Jihad in America

[ArisRose]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

DD asked a good question. What law could the government enact that would have prevented this event?

Besides repelling the 2nd amendment, nothing.

[ArisRose]

Another beta male done flipped his shit.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

DD asked a good question. What law could the government enact that would have prevented this event?

Not just this event COG, but in reality almost all of them.

[IIFFOFRDB]

This entire thing is BEYOND SKETCHY


The Curious Case of Oregon Shooter Chris Harper-Mercer – A Social Media Profile Shaped, Modified and Deleted… http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...d-and-deleted/

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

DD asked a good question. What law could the government enact that would have prevented this event?

There really isn't any law government could enact to prevent this. I might also add they don't want one either. What they really want is a law to control the ownership of firearms. A law that makes it difficult and costly to own a firearm. In the long run controlling us.

Jim

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

DD asked a good question. What law could the government enact that would have prevented this event?

Now you want to do away with laws? Murder is against the law, but people die of it everyday. Ditto for many other laws. Let's just do away with them, they don't work.

You have no idea how many lives gun free zones have saved. You and your ilk simply point to things like that when something like this happens, disregarding the multitude of other situations where it likely saved lives.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by RedLeg505

Since you brought this up... what is the maximum number of guns a citizen should be "allowed" to own according to a raging Liberal like you??

In a Democracy, no private citizen has the need for guns. It's ironic, because your ilk claim to love this country and everything about it, while simultaneously fetishizing the possibility that some day it will rise up against you and you will need to protect yourselves from it. Absolutely ridiculous.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

There really isn't any law government could enact to prevent this. I might also add they don't want one either. What they really want is a law to control the ownership of firearms. A law that makes it difficult and costly to own a firearm. In the long run controlling us.

Jim

So what is your answer? Are you content to continue putting up with this bullshit? It's funny what you idiots will and won't accept about your country. You go on about us being the greatest, but you accept substandard conditions in many areas and resist any change that could possibly help make things better. Basically, you're just fucking idiots. I'm not ok with people dying in these fucking mass murders hundreds of times a year. I don't think your right to own a gun outweighs someone else's right to fucking be alive.

The second amendment doesn't even guarantee the private citizen a right to keep and bear arms unless they are part of a 'well-regulated militia'.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

In a Democracy, no private citizen has the need for guns.

Explain that idiotic remark.

Are there no muggers, rapists, and burglars in democracies?

Do democracies never turn bad? Hitler was democratically elected. We all know how well that turned out.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Explain that idiotic remark.

Are there no muggers, rapists, and burglars in democracies?

Do democracies never turn bad? Hitler was democratically elected. We all know how well that turned out.

Did I say any of those things? The idea is to lower crime, idiot. And of course, you drag out Hitler, because he's a rational argument...

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by ArisRose

Besides repelling the 2nd amendment, nothing.

It is so difficult to amend the Constitution that is not right to say government changes anything. It is the people who amend the Constitution through the process and they will not do that just because Obama wants them to.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

So what is your answer? Are you content to continue putting up with this bullshit? It's funny what you idiots will and won't accept about your country. You go on about us being the greatest, but you accept substandard conditions in many areas and resist any change that could possibly help make things better. Basically, you're just fucking idiots. I'm not ok with people dying in these fucking mass murders hundreds of times a year. I don't think your right to own a gun outweighs someone else's right to fucking be alive.

The second amendment doesn't even guarantee the private citizen a right to keep and bear arms unless they are part of a 'well-regulated militia'.

First, it sounds like you're on board with a ban and confiscation. Good to know where the idiots stand. You're also a kind of liar as no one has said that having firearm freedom is approving of mass killings. You're the only person trying to make that case. You also lie when you say it is "I don't think your right to own a gun outweighs someone else's right to fucking be alive." because you purposely misstate the case. My right to own a gun is because I want the chance to survive an armed encounter with a dangerous criminal which happens far more often than a mass shooting and before you open your maggot filled mouth, just take a look at Chicago on any given weekend. Lots of encounters with dangerous criminals and the citizen usually comes off second best. That's the way the left likes it. You see, the left does not see us an individuals with a right to self preservation. The left sees us as groups to be used to amass more power. The loss of one, two, or eleven is not important to the influence of the group. We on the right do believe in the importance of the individual and each individual has, what some would call, a God given right to self defense.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Did I say any of those things? The idea is to lower crime, idiot. And of course, you drag out Hitler, because he's a rational argument...

You did say something stupid. You can't deny that. (you will anyway) Drag out Hitler....of course. Hitler was elected to office...democratically in accordance with the laws of the land. That is why he is so fascinating to historians and political scientist because that was unlike any other despot or dictator in modern history. Yes, Hitler was elected democratically and he instituted gun controls in Germany. He also relied on the registration bureaus of France, Belgium, and Poland to go around and confiscate firearms.

FYI, the United States is not a democracy. It is a representative republic. When using general terms it is okay to say it is a democracy but when you really talking politics then you should get it right.

[RedLeg505]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

So what is your answer? Are you content to continue putting up with this bullshit? It's funny what you idiots will and won't accept about your country. You go on about us being the greatest, but you accept substandard conditions in many areas and resist any change that could possibly help make things better. Basically, you're just fucking idiots. I'm not ok with people dying in these fucking mass murders hundreds of times a year. I don't think your right to own a gun outweighs someone else's right to fucking be alive.

The second amendment doesn't even guarantee the private citizen a right to keep and bear arms unless they are part of a 'well-regulated militia'.

Substandard conditions? Ohh.. you mean like we need more limits on the first Amendment so that ONLY those the government agrees with can speak?

Because your right to speak your mind doesn't outweigh the government's "right' to control you, huh Woomby-tunes?

As for what's the "answer" to this problem? How about... wait for it.. ENFORCING THE EXISTING LAWS ON GUN OWNERSHIP? Wow.. amazing concept huh?

[IIFFOFRDB]

UPDATE... http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...d/#more-106796


The Curious Case of Oregon Shooter Chris Harper-Mercer – A Social Media Profile Shaped, Modified and Deleted…

Posted on October 2, 2015 by sundance

The Oregon Shooter is a 26-year-old black male.

Birth Certificate Name is: Christopher Sean Mercer – 07/26/1989.
Mother: Laurel Margaret Harper – 04/05/1951
Dad: Ian Bernard Mercer – 05/15/1960
Divorced in 2006










REAL IMAGE (left) - CNN IMAGE (right)

On the left is the selfie Christopher Mercer uploaded to his social media. On the right is how CNN presented the same selfie in broadcast stories about him. Why did CNN need to change the complexion (color) of their broadcast? Why is no-one showing pictures of mom, Laurel Margaret Harper.

Why change to hyphenated name? Real name is Christopher Sean Mercer. Media using Christopher Harper-Mercer and Chris Harper-Mercer.








.