gun guys (Communist propagander)

[Grasshopper]

http://www.gunguys.com/?p=1968

Guys, you've got to sign up for this crappy news letter. These people are retarded, (no offence to my cousine Patricia who has downs syndrome or any other handicapped people in this world). Read this stuff. Don't write to these people but use them to inform yourself and others. This is what these people are teaching in schools and other venues in this country.:smartass:
Here is a small sample:

Misreading the Second Amendment in DC’s Courts

While Friday’s ruling has been hailed by many news outlets as the most important news on the gun debate in decades, many news outlets are still ignoring the real issue: when a conservative judge on the D.C. Circut’s appellate court wrote a 2-1 decision that the Second Amendment somehow guaranteed an individual right to own firearms, he went against a long history of judicial precendent. And his missed the mark: the D.C. handgun ban he was supposed to be holding court over has exactly nothing to do with the Second Amendment and any rights it might grant.

First, both the NYT and the Washington Post checked in with stories on Friday......;

It gets better. Now how about all those pesky guns that I "somehow" purchased leagally...:lol3:

[LorDiego]

the D.C. handgun ban has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Whether it grants an individual right or not should never have been called into issue, and it’s only because a conservative judge (in league with the NRA) decided to take a political stand that we’re talking about the Second Amendment in this case at all.

I stopped reading at this statement. This is a logical fallacy wrapped around idiocy bottled in stupidity.

This trash rotts my brain.

[pigpen]

What part of "shall not be infringed." do some of these people not understand?

[jonboy20]

What a bunch of freakin mooks!

[zoom6zoom]

This is a logical fallacy wrapped around idiocy bottled in stupidity.


You forgot to add, "dipped in sh*t and coated with a thin candy shell"...

[cimmaronkid]

Never ceases to amaze is the mind of the ultra liberal. These people that twist the truth and fight to have the firearms taken away, the only protection that we have of keeping an oppressive government at bay, would be the FIRST to scream "what happened to our liberities?" They live in an idological world where everything is perfect and there is no crime, no oppression, no victims, and no need for guns. And they will also take no blame for their actions when they lose their rights as it will be our fault because we didn't fight hard enough to keep the one thing that seperates us from every other person in the free world. The right to own firearms. These people are more dangerous than any firearm ever made as they twist the minds of others to their tainted views.

[SteelCore]

Un-be-fookin-leiveable!

"This is a logical fallacy wrapped around idiocy bottled in stupidity"
-->Classic! LMAO!

[Geilt]

"While Friday’s ruling has been hailed by many news outlets as the most important news on the gun debate in decades, many news outlets are still ignoring the real issue: when a conservative judge on the D.C. Circut’s appellate court wrote a 2-1 decision that the Second Amendment somehow guaranteed an individual right to own firearms, he went against a long history of judicial precendent. And his missed the mark: the D.C. handgun ban he was supposed to be holding court over has exactly nothing to do with the Second Amendment and any rights it might grant."

I grew up less than a mile from the DC border on the Maryland side back in the 70s and 80s. When the Crack Wars came in the 80s and the murder rate exploded what did this law do to keep the population safe? NOT A DAMNED THING. It just kept firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

It seems the liberals are perfectly fine when a judge breaks precedent in favor of their goals and ideals but when a judge doesn't fall in line with their expectations they cry louder than a teething baby loosing their pacifier. Why is it taboo to break judicial precident? Not to mention this was a 2-1 decision. That means two out of the three agreed. Why are the bashing on this one judge?

Further more, and this is my last ranting point, if the case in front of him was dealing the subject of lawful ownership of firearms how does this NOT involve the Second Ammendment? When a state has laws on the books which infringe upon the rights guaranteed by the Constitution the Constitution wins. You can't have constutional rights only valid in certains parts of the country. Its binary, either you have them or you don't.

[bullseye]

I read that and an article on the 50 cal then just had to write them a nice letter. I'll just hang around and await a reply. :)

[drhall762]

These people don't understand and won't understand. There is no way to have a logical, rational discussion with them because they are afraid. They are afraid of everything. The want to live in a utopian society and they are demanding government provide it. They most certainly don't understand, that by their very nature, criminals do not care about laws. In fact criminals are very much like these self-centered, self-serving liberals except they have balls.

That's just the way I see it.

Dave :sniper: