No firearms necessary to mutilate a baby in the womb.

Home > Forums > The Open Forum

| Register

No firearms necessary to mutilate a baby in the womb.

Author: MAS (22047 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 4:52 pm on Aug 11, 2019

View All

PP has different blood on its hands, to continue with this line of rhetoric.

Replies to: "No firearms necessary to mutilate a baby in the womb."

Why do commie Dems want gun manufacturers held liable when a murderer uses their product - CC72 - 12:14pm 8/11/19 (82) [View All]
- Because it's political to them. If NRA was PP-like Dem donor/supporter, they would be pro 2nd Amend [NT] - BaronVonZemo - 1:25pm 8/11/19
  - Like Moscow Mitch? [NT] - golfernot - 2:04pm 8/11/19
  - Maybe gov't should fund NRA firearms training. NRA can promise to keep money separate. - NedoftheHill - 1:28pm 8/11/19
    - I didn't know that Planned Parenthood was involved in Firearms Training. [NT] - golfernot - 4:48pm 8/11/19
      - You’re operating at about 3 levels below the conversation. [NT] - BaronVonZemo - 6:53pm 8/11/19
        Good one. Get that from an Orange tweet? [NT] - golfernot - 9:07pm 8/11/19
      - No firearms necessary to mutilate a baby in the womb. - MAS - 4:52pm 8/11/19
- Interesting they trust Trump to take guns away. Maybe they don't actually think Trump is a dictator. - NedoftheHill - 1:24pm 8/11/19
  - Your point re hypocrisy:Why doesn't Left see ID for guns as racist, black gun owner suppression? - BaronVonZemo - 1:29pm 8/11/19
    - So guns are a black thing. [NT] - golfernot - 4:51pm 8/11/19
      - Must be the case for you. Otherwise, why would you propose a solution which relies on IDs? [NT] - NedoftheHill - 5:10pm 8/11/19
        I don't recall proposing a "solution". Please enlighten. [NT] - golfernot - 9:02pm 8/11/19
        That's your tact? You are going to dissociate yourself from Dem proposals? Good for you. [NT] - NedoftheHill - 9:17pm 8/11/19
        Check out all of his unimaginative [NT] posts in just this thread. Not worth the time. - BaronVonZemo - 6:17am 8/12/19
        
        Why wouldn’t it be the same solution for both things for Dems? Hmmmm. [NT] - BaronVonZemo - 6:54pm 8/11/19
    - Indeed. Why do the Dems want to disarm African-Americans by requiring an ID to buy arms. - NedoftheHill - 1:44pm 8/11/19
      - I think most Dems would prefer no guns whatsoever. The most interesting point here is... - MAS - 2:36pm 8/11/19
        You have hit the nail on the head. - BaronVonZemo - 5:16pm 8/11/19
- With the same swiftness that views re gay marriage changed, same happening re gun reform. [NT] [LINK] - conorlarkin - 1:21pm 8/11/19
  - All civilizations decay.,, it isn't actually "progressive" at all.. - Curly1918 - 5:46pm 8/11/19
    - Let’s see pederasty, infanticide, mass murder, and restrictions on guns. Which doesn’t go with the - Frank L - 5:49pm 8/11/19
      - None! They are all interconnected deep in the human unconscious. - Curly1918 - 5:57pm 8/11/19
        If you say so. [NT] - Frank L - 11:55am 8/12/19
  - Rights aren't subject to vote. Glad we have a civil rights organization like the NRA protecting us. [NT] - NedoftheHill - 1:25pm 8/11/19
    - Be honest... the NRA suffer from serious castration anxiety... and are terrified of threats... - Curly1918 - 5:49pm 8/11/19
      - That is a little dramatic. It is more simple than that. - NedoftheHill - 8:13pm 8/11/19
    - “civil rights organization.” You understand its purpose, alright. [NT] - Chris94 - 3:09pm 8/11/19
      - I always thought a combination of the ACLU & NRA would make the perfrect civil rights organization. - NedoftheHill - 3:19pm 8/11/19
        Dont worry ACLU absolutism is also alive and well. Take Charlottesville. - Frank L - 9:58pm 8/11/19
        
        The NRA was not established to protect rights, Ned. - Chris94 - 3:40pm 8/11/19
        I don't want to embarrass you, Chris, but you are outside your area of expertise on this. - NedoftheHill - 4:10pm 8/11/19
        You’re simply wrong - Chris94 - 6:02pm 8/11/19
        I respect that you recognize your earlier post is wrong, so you changed. But, you're still wrong. - NedoftheHill - 8:16pm 8/11/19
        Membership is irrelevant. It is a lobbying org for gun manufacturers. [NT] - Chris94 - 8:34am 8/12/19
        Membership, especially of that magnitude, makes all the difference. You are wrong, Chris. [NT] - NedoftheHill - 11:38am 8/12/19
        
