Anti-Gun Democrat Making A Fool Of Himself

Submitted by: 5cats 3 years ago in

State Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles), typical "Gun Grabber".
There are 50 comments:
Male 14,331
[quote]@McGovern1981 - I guess that really struck a nerve with you, huh? The difference is my talk is backed up by my actions, I don`t have to compensate for sh*t.[/quote]

Nope no nerve hit you sound exactly like what you`re bantering on about. My my you`re such the macho macho maaaaaannn!

0
Reply
Male 8,438
Musuko42-[quote] it`s STUPID of you to mock this guy by accusing him of doing something that is a GOOD IDEA and one that YOUR MILITARY (and others) do all the time[/quote]

The difference is that the US Military DOES NOT label it`s rifles as such. In fact, ANYone show knows the very basic of a gun know which end of the barrel the bullet comes out of. But I doubt this guy could figure that much out even through a process of elimination.

It`s quite appropriate to mock and redicule someone trying to sound like and expert who obviously knows nothing about a subject.
0
Reply
Male 2,672
I don`t think anybody`s military labels the dangerous end of a gun.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
(I love that a language somewhere uses the word "fienden" for enemy).
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981
@MeGrendel

Saying the US military does it is not saying that all other militaries don`t do it.

I KNOW other militaries do it, and I KNOW it`s a good idea. MeGrendel, that`s why I pointed it out: because it`s STUPID of you to mock this guy by accusing him of doing something that is a GOOD IDEA and one that YOUR MILITARY (and others) do all the time.

Understand? Good.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]I guess that really struck a nerve with you, huh? The difference is my talk is backed up by my actions, I don`t have to compensate for sh*t.[/quote]
The only "action" you`ve ever taken is hitting the "Post Reply" button.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
@McGovern1981 - I guess that really struck a nerve with you, huh? The difference is my talk is backed up by my actions, I don`t have to compensate for sh*t.
0
Reply
Male 8,438
[quote]Idiots like your military? [/quote]

It`s not just the US, and it`s a good idea.



0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Musuko42

Your forces don`t have claymores?? Oh that`s right they just drink tea and munch crumpets. A directed explosive is a bit different than this. Obvious still but a bit less. Labels like that exist because of people like this.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@MeGrendel

"This idiot would require this label:"

Idiots like your military?


0
Reply
Male 2,672
[quote]...I`m just not so ignorant of history to not know what the Founders were so obviously drating talking about. [/quote]


Apparently your knowledge of history is about as useful as Anne Frank`s drum kit.
0
Reply
Male 8,438
SmagBoy1-[quote]"The 2nd wasn`t written to allow the people to fight the government"[/quote]

Alexander Hamilton would tend to dissagree with you: [quote]"But if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights"[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]I love guns, I`m a combat veteran, I`m very well trained, I can put a bullet in your head from 500 yards using iron sights (no scope). Most of the people in this country with guns scare me because they don`t know what the f*ck they`re doing and they have all these crazy Rambo fantasies. In reality, I bet half those f*ckers don`t have the balls to pull the trigger when there`s another human looking at the business end of that rifle. They use their guns to compensate for the fact that they`re insecure with their manhood. [/quote]

Says non military trained gun owners act like Rambo and are compensating for something. Proceeds to talk like Rambo....
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]OldOllie, you nailed it! Oh my goodness! Why, 60mm, fully automatic, water-cooled weed whackers for us all! And why not have nuclear-tipped rounds, to boot![/quote]

Oh the nukes argument those are not arms as in a personal weapon that`s called ordnance. Look up the difference in old English common law terms.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@whodat6484

"the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

They said people not militia for a reason.

0
Reply
Male 2,357
@SmagBoy

[quote]The 2nd wasn`t written to allow the people to fight the government, it was written to maintain a well-regulated militia.[/quote]
We have clearly, using official US Supreme Court judgments, debunked this interpretation in previous comments.

Please refer to the previous comments to gain insight into the Second Amendment, as you are ignorant of it.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
The second amendment protects us from our government, if that government goes away from the original intent of the declaration and down a path of tyranny. That`s what it does.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Smagboy: "The 2nd wasn`t written to allow the people to fight the government, it was written to maintain a well-regulated militia."

Bullsh|t Sir!

The British were demanding firearms be confiscated from law-abiding citizens before the revolution. The writers full well knew what kind of government/society would evolve from a disarmed public.

The 2nd amendment protects our other rights, especially the 1st amendment, without it we will eventually become like China or North Korea.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
The 2nd wasn`t written to allow the people to fight the government, it was written to maintain a well-regulated militia. Not sure if you`ve noticed out active duty armed forces? Our reserves? You just want your guns. Fine. The fact is you`re the one imposing strange, arbitrary limits on them. Why? If you can have them, why not have whatever? Jesus Christ, I`m not trying to take your guns. I could give a poo. I`m just not so ignorant of history to not know what the Founders were so obviously drating talking about.

Of course, I also understand their intention of making the nation a secular entity and we know where that`s gone, so, please don`t color me surprised.
0
Reply
Male 567
He`s probably never fired a gun in his life.
0
Reply
Male 418
The phrase "well regulated" in the second amendment means well staffed or well populated, not an organization controlled with regulations. Hence the need for a militia. ALL adult citizens are by default members of their respective state militias.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
.30 caliber is really small. Also, 30 bullets in half a second?! Faster than a minigun!
0
Reply
Male 40,382
@Kegomatix: Yeah, it`s a new term to me also. I thought a gun with the numbers removed was called an `orphan`.

There`s already plenty of laws restricting full-automatic weapons and "60mm weed-wackers" @SmagBoy1... why pass more redundant laws?

OH YEAH! To get re-elected and to grab everyone`s guns! Human Rights are only for the Politically Correct, eh?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@whodat. [quote]That`s coming from a Republican, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia[/quote]
Well, if that`s not a cry of pure desperation, I don`t know what is. Look, I don`t need you or Scalia or anyone else to tell me what I can read myself in clear, unambiguous English. What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" are you too f***ing stupid to understand?

One nice thing about the 2nd Amendment, though. It has its own build in enforcement mechanism.


0
Reply
Male 1,341
At first I just assumed that the term "ghost gun" was for a gun that has had the serial numbers removed. Then he kept talking... And, yea.
0
Reply
Male 1,381
what a drating idiot that guy is. Bet he could not find his own azzhole with both hands. How the heck does he feel qualified to sponsor ANY law??? He may think he knows about 30 caliber clips, but his brain is barely 17 caliber size.
0
Reply
Male 40,382
Full 20 Minute Press Conference

He truly is an idiot. He talks about banning "all plastic guns" and the produces... a METAL part! And proceeds to blather on about it!

At least he uses the proper term: semi-automatic (not `assault rifle`).

Remember: this is not some random guy: he`s making laws! :-/
0
Reply
Male 5,620

0
Reply
Male 2,672
Let`s stay on topic shall we.

Anybody this uninformed (aka. stupid as f u c k) has no business in public service.
0
Reply
Male 4,891

Smag - You always fall back on the same argument. Of course citizens shouldn`t own nukes. And of course a .223 doesn`t stand much chance against a tank.

Think more realistic. If revolution were to come, it`s most likely the boys in blue you have to worry about.

With regards to the 2nd amendment, it seems perfectly reasonable that our rights should allow us stay on par with local law enforcement.

0
Reply
Male 3,908
@OldOllie - That`s where you`re wrong, f*cktard. The right to bear arms, as granted in the 2nd Amendment IS NOT unlimited and it DOES NOT prohibit regulation of firearms (permits, registration, magazine capacity, etc).

That`s coming from a Republican, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
0
Reply
Male 2,357
Some more official (Supreme Court decision in DC v Heller) interpretations:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Official Supreme Court judgment
0
Reply
Male 8,438
briandarf-"Just because he made a slip-up"

He didn`t make a `slip-up`. He failed to get anything right on the subject.

briandarf-"it doesn`t mean his point isn`t valid"

Actually, it does mean exactly that.

This idiot would require this label:



whodat6484-"Key Words: WELL REGULATED"

Yes, and those words used at the time the 2nd was writting had absolutely NOTHING to do with `regulations`. It had to do with `regularly kept in good working condition`.
0
Reply
Male 4,891

Classic case of an idiot speaking about a subject he knows nothing about.

If you don`t know the basics, stfu.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@whodat6484: I realize that by the time you went to grammar school, they stopped teaching grammar. That`s why you would not recognize "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," as being a NONRESTRICTIVE gerund phrase. In other words, it does not restrict the meaning of what follows, i.e., "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Note that these last four words are MUCH stronger than those in the 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law," yet if you had to pay the government a $200 fee for a license to speak in public or write a letter to your congressman, or if both were completely outlawed in your city, no doubt you would feel ill used.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
Since some people continue to believe, falsely, that the prefatory clause (the militia part) places a scope or restriction on the operative clause (the "we can have a gun" part), allow me to offer the official (as in, US Supreme Court - the guys who legally interpret stuff like this) verdict.

From DC v. Heller (the case that actually matters):

"The Amendment`s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause`s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

So shut up about the militia; it doesn`t mean what you think it does.

Here`s another example:

Being that apples are tasty, people should eat apples. Do you somehow take from this that the ONLY reason to eat apples is that they`re tasty?

0
Reply
Male 15,832
@Smagboy: When the 2nd Amendment was written, the standard-issue weapon for the army was a musket, while the typical citizen-farmer owned a long rifle, which had roughly twice the range, twice the accuracy, twice the knock-down power, and twice the rate of fire. In an open field, a group of farmers could take out twice their number of soldiers without suffering a single casualty.

BTW, I found a picture of your daughter. Apparently she`s a chip off the old block.

0
Reply
Male 3,908
"A well regulated militia"

Key Words: WELL REGULATED

A bunch of crazy rednecks stocking up on ammo, drinking Natty Light and building doomsday shelters don`t qualify as a militia.

I love guns, I`m a combat veteran, I`m very well trained, I can put a bullet in your head from 500 yards using iron sights (no scope). Most of the people in this country with guns scare me because they don`t know what the f*ck they`re doing and they have all these crazy Rambo fantasies. In reality, I bet half those f*ckers don`t have the balls to pull the trigger when there`s another human looking at the business end of that rifle. They use their guns to compensate for the fact that they`re insecure with their manhood.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
OldOllie, you nailed it! Oh my goodness! Why, 60mm, fully automatic, water-cooled weed whackers for us all! And why not have nuclear-tipped rounds, to boot!
0
Reply
Male 157
Just because he made a slip-up, it doesn`t mean his point isn`t valid. Just as a misspelled word doesn`t make a post invalid.. morons.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]I`d say the answer is simple: ask senior police officers what they reckon is reasonable re: consumer weapons and ammo. That might be a good place to consider where laws might drafted. I`m not saying that`s the gospel word, but I`m saying that, if we want to fight ignorance, that`d be a great place to start.[/quote]
I have a better place to start:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]If he doesn`t know the difference between magazines, clips, and bullets; how can he know enough to have reached a sensible and well established opinion on the issue?[/quote]
Because he`s a liberal.
0
Reply
Female 695
and yet these retards are your elected leaders.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
I`d say the answer is simple: ask senior police officers what they reckon is reasonable re: consumer weapons and ammo. That might be a good place to consider where laws might drafted. I`m not saying that`s the gospel word, but I`m saying that, if we want to fight ignorance, that`d be a great place to start.
0
Reply
Male 3,117
@normalfreal2- I guess it`s a relative thing; 1.5 seconds is pretty substantial if you`re talking the beginning of time/space, less important if you`re talking how far a snail travels in that time frame.
The important thing, I think, is the idiot politician- which is a redundancy- can`t speak on the subject with anything resembling factual knowledge. Why we entrust a person to make decisions about something in which they are demonstratively ignorant?
0
Reply
Male 496
Just like Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette and her “I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those know they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.” Morons!
0
Reply
Male 441
@normalfreak2 The most powerful message from this is not the 1.5 seconds, it is the lack of knowledge. When someone speaks of facts that are incorrect, that goes to discredit them on the subject they are speaking about.

If he doesn`t know the difference between magazines, clips, and bullets; how can he know enough to have reached a sensible and well established opinion on the issue?
0
Reply
Male 39,614

And the last time one of those was used to hold up a 7-11 ? .... NEVER. But they are good for fearmongering
0
Reply
Male 7,812
so he was saying a 30 magazine clip in half a second. To be factually correct he should have said it could have dispersed 30 bullets in 2 seconds. Why are we fighting over 1.5 seconds? Does that REALLY make a difference in this case? I`m not sure how many bullets are in a typical clip but all I know is that it has an insanely high rate of fire regardless.
0
Reply
Male 40,382
Link: Anti-Gun Democrat Making A Fool Of Himself [Rate Link] - State Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles), typical `Gun Grabber`.
0
Reply