jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 04, 2016 10:49AM

I would support her even if she had a skillet in her hand.

Can you tell me if that is an assault weapon in her hand?

Robert Reynolds Report This Comment
Date: July 06, 2016 12:06PM

I'm guessing that gun our lovely model is holding who be able to punch
a few hundred holes in you in a pretty short time but the reason she's not showing her face is
because she doesn't want to show us the black eyes she's sporting
from the assault weapon who took her out to dinner and got drunk and punched her out when she said no.

There's your answer Jgoins :-)

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 07, 2016 11:24AM

Any gun can put many holes in someone in a very short time. To me an assault weapon is one which can be switched to full automatic, which is the style used by our military and cannot be purchased legally by civilians without a lot of background checks, paperwork and money.

Over my many years of life I have owned many guns of all types, except full autos, and none of them have ever fired unless I pulled the trigger and none of them have ever dated a beautiful woman.

woberto Report This Comment
Date: July 08, 2016 05:19AM

Just reading the latest news from Dallas.
You should just leave that fucking retarded county JG and come live with us over here in Australia.
The USA is fucked.

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 08, 2016 11:06AM

No, I have and will fight again for my country. This one was a little closer to home being only 6 hours drive time from me and I have been to Dallas several times. I am not concerned about safety of myself and my family. I can protect my family because I am armed at all times and have been trained to do so.

Robert Reynolds Report This Comment
Date: July 08, 2016 03:57PM

How many massacres ago now did your so called Odamna call for changes to gun control laws to stop this shit happening??
Here's the problem - The reason why Obama can't make the necessary changes America needs regarding gun control laws is because
those republican fuckers keep blocking his bills. Therefore the President of the USA looks inadequate - which he is not.
Politically, his hands are tied and will be for the rest of his term as PUSA

You don't need the right to protect your family or yourself with guns if you and your perpetrators are not able to access them in the first place.
It's an age old fallacy that's been powered by corrupt rich American cunts going right back to George Washington and even before..

It's about time the people of the USA looked seriously at the world around them and took a page from other major countries gun control policies.

I've said it before - yes, there will always be crazy mother fuckers killing people with guns and knives and bombs as we've seen in every country on this planet
but in this instance, harm minimization does actually work. Reduce access to ALL types of guns, razor knives and explosive ingredients etc and you will see
a MAJOR reduction in both random and planned killings in the USA.

You can't stop the killings JG but you can definitely reduce and control these outbreaks by taking the guns away.
It's been proven, time and time again, all around the world.
America has become so ingrained in "American Culture" that everyone THINKS they need a gun to protect themselves
because they believe the bullshit that's been fed to them. The NRA is the killer, full stop. So KILL the NRA..

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 09, 2016 11:30AM

Robert I am ashamed you have the same last name as my cousin. We in this country have constitutional rights and the right to keep and bear arms is one of them. When we start giving up our rights for security then we no longer have or deserve any rights. Guns cannot be magically made to disappear and criminals will always be able to get their hands on them. The only thing any new gun laws will do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect their homes and family. Criminals don't care about laws. Imagine that criminals not obeying the laws. If some young muscular guy breaks into my house to steal or do us harm I want a way to stop him and not have to wait the 10 to 50 minutes it takes the cops to get here. If someone wants to become a dictator or if we are invaded by another country I want a way to fight back. This is the reason for our second amendment.

Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: July 09, 2016 04:06PM

Robert, time for a bit of education.

Obozo has never once put forth any gun control measures that would have led to a differing outcome after any of the mass killings you referenced. The only restrictions he's ever lobbied for simply serve to restrict legal gun ownership and/or serve to vilify legal gun overs. Also, while private citizens constitutionally guaranteed rights have been challenged by these intended measures no such restrictions were intended to be placed upon any governmental entities., effectively leaving us powerless against governmental abuse/misuse of its authority. This is the real reason for the 2nd amendments inclusion in our Constitution.

Prior to the American revolution the British criminalized gun ownership as a means of limiting or eliminating the colonists ability to defend themselves against their British overlords. For that very reason it was written into our Constitution that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon” as a means to insure all future Americans would never again be made powerless against an oppressive or unlawful government.

Interestingly enough, at the same time Obozo and others have pushed for these measures numerous branches of government have placed such increasingly large numbers of ammunition orders that it effectively caused shortages of these ammunition rounds as manufacturers production schedules were completely monopolized in efforts to fill government requisitions. This of course means while one hand of the government was ramping up its might, the other was trying to decrease the citizenries ability to defend themselves against it. If this all seems coincidental or without purpose all I can say is that such ideas espouse more faith in the goodness of our government than I myself am willing to embrace.

Secondly, Obozo has never introduced any “bills” regarding gun control. The way our government works is any such bills have to originate within congress as the president has no authority to introduce legislation. However, his minions in congress have introduced many bills, and yes they've so far been defeated. The primary reasons for these defeats having been a resounding nay vote having been sent to congresspeople by their constituents. Yes the NRA has lobbied against these measures but the American people themselves have been the deciding voice as to why these measures failed in congress.

On the topic of Obozos inadequacy, it would be hard put to claim he's been inadequate in furthering his agenda, through legislation and by executive fiat (usurpation of powers not constitutionally granted his office). Managing to implement Obamacare, his signature legislation, through a democratically controlled congress when the US population steadfastly was at 60% opposing it (a stat that still remains to this day), was no small feat.

He's also managed to infiltrate numerous federal and state governmental agencies with his Muslim bretheren, you know, the ones he claimed in his own biography “if push came to shove, I would always stand with my Muslim brothers”.

This serves to undermine the very laws he swore in his oath of office to uphold as it has empowered a steadily progressive creep towards the implementation of sharia law. If you have any doubts of the veracity of my claims I suggest you do some research on Dearborn, Michigan, where Christians are now denied the constitutionally given right of public peaceful assemblage and free speech as this is now deemed inciteful behavior and even the police force themselves are utilized to enforce the rights of Muslims over all other religious groups.

He's also tied the hands of the very agencies empowered to implement our duly enacted laws on immigration, again violating his oath of office. Under his administration he's handed down unlawful edicts regarding immigration enforcement which stand in stark opposition to the law he swore to uphold. Similarly he's manipulated the persons in authority of immigration agencies to ensure resistance to his policies would be minimal.

He's also managed to misuse his authority to quash numerous scandals within his administration, claiming doing so was in the interest of national security. Any time the heat starts to get really hot on an investigation of governmental abuse, over reach or wrong doing it has always managed to be either misdirected or outright stopped through exertion of executive power upon those concerned.

Obozo has stirred the pot of racial divide to the point it's set race relations back 50 yrs. from where things were when he took office. The killings of white cops and whites in general has risen to a level above any point in our history, and all the while the mostly liberal media has been complicit through their own failure to report the bulk of black on white crime. Yet every time there's a racial outbreak of looting and destruction by blacks Obozo is always at the ready to justify their criminal actions and then use the might of Department of Justice to disempower enforcement of criminal charges against the criminal actors while systematically undermining local law enforcement at the same time.

We white Americans all know WE are the only ones who can be accused of hate crimes under this administration, never anyone of another race or creed, even when evidence to the contrary is as plain as the nose on ones face.

With all this shit going on (and far more numerous examples that would take a book length to enumerate), yeah we are loath to give up our right to protect ourselves against our government and the criminals within and outside of it.

One last educational point here before closing:

There is and always has been more than one legal remedy for nullifying any and all constitutionally enumerated laws and freedoms. Should any such method be legally utilized to nullify our rights under the 2nd amendment, though I wouldn't find myself in agreement with it, as a constitutionally bound conservative, at least I'd be in agreement with the right of the American public to make such a change.

I however will never be in agreement with any other means that could be utilized to minimize or repeal our rights as granted under the 2nd amendment. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is very direct and in need of no further interpretation



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2016 05:51AM by Mrkim.

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 10, 2016 11:28AM

My sentiments exactly Kim. Too bad Robert will not likely read it all. Your post states things exactly as it is currently in our government and as much as I oppose being labeled a conspiracy theorist many things are happening now that tend to make me start thinking that way. I have a friend who is clearly a conspiracy nut and things are going on now that seem to lead me in that direction kicking and screaming. I sincerely hope none of his theories become fact as much as I hope we do not end up in a race war which I fear may happen given the direction we are headed.

Robert Reynolds Report This Comment
Date: July 10, 2016 02:20PM

I read it all guys and thanks for taking the time to reply Kim.
I also have the right to disagree, not just for the sake of disagreeing but
basing my opinions on facts and personal experience because I no longer live in America.

The 2nd and the 5th are America's problem - full stop. Unfortunately, the American Constitution will never be changed.
Therefore your problems of mass killings etc will never change either, they are only going to continue to get worse.

If you removed them and used other personal security measures like most other major countries
you would discover that these mass murders, sniper attacks etc would be dramatically reduced, without easy access to firearms and other weapons.

Shit, where do you think the phrase "Only in America" came from??? Certainly wasn't America.........

OJ Simpson didn't use a gun to commit a double murder but the police officer who did not follow correct investigative procedure
ended up claiming the 5th to protect his own ass but had the murderer freed as a result.
But I guess that's another circus of monkeys, right?

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 10, 2016 03:55PM

How do you propose removing all the guns in the US? By conservative estates the are millions of guns both registered and unregistered.

What other methods of protection do people use in other countries of which you speak?

How would you propose we deal with an unlawful government should the occasion asrise?

The other countries you seem to speak of with strict gun laws still had terrorist attacks occur. Why do you think that is and why do they seem to attack gun free zones instead od where guns are allowed?

Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: July 10, 2016 04:23PM

You're more than welcome Robert and agreement isn't required, though civil disagreement is certainly appreciated, so thanks for that.