        It was initially a sportsman’s group. No lobbying and they didn’t give two shits about handguns. - Frank L - 5:47pm 8/11/19
        And supported several kinds of gun control they oppose today. [NT] - MAS - 7:16pm 8/11/19
        Yep. Now it’s essentially a group run by lawyers and lobbyists who take the most extreme positions. - Frank L - 7:27pm 8/11/19
        Call it what you will. They do necessary work that many people don't appreciate. Like ACLU of old. - NedoftheHill - 8:19pm 8/11/19
        And like the ACLU of old they often take extreme positions. The ACLU constantly fought even - Frank L - 9:11pm 8/11/19
        The NRA has accepted and supported many reasonable limits. For example, the ban on automatic weapons [NT] - NedoftheHill - 9:19pm 8/11/19
        Back then they were a sportsman’s group. Of course they weren’t in favor of full military weapons. - Frank L - 9:26pm 8/11/19
        And they still are not in favor of civilian ownership of full military weapons like M-16s. - NedoftheHill - 9:35pm 8/11/19
        Well that sure shows reasonableness. I take it they are against bazookas and BAR’s also? - Frank L - 9:52pm 8/11/19
        Yes, they do oppose machine guns. As I said, they are far more limiting than Switzerland. [NT] - NedoftheHill - 9:54pm 8/11/19
        Very reasonable folks. - Frank L - 9:59pm 8/11/19
        The NRA. On some things I do. On their reasonableness, I don’t. [NT] - Frank L - 12:43am 8/12/19
        Responds to Ned below. [NT] - Frank L - 12:44am 8/12/19
        
        Does it hurt you to know that you agree with them? [NT] - NedoftheHill - 10:45pm 8/11/19
        
        Yep, my father had been a member since his childhood. - iairishcheeks - 6:14pm 8/11/19
        AR's are the types of guns most protected by the 2nd Amendment. Others are secondary. [NT] - NedoftheHill - 8:25pm 8/11/19
        
        So, he became a communist gun-grabber? [NT] - MAS - 7:17pm 8/11/19
        
        Still have my grand dad’s card from the late 30’s. [NT] - Frank L - 6:53pm 8/11/19
    - Since when is the Second Amendment an unlimited right? [NT] - conorlarkin - 2:31pm 8/11/19
      - You think constitutional rights can be limited based on popularity at any one point in time?! [NT] - BaronVonZemo - 7:22pm 8/11/19
        “Popularity” is the wrong term. The Supreme Court has relied on evolving social science. - conorlarkin - 8:00pm 8/11/19
        Surely you wouldn't use the limit on shouting fire in a theater to limit political speech? - NedoftheHill - 8:21pm 8/11/19
        Are you seriously equating mass shootings via high capacity firearms with political speech? - conorlarkin - 8:27pm 8/11/19
        Actually, that is what your side does: equate speech with violence. I'm not doing that. - NedoftheHill - 9:32pm 8/11/19
        The US Supreme Court decides the boundaries of constitutional rights. - conorlarkin - 9:50pm 8/11/19
        You miss my point. Intentionally I assume. But, you understand it, since you stopped arguing yours. [NT] - NedoftheHill - 10:48pm 8/11/19
        My point is backed by Supreme Court case law. Your point is lost on even yourself. [NT] - conorlarkin - 5:24am 8/12/19
        Your new point? I wasn't arguing that. [NT] - NedoftheHill - 11:39am 8/12/19
        
        My belief is the SCOTUS should interpret our laws, not rewrite them. That was how it was set up. - BaronVonZemo - 6:24am 8/12/19
        Are you aware that the Supreme Court’s primary role is to interpret the US Constitution? - conorlarkin - 11:38am 8/12/19
        That is a more controversial statement than you indicate. - NedoftheHill - 11:42am 8/12/19
        Only controversial for the 5% right wing whack jobs. [NT] - conorlarkin - 12:10pm 8/12/19
        We've ever seen you this deep in a thread before. And not relying on links! Good for you! [NT] - NedoftheHill - 8:57pm 8/12/19
      - Hmm. Perhaps since free speech was an unlimited right...and freedom of religion. Why ask me that? [NT] - NedoftheHill - 3:17pm 8/11/19
    - Exception being a woman's right to choose, eh Ned. [NT] - ND521 - 2:22pm 8/11/19
      - Conor is curious: Since when has any person's right to choose to act been an unlimited right? - NedoftheHill - 3:20pm 8/11/19
    - They are subject to regulation though and the mood in the nation is shifting. There will be more of - Frank L - 1:56pm 8/11/19
      - I agree: The nature of gov't is to limit rights, & the gov't has almost infinite attempts to do so. - NedoftheHill - 2:03pm 8/11/19
- Struggling to reconcile your 'commie' comment with your bootlicking of a cowardly Russian asset. [NT] - ND521 - 12:45pm 8/11/19
  - Guess you are a clueless struggling nitwit [NT] - CC72 - 3:42pm 8/11/19
  - Struggling to reconcile your post with the fact that you are doing the Russian's bidding... - NedoftheHill - 1:49pm 8/11/19
    - Yeah, right. You should try Deep Breathing for relaxation. [NT] - golfernot - 2:08pm 8/11/19
      - You can't deny that you serve Russia's interests by trying to weaken an elected US president. - NedoftheHill - 3:23pm 8/11/19
        Orange doesn't need my "help" in serving Russia's interests. - golfernot - 4:55pm 8/11/19
        And yet, you insist on doing Putie's bidding. Go figure. [NT] - NedoftheHill - 5:08pm 8/11/19
        
        Heh. [NT] - Frank L - 5:03pm 8/11/19
      - I read 'Deep State Breathing', still laughing. [NT] - ND521 - 2:25pm 8/11/19

Consent Management