactly do you think your above requirements would do other than create a database that some future gov't feel good program would use to confiscate an ever larger catagory of firearms? O...

    RE: "siege warfare (tank, bazooka, mortar, etc.) or combat-grade high explosive (grenades, mines, plastic explosives, etc.) should be pretty darn illegal."

    Joe, first off, all of the above ARE illegal, in that they are 'Class III' weapons and require extensive registration, licensing and substantial fees paid in order to own them.

    My comment was to merely point out the disparity that people often make when, like Al Gore did when he compared auto ownership requirements to firearms ownership.
    == == ==
    RE: "As for other types of small arms, they should be regulated like automobiles in the sense that 1) sales of such items between licensed vendors and/or individuals need to be tracked and registered, 2) you need a permit to obtain a firearm, with certain weapons (like an AR 15 or AK 47) or more than a certain number of weapons requiring a special permit, 3) said permit(s) should only be issued after the individual has completed a certified safety course, and 4) firearms purchased need to be inspected on a regular basis to ensure that they are still in possession of the registered owner"

    What exactly do you think your above requirements would do other than create a database that some future gov't feel good program would use to confiscate an ever larger catagory of firearms? Or is that your real objective?

    Can you provide any specific benefits your above regulatory oversight would provide society by imposing these requirements on the approximately 22 million AR owners in the U.S? Or is this just "feel good" speculation on your part?
    (more)
  • joe.astro Adakin ... 2013/01/08 21:28:38 (edited)
    joe.astro
    Regulations like longer waiting periods, more thorough background checks, making sure individual guns are still possessed by their registered owner, and making it more difficult to get a high number of weapons would result in far fewer individuals having access to these massive home arsenals. The ownership database and regular inspections would also help keep firearms from making their way onto the black market, so that criminals could no longer get their hands on them. It would be necessary to enact such regulations at the federal level, as doing so state-by-state would simply result in criminals and unhinged individuals taking a simple car ride to get the weapons they want. You'd still be able to legally buy such weapons, they would just be harder to get.

    As to your fears of confiscation, you answer the question yourself - with tens of millions of AR and similar type weapons already out there, a nation-wide confiscation program would be impractical to the point of impossible.
  • ☆astac☆... joe.astro 2013/01/08 13:52:39
  • moknowsky 2013/01/08 08:04:24
    moknowsky
    +2
    it is their nature..
  • Mimosa 2013/01/08 03:14:14
    Mimosa
    +2
    in all practicality, it can't be done
  • Gregaj7 2013/01/08 02:43:37
    Gregaj7
    +1
    You were expecting something different?
  • electracon 2013/01/08 02:33:33
    electracon
    +1
    have they EVER told the whole truth??????????
  • ☆astac☆... electracon 2013/01/08 13:53:05
    ☆astac☆~PWCM
    Never
  • vis_viva 2013/01/08 02:12:22
    vis_viva
    +2
    So wait. Basically your NOT trying to have a debate ABOUT gun control with this post but are trying to make the claim that when someone left-of-center says they don't want to ban all guns from law-abiding citizens but that there ARE some possible regulations regarding guns (that may or may not exist already) that would probably be a good idea; they are actually lying and they SECRETLY want to take all guns away.

    Paranoid much?

    You know we can't structure our entire society around the slippery slope consern. There are a lot of good things that would be bad if you took them too far (almost every good thing actually).

    I am a liberal. I believe guns are a tool. As such they have benefits and weaknesses. They have potential security benefits but are NOT magical security wants that make bad people go away. They are potentially lethal but so is a lot of useful equipment. I don't want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens but just as with all potentially lethal tools some regulations are warranted.
  • ☆astac☆... vis_viva 2013/01/08 13:55:23
    ☆astac☆~PWCM
    You progressives never change, this is what hitler did. So tell you what liberal, time for a divorce, you want to grab guns, even though you come here lying. Why not do something productive, and lets start talking about dividing up the country in a peaceful divorce before you leftists start a shooting war
  • vis_viva ☆astac☆... 2013/01/09 02:14:31
    vis_viva
    Alright I'll bite. I'm going to skip over the obvious invocation of Godwin's Rule regarding Hitler (though I kind of doubt banning large magazines or universal background checks were his first move; I think he pretty much went for the guns right away).

    I'm a liar eh? In what way? I stated If I cited facts and statics you could find fault in those and claim I'm a liar. I basically stated my OPINION as a fellow American. I did so in a forum dedicated to discussing opinions. So what POSSIBLE reason could I have to lie? Did everyone left of center get together and decide half of us were going to LIE about our opinions regarding guns to lull conservatives into a false sense of security?

    Some liberals DO support strong gun bans. Within predominantly liberal forums where liberals debate with each other this is a topic we argue about. While I understand the viewpoint that the way to stem massive gun violence is not to have guns; I strongly believe that's an incorrect oversimplification that does not properly take the uniqueness of American culture into account (and not the first move in a Nazi-esque takeover). Of course as part of a holistic approach (including better access to mental health care) some regulation of ANY potentially lethal tool is ALWAYS warranted.

    Of course, for some re...



    Alright I'll bite. I'm going to skip over the obvious invocation of Godwin's Rule regarding Hitler (though I kind of doubt banning large magazines or universal background checks were his first move; I think he pretty much went for the guns right away).

    I'm a liar eh? In what way? I stated If I cited facts and statics you could find fault in those and claim I'm a liar. I basically stated my OPINION as a fellow American. I did so in a forum dedicated to discussing opinions. So what POSSIBLE reason could I have to lie? Did everyone left of center get together and decide half of us were going to LIE about our opinions regarding guns to lull conservatives into a false sense of security?

    Some liberals DO support strong gun bans. Within predominantly liberal forums where liberals debate with each other this is a topic we argue about. While I understand the viewpoint that the way to stem massive gun violence is not to have guns; I strongly believe that's an incorrect oversimplification that does not properly take the uniqueness of American culture into account (and not the first move in a Nazi-esque takeover). Of course as part of a holistic approach (including better access to mental health care) some regulation of ANY potentially lethal tool is ALWAYS warranted.

    Of course, for some reason you think I've decided it is worth my time to come here and LIE about that opinion.

    In the end I'm led to a conclusion regarding a subset of the pro-gun individuals. I believe (again just an opinion that I would have no logical reason to LIE about) that for SOME people having someone TRYING to take their guns away is more important to them than the guns themselves. It's weird and disturbing but it appears there are some people who have an emotional need to have liberals TRY to take their guns away to fulfill some heroic fantasy. As such they need their opponents to have certain opinions and motivations that better contrast the heroic ideals of their fantasy selves. It reminds me of when my dog comes up to me with a rope in his mouth BEGGING me to tug on the other end.

    Generally a few people who thought this way would be a nuisance. However a lot of guys like this have actually been elected to congress. How the heck should could like me ever even have a reasoned debate with someone who thinks that when I say "background check "I really mean "give me your guns and report to the nearest FEMA camp"? And they believe that because, for some sad reason it fulfills some post-apocalyptic fantasy of theirs.
    (more)
  • hippycat 2013/01/08 00:45:07
    hippycat
    you got what? not even 50 raves so far. impressive.
  • Cat 2013/01/08 00:38:06
    Cat
    +3
    Without registration, confiscation of arms would be virtually impossible, and they know that.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 8 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/08/01 12:11:31

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals