Rep. Charlie rangel: Only politicians need firearms for protection
“Law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun. You’re not gonna push me in that direction,” he said, standing just five feet from a Capitol Police officer, who stood at his post by the House Speaker’s Lobby.
The DC noted to Rangel he and other members of Congress are protected by armed members of the U.S. Capitol Police.
“Well that’s a little different. I think we deserve–I think we need to be protected down here.” Rangel laughingly insisted.
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/rep-charlie-rangel-only-politicians-need-firearms-for-protection_062016
face)(*^%
“Law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun. You’re not gonna push me in that direction,” he said, standing just five feet from a Capitol Police officer, who stood at his post by the House Speaker’s Lobby.
The DC noted to Rangel he and other members of Congress are protected by armed members of the U.S. Capitol Police.
“Well that’s a little different. I think we deserve–I think we need to be protected down here.” Rangel laughingly insisted.
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/rep-charlie-rangel-only-politicians-need-firearms-for-protection_062016
face)(*^%
I don't know, Joe.
This past weekend, I was doing some real thinking. That whole improper search and seizure fourth amendment thing....ehhh, do we REALLY need it? After all, the Constitution is so, like, outdated. And when it was written, the founding fathers couldn't have possibly envisioned that the population of this country would explode to 300M one day. So it would make it so much easier for the cops to do their jobs if we just got rid of it, right? After all, the fathers lived in small log cabins back in the day and didn't have the ability to hide anything substantial from the government anyway.
Fucking moronic simpleton dimocrap thinking. The biggest curse God ever put on this world was progressivism.
Not comparable at all.
Clear gun problem is this country. It's like when you guys compare knife deaths to gun deaths. It's absolutely silly. It's like comparing cancer to death by falling down steps. Of course people will die other ways, everybody understands that, but that doesn't mean we ignore the problem. Nobody needs these killing machines that kill mass amounts of people in seconds. Apply common sense....just screaming "but the 2nd amendment" doesn't work anymore. Doing what is necessary to keep guns out of the hands of guys like the Orlando killer, is a good thing. How anyone could think differently about that is unreal.
It is comparable because it's applying the exact same logic to one of the laws on the books.
As for your "nobody needs it" argument, two points:
1. It isn't up to you to decide what other people need in their life.
2. Would you like me to post stories of people who successfully defended their homes from intruders and possibly even saved their lives because they owned weapons? Yes, even assault rifles were used to deter several invaders. But you've decided they don't need guns, so what should they have used instead? A feather to tickle them into submission?
There has never been a shooting in America where "mass amounts of people" have been killed "in seconds"
The Orlando murderer was in that club from almost 5 hours.
Instead of making up this silly, dumb bullshit, you should probably do some reading. Or, better yet, go to a local gun store and tell the salesperson all these "facts" and watch them laugh in your face.
I don't care if people own weapons. I care about dangerous people being able to buy enough ammunition and guns to start a small war.
Why stop at assault rifles? Should people be able to own nukes? I mean, they don't need them but they want them....so we should just let them purchase if the can? Where is the line?
Just use a little common sense. I'm not saying people can't own guns.....but there has to be more restrictions on who can buy them.
Except there were no "talking points" you blubbering idiot. Unlike you, I've actually fired a wide variety of weapons and it is an undisputed fact that there has not been any shooting where mass amounts of people have been "killed in seconds"
What is so funny about you trying the dumb "talking point" line is you are repeating idiotic shit you watched on Maddow. In other words, you are engaging in talking points.
1. Then please detail your plan for how we sort out the "dangerous" people from the non-dangerous who want to own weapons for their own reasons which are none of anyone else's business. Don't leave anything out. I'm sure you've thought this through to the last detail, right?
2. To answer your question about the limits of what people can or should be able to buy, you need to understand how the founding fathers framed the wording of the second amendment and what they said about it in the federalist papers. Have you read those? I posted a link to one in post 10. If not, take a look and let me know what you believe their intent was when writing that out. It's important and applies directly to this topic. Then we can apply that to modern day purchases.
