Gun Debate: How Did We Reach This Point?

When will you have any thing intelligent to say about anything in these forums piit? All you do is spew hatred, racism and garbage.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

they do try sooo hard--and that safety in numbers thing. Personally I like the odds 4-1--sort of evens it up for them--almost.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

And then there is his I hate the agree/disagree buttons but love the abuse one. But that's gio and all of his removed names.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Can't stay on topic without his special brand of insults. At least most people are open with them but he tries to hide his under the guise of "lunacy,"I have nothing more to add, or the ever famous I'm not talking to you anymore with variants". But no facts on anything. Angry liberal old man.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Allie, you're making our argument for us. You just admitted that the criminals will not follow any new or increased gun control laws, otherwise, the police would not need weapons to match them. Also, how could you justify police needing to match criminal's weapons yet argue to say that the average law abiding citizen should be limited to less. It just shows that you have absolutely no understanding of this topic whatsoever.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"Gun Debate: How Did We Reach This Point?" The posts of gio and his like will show you how it reached this point. A censured judge writes a hateful letter and then ally starts with off the wall talking points. Instead of even attempting to stay on subject he talks about voting rights, voter suppression, Hagel confirmation, "last nite's full moon?????" and many other off topic subjects. All straw man arguments to get off a subject that he is helpless talking about rationally and with any kind of knowledge of his own. All he can do is quote those who hate the 2nd Amendment. Sad so sad to see this.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

pardon me--I thought that law enforcement officers who protect us without fear for their own safety, had a few rights--like weapons to match the bad guys. Apparantly the gun mfg. feel differentLy--and some have the gall to label them[gun mfg.]as "PATRIOTS?" Really sad.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Since you're having such a problem with the word, "Patriot: a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, especially of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government." Sounds exactly like what these companies are doing and the opposite of what you and your friends are pushing for. What does that say.........

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Some wouldn't know a patriot if it bit them in the backside I guess.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"patriots"-------"true patriots" ---LUNACY.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"Gun Debate: How Did We Reach This Point?" We have reached this point due to people like the letter writer and many other liberal haters who would like to see the 2nd Amendment repealed. And it seems they are slowly getting it done. With people like Cuomo passing "sneaky laws like a thief in the night"(by doing so in the middle of the night with no discussion" to bushes, obamas and bidens trying to curtail even more rights with passing and extending the un-Patriot Act and the liberal haters of freedoms loving it. That is how we reached this point.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Allie, you are simply wrong-minded. Period. You keep giving away your rights, but do not ask us to follow suit.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Is this the "distraction" site? Withholding any weapon from a law enforcement office is "PATRIOTIC?" BEYOND LUNACY--How did they reach that point?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

They are true patriots for standing up to those posing tyranny and taking away constitutional rights. You again are on the wrong side of this argument as the NYS Sheriff's Assoc has officially announced they they are against the NY unSAFE act.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"true patriots" would support those who have sworn to defend them--true patriots, that is--not those beholding to the gun mfg.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

No, they are demanding that the legislators live up to their oath to uphold the constitution. Until that time, they are holding the government to the same standard that they feel is appropriate for their citizens. They are to be commended as true patriots and defenders of the constitution.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Way to go, gun mfg people, you all showed those law Enforcement folks who put their lives on the line every day for ya, a thing or two---LUNACY.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

And gun manufacturers and distributors have made their position quite clear. About 100 of them have made statements that they will not sell any weapon to a NY police agency or official that is banned to the rest of the public, as they unSAFE act is entirely unconstitutional.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Allie, you truly are pathetic. A typical lib pointing the finger at everyone else for your own failed views. Apologize for that.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

I agree with the earlier post which condemns those who would use offensive terms like "race" and racism" as in the badnews post. An apology to the blog is in order. If we may return to the topic FOR A MOMENT, it's a bit troubling that we've not heard more[anything] from the gun mfg assoc on the issue --perhaps darryl Issa could convene a house hearing on the matter---NOT CLOSED DOOR OF COURSE.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Allie, please, I've read enough of your your thinly veiled references to Scalia as Billy Bob Joe and your comments about him, and the Voting Rights Act, on other threads to know exactly where your little pea brain is going. Give up the naive act. It's beneath even you, which surprises even me.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

I don't recall anyone, using the terms "race" or "racist" on this site, aimed at a supreme court justice, prior to it's use in the 4:43pm contribution below.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Funny, when did you add anything to any discussion you've injected yourself into. I think the reality is that you have no idea what the Voting Rights Act does nor do you have any idea what the Justice actually said about it, without taking it out of context to make him look racist. Your race baiting is highly abhorrent and you should be ashamed of yourself.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

3 branches of government?----2 will work in this case for billy joe bob scalia---no need to continue on this topic, scalia's feelings on voter rights are loud and clear, I have nothing more to add.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

First off, it is the job of the Supreme Court to strike down laws that they feel are unconstitutional, so that applies perfectly. Secondly, you still haven't explained why it would be a problem if it was struck down. What is in this law that you believe the country cannot live without? Why do you keep dodging the question?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »