“Gee whiz, another person on the internet getting off on a fantasy that an anonymous commenter "feels threatened" and is a problem in the world. Your powers of clairvoyance are spectacular. Get a life, buddy.”
JonnyTruant on Oct 28, 2013 at 18:42:46
“Anyone who seeks to tear down those who push for something greater are a problem. If you can't see that then I pity you.”
“Gee whiz, a transplant art snob barking away with whiny negativity, making all sorts of absurd generalizations and platitudes... he fits right in here in this new New York, with all the other vapid, clueless dilettantes who each pretend they're the authority on this place and all it stands for.”
JonnyTruant on Oct 28, 2013 at 15:19:50
“Gee whiz, another fool without gumption or nerve who feels threatened by anyone with a grand vision and a desire for something greater with the will to work for it. You're one of the things wrong with the world today. Congratulations.”
“You can get as righteous and indignant as you want in your internet comment, but if you walk around with a camera on your face, a lot of people are not going to like you, a lot of businesses are going to tell you to take them off or leave, and you are going to have a hard time making new acquaintances. There is a big difference between a camera in your pocket which you take out and use intentionally, and a potentially always-on internet face camera. Yeah, people can surreptitiously record things with their smartphones, but a face camera is ostentatious, pointed at others 100% of the time, and guaranteed to rub people the wrong way. The fact that you're this angry, that you're even seeing coverage like this at all, and having to defend the device, should tell you everything you need to know about Google Glass. No one was banning smartphones from their establishments when those were first coming out. No one had to yell and argue for smartphones to be accepted. You claim a right to wear Glass in public, well, go look at bystanders in Google Street View and notice how all their faces are blurred out - that's because they received so many complaints and lawsuits. If you think people won't object to their likeness being uploaded to the internet for posterity by some snob with a face camera, you're wrong.”
“It is saddening that Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is using Sandy Hook to make these horribly inappropriate and offensive comments, to criticize his President, and to demonstrate his ignorance regarding the gun control proposals themselves. You want to imply that Obama is "taking advantage" of Newtown victims? After suffering a mass murder of elementary school children, that is an absolutely disgraceful thing to insinuate. Obama isn't "taking advantage" of a mass murder to reevaluate gun laws. That an elected legislator like Cruz would even imply something like that is insulting to the victims and disingenuous to the public. The new gun control proposals are a reflection of the voices of those mothers of children who were shot dead by assault rifles, the voices of children who have to live the rest of their lives with the horrible memories of their classmates being shot dead, the voices of the majority of Americans, who all want stronger gun control to happen. There are all kinds of laws, restrictions, bans, and taxes in place to regulate firearms RIGHT NOW, they are the law of the land, and the 2nd Amendment hasn't stopped any of them. You are absolutely disgusting, Ted Cruz, and if anyone who voted this man into office has a shred of conscience, you should be contacting his staff and telling him to change his tune or close his mouth.”
margomcg on Mar 28, 2013 at 19:25:04
“I'd be quite content if he'd just close that big mouth and go back to Texas. His insulting remarks have gone way past the line.”
MNLibbie on Mar 28, 2013 at 19:13:55
“Ted Cruz is slamming the President for using Sandy Hook as an excuse for Gun Safety measures. Ted Cruz is just as guilty in using Sandy Hook to fight such measures.
“There ARE restrictions on many firearms. Right now. Lots of them. That isn't a magical dream I'm having, it's the law of your country. There can be more, there will be more. Don't try going to law school, you'd flunk out pretty quickly.”
“It'd be funny if it weren't so sad. As a man of the law, isn't this sheriff already aware of the myriad laws and restrictions his country's government already has in place for controlling many kinds of guns? If he doesn't like these new laws, he's welcome to waste his time challenging them in court, where he'll fail, and be publicly embarrassed by judges and lawyers spelling out for him that the 2nd Amendment doesn't keep the government from regulating and restricting firearms. And if he still doesn't like that, he can go get a job at 7-11. Don't have to worry about enforcing much there.”
GoldwaterKid on Mar 18, 2013 at 00:06:57
“This Sheriff and all Sheriffs in this country don't have time to go out and check folks guns until they actually get arrested for something, and then it would be added charges.”
“The sheriff is welcome to go and waste his time trying to take this to the courts, where he will fail. We already have all kinds of controls and laws over guns, and the 2nd Amendment hasn't stopped those. The court will spell it out for him, that his country can indeed place restrictions on firearms, it is already doing so right now, and if he doesn't like it, he's out of a job.”
rvln4 on Mar 18, 2013 at 00:10:27
“there will be no restrictions on firearms period. no one is going to obey. im so sorry to burst your bubble but none of this will come to pass. we all have been arming ourselves for 6 years. the us government does not have the means or the audacity to take weapons from law abiding citizens nor stop people including criminals for obtaining more. it is just silly and your wasting energy thinking about it. get real and stop dreaming!”
“The problem you are suffering from is 200-year-old legal theory vs. REALITY. In contrast to historical theory, the REALITY of your current life is that you can't own most military grade weapons. This is a good thing. If you think that's unconstitutional, go mount a challenge to the Supreme Court and see how far you get by ranting about the history and philosophy behind the Second Amendment. Hopefully, soon, assault weapons will no longer be legally for sale in this country. Another good thing.”
survivefree on Jan 23, 2013 at 06:38:23
“you do realize it's not illegal for citizens to own war weapons right? it's just very difficult to obtain level 10 FFL + clearence from the ATF to acquire them..but it's not illegal...so my problem is not that i don't live in reality...i very much live in reality... your problem is you don't understand the reality you are actually living in. by the way that 240 year old legal theory has turned out quite well for this country wouldn't you say so? since you ahve such disdain for the second, how do you feel about the other ammendments? think we should maybe...let's say...make it illegal to offend someone? makes sense right? i mean bullying and teen suicide is a REAL problem...one could say it significantly contribitues to these violent incidents we've been seeing in youth schools”
“Thomas Jefferson also wasn't there to comment on modern lethal weapons capable of killing huge numbers of people in very short periods of time. Why don't you hop in a time machine and ask him what he has to say about those? There are restrictions and rules that the government already has in place for firearms, such as fully automatic weapons, and the Second Amendment doesn't preclude these restrictions. You live in a country where the government doesn't let you buy rocket launchers and thereby keeps crazy people from shooting down airplanes - deal with it. I wouldn't want to live in a country where the government let its people wield any crazy weapon they wanted, and thankfully, I don't.”
survivefree on Jan 23, 2013 at 06:02:07
“lol..well you know they didn't just have muskets right? they also had cannons! and they are actually legal to buy and own...so, anyway, your argument is flawed. the second ammendment was specifically crafted to protect the peoples militia (civilians) right to own military grade weapons. how can one know this? well first and foremost, it says "arms"..it does not say muskets...it does not specify any limitation on the type of arms. second, the point of the militia was to fight a standing government army...how would you expect to fight an army with non military grade weapons? it would pose a massive disadvantage to the militia and defeat the very prospect of any real defense. lastly, the constituion was not created for one single generation, it was meant for ALL generations. it's amazing people even argue this stuff..it's extensively argued and extremely well documented why our founding fathers crafted the second ammendment and how important they knew it was. all you have to do is READ”
“This is getting out of hand, and Obama isn't doing enough to counteract LaPierre. Please sign this petition asking our president to have a public debate with the NRA chief executive:
"We signing this petition plead for President Obama to have a public debate with NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre about the new gun control proposals. We request there be fact-checkers present to verify claims made by both parties. Please discuss:
-Evaluation of the new gun control proposals with debate as to their efficacy and constitutionality
-Why nothing in the proposals would allow the government to take guns from law-abiding citizens
-Restrictions and rules that the government already has in place for firearms, such as fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers, and why the Second Amendment doesn't preclude these restrictions
-Why the Second Amendment does not nullify the government's authority to regulate firearms as it deems necessary for the safety and security of the People."
“I'd love to see Obama and LaPierre have a public debate with fact-checkers. It was quite edifying to see Romney's foot in his mouth when fact-checkers proved that Obama actually did immediately decry the Benghazi attacks as an act of terror. If Obama and LaPierre debated, they could go over all the restrictions and rules that the government already has in place for firearms, such as rocket launchers, mandatory background checks, and more. They could explain to the public why the Second Amendment doesn't preclude those restrictions already in place. They could also closely evaluate each of Obama's new gun control proposals, and explain why nothing in them would allow the government to take guns from law-abiding citizens. Finally, they could explain why the Second Amendment does not nullify the government's authority to place restrictions on firearms as it may deem necessary for the safety and security of the people. This would be a lot better than allowing this lunatic free reign to spread misinformation about the new proposals and paint the U.S. government as becoming a threatening enemy from which gun owners must take up defense.”
“There's about to be a nationwide ban on high-capacity, rapid-fire assault guns. All your whining about a 200 year old amendment, gun vocabulary, and historical precedents won't change that. Right now, you can't legally walk into Home Depot and buy rocket launchers, landmines, chemical bombs, miniguns, or nuclear missiles. Soon, you won't be able to legally buy assault guns, either. You still didn't grasp that the NRA looks bad for making a cynical comment about Obama's Secret Service protection when they never commented on Bush's. You are as stubborn and deaf as the rest of you furious clowns whining in unison on the internet and you aren't worth any more than the end of this sentence. Enjoy the new laws.”
jstanavgguy on Jan 16, 2013 at 10:21:16
Where is that 'nationwide ban' going to come from?
Not the Congress.
And not via Executive order (Obama does not have the Constitutional authiruty).
Now, the 'rocket launchers, land mines, chemical bombs, miniguns or nuclear missiles' argument is a HUGE strawman.
The Military Firearms Act of 1932 banned all of those a long time ago.
So, that one is a fail.
And semi automatic weapons are not 'rapid fire'. They are one shot per trigger pull guns.
An AR-15 works in the same way as a 9mm. In fact, someone who knows what they are doing can get shots of FASTER with the handgun, as it is easier to change the clips. Personally, i can empty 3 clips in less than a minute.
Finally, i ask you where those bans are going to come from?
Oh, the comment was about armed guards for SCHOOLS.
And by the way, Obama is going to propose funding for armed guards in schools.
And when he does, the left will say how it is wonderful, and they have always supported it.
Oh, one more thing...
Since you have no problem with '200 million amendments' being tossed aside, you will be OK with your free speech rights being taken away, if someone does not like how you use them, right?
And you will have no problem with a President issuing an Executive Order restricting abortion to cases of rape, incest, and the birth of the mother, right?
“First, you don't tell somebody they lose all credibility on the internet - you're a faceless guy at a keyboard ranting about stuff, just like anyone else. You also don't tell someone they lose all credibility because of a small technical error. The whole point was that 33 people got shot dead. I don't care about the nuances of gun technology, I want it to be illegal to sell high-capacity rapid-fire guns in my country.
Nobody on the left or right or anywhere else wants a total ban on the private ownership of firearms. They want to ban high-capacity, rapid-fire assault guns, and they want to keep guns from being sold to criminals and the mentally ill. That leaves a whole lot of other firearms that you can still privately own if you're a sane, law-abiding citizen. If you ever decide to stop drinking the NRA's poison you might realize that after this is all over you still will have guns, after all, and you can get on with your life.
I hope you were able to learn something from this. The whole point of what I wrote was that the NRA is hypocritical on their stance with armed guards in schools because they didn't criticize Bush in an identical situation in 2007. I'll take your utter lack of response to that to mean you agree, so thanks. Congratulations, you accomplished nothing, just like you're about to lose this gun rights battle.”
jstanavgguy on Jan 16, 2013 at 08:47:28
“Lose the gun rights battle?
Tell me, is there a Constitutional Amendment coming down the pike?
Because without that, I am not going to be losing anything.
If Chicago cannot ban guns, how are they going to be banned?
Remember Heller and McDonald.
Gun bans overturned.
Now, let me ask you a question.
I will show you two guns, and you tell me what they are, ok?
“After the 2007 Virginia Tech university massacre, when 33 people were shot dead in a school with automatic guns, did George W. Bush do a thing about armed guards in schools while he continued to use Secret Service protection for himself and his family? Where was the NRA on that one? What the hell's the difference?”
jstanavgguy on Jan 16, 2013 at 07:57:17
“First, your comment loses all credibility when you say that automatic guns were used.
They were not.
First, a .22 caliber Walther handgun, and a 9mm Glock handgun were used.
NEITHER of those is an AUTOMATIC weapon.
Automatic weapons are illegal in the US, and have been since 1932.
The ONLY way to obtain one is to go through a MASSIVE background check by the ATF. A special license that is ONLY available from the ATF is necessary to buy one.
I could show you two rifles, which both shoot the same ammo, and are both semi automatic weapons.
You would call one an 'assault rifle' because it LOOKS like a military rifle. And the other looks like a traditional hunting rifle.
it is time to be honest with what the left wants. They want a total ban on the private ownership of firearms.
But the problem is, they never do anything about the criminals with guns. They just want to take them from law abiding citizens.”
Daveski69 on Jan 16, 2013 at 07:50:28
“The same people who will refer to Air Force One as "the President using taxpayer money to go gallivanting around the world"”
Darwinita on Jan 16, 2013 at 07:45:56
“Obama' s black and they hate him, that's the difference.”
roger rabbit on Jan 16, 2013 at 07:45:09
“Further proof that the NRA is merely an appendage of the Republican Party.”
“Quit it with the religious malarkey - life, and sex, are beautiful things. Ramjeet is doing nothing wrong. Having his wife sterilized raises an eyebrow, though if he's getting it on as much as he claims to, it might help prevent him from breaking his record again.”
“The NRA says that the Second Amendment makes Obama's gun control proposals unconstitutional. That is a lie - there are already such restrictions in place, for example rocket launchers, which are firearms too. They also use this misinformation to convince the public that their government is a threatening enemy that will infringe on innocent citizens' rights and confiscate their property. That is a dangerous lie. You tell people they are going to be violated and invaded, and you are fast approaching what it takes to incite what our laws call "imminent lawless actions" in response.”
“Please sign this petition asking the Obama administration to take stronger action against the National Rifle Association for spreading misinformation and lying about our government:
The National Rifle Association are spreading misinformation and lies about America's legislative process, gun control proposals, and what is within our government's power and authority to restrict. Their words and actions are causing fear, mistrust, threats of violence, and panic buying of lethal weapons even as vital new restrictions on guns and related security measures remain unpassed. We signing this petition plead that urgency is needed to put an end to the NRA's toxic behavior and radical propaganda. We call upon the Obama administration to strongly condemn the NRA for deceiving Americans, and to clearly illustrate why the Second Amendment does not nullify our government's authority to place restrictions on firearms as it deems necessary for the safety and security of the People.
“no thanks. please sign my petition stating that your opinions are biased and ignorant.”
Eddy Cheek on Jan 20, 2013 at 12:26:18
“I looked at this stupid petition there has been only 15 signitures. On the otherhand Newsmax has a pole asking people if they agree in the gun control measures trying to prove the medias stance that that is what people want. There was over 300000 votes against it. That was 81% against gun control. Gun owners vote. Many politions found that out in the 90's when they were sent packing. I am a strong Democrat who voted for Obama twice but I will vote against anyone who votes for any gun ban. In a red state like NC it won't take many like myself to end Kay Hagans chances for re-election. 2010 might look like a good election in 2014 if this continues.”
Left-Populist on Jan 20, 2013 at 03:24:40
“Lies, if not slanderous, are protected speech, especially against government”
“Forget Congress, take the NRA to the courts for something already. It's just going to take them getting in legal trouble somehow before anything changes. Do it for their hate speech, do it for their spread of misinformation, do it for their lying in these abysmal video ads. They are never going to budge, they are a dangerous, deaf beast.
Definitely have a look at the Washington Post article which dissects why everything in their new, longer video is a lie.”