Perhaps the variance of our history colors my decisions regarding the 2nd amendment pretty heavily but in my mind an unarmed citizenry is little more than serfs who then MUST bend to the will of their masters as this then creates a less than level playing field.

Imagine as you might envision a US where citizens no longer have guns, none at all. Do you think this would then mean the government would follow suit and limit all gun usage to within the military? My thoughts are no, they would not. The governmental overlords would surely still utilize guns to protect and just as surely empower themselves above the rest of us. This then leads to a 2 tiered system where the laws are to be applied differently in relation to the governed and the governing. Sorry man, but you nor anyone else will ever lead me to believe that's a reasonable course of action.

Is our system of laws and governance perfect? That would be a resounding no. However, it is a system that's served us well for the most part for over 200yrs now. The Constitution has and can be amended and surely will be again at some point, but getting us to turn in our guns isn't likely to ever be a change we as a nation would ever embrace.

In places like Texas that would never happen without a military incursion, even if the Constitution was amended and would likely also lead to our eventual secession from the US. In my opinion, it's really our only viable option already if we are ever to end the madness being foisted upon us by the federal government.

Onto your mention of the 5th amendment and the underlying reasoning behind its inclusion in our system of laws.

In a judicial system where the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty it means the burden of proving guilt falls to the accuser. With that in mind the accused has the right to choose whether to testify in their own defence or not, as best suits their case and its facts.

Oftentimes "pleading the 5th" when asked a question throws a pall of an expectation of guilt upon the one choosing this tack, so why should the government have the ability to cast such a pall on every case? Hence the protection of not having to testify in ones own defence eliminates that possibility and again forces the accuser to prove their case without the accuseds testimony.

While my thoughts on the ability for an accused to plead the 5th vacillates due the the accused and whatever facts have been presented, I always am willing to accept this as a tenet of our imperfect judicial system and respect the accused's choice in the matter

Robert Reynolds Report This Comment
Date: July 11, 2016 02:35PM

I guess that's the mess that now, will never be able to be cleaned up JG.
Because there are too many guns out there, all across the US.

We had a buy back amnesty in the mid 90's here in Australia which really cleaned the gun scene up to a certain extent
but as both you and I have already mentioned, it won't and hasn't stopped the killings, However, records have shown that
it has helped - maybe even in just a small part but it has helped.

And yes I understand, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Thailand and other smaller countries in the Pacific region are minuscule in size
and population compared to the US but countries like India, China and Russia dwarf the US population and that shit don't happen there.
Why? Well, one reason is the guns aren't accessible in the first place and although those guys have a fucked human rights record
the public in general don't walk into cinemas, schools, playgrounds, parades or sports events and start spraying everyone with bullets
or home made bombs. But yes, they have a lot of other questions to answer - just sayin'......

And I respect totally your point Kim, about having a flawed judicial system as no system is "perfect" that's for sure.
Unless it actually happened in the US, you will never be able to experience the positive results of
increased gun control laws. Therefore you are quite comfortable with what you have in place now - and yes, I get it :-)

Australia removed capital punishment in the 1950's because it had been proven "after the fact" that innocent
people had been put to the gallows on numerous occasions.
But let me assure you, that we have certain human beings - who should not even classed as human or even animal
that are now getting bed and breakfast for the rest of their existence when in fact they should of been tortured themselves
before being put to death. So yep, it ain't perfect down here either :-)

And by the way JG, Reynolds is not my my real surname so neither Burt or your cousin have anything to worry about :-)

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 12, 2016 01:09PM

You did have a buy back in Australia but what happened to those who did not want to sell their weapons? Were those people turned into criminals ans arrested? That is the problem with removal of guns which goes to rights of ownership. Law abiding citizens pay a lot of money for the guns they own and ownership is no different than owning a car, a house or even a TV. Imagine if the government decided that we can no longer own a car because drunk drivers killed too many people. Would that be the right thing for them to do? Why should all people be punished because of the actions of only a few? Why should a few people in our country think they know better than the rest of us and arbitrarily decide "what's best" for the rest of us. Something as major as forcefully taking away privately owned property should not be decided by only a few it should be voted on and decided by the majority. All to often in this country laws are enacted by law makers listening only to the boisterous minority in their constituents and never hearing the silent majority. We must never give up our rights in order to feel safe we must look to ourselves for our own safety because others will not always be available to protect us just like in San Bernardino and Orlando. When we give up all our rights we will then be at the mercy of a government and if that government is no longer benevolent we are doomed. Just watch the movie Red Dawn with Patrick Swayse and see what could happen. I know you will say it is only a movie and fiction but things that occurred in the beginning and throughout could happen and could also happen if our government became malevolent. If we cannot stand up to oppression we become nothing more than sheep.

Robert Reynolds Report This Comment
Date: July 12, 2016 02:41PM

I haven't seen Red Dawn but have always liked Patrick as an actor so I'll check it out.
But remember what happened to Patrick and his bank robbers in Point Break? Yep, it was only a movie too
but you're on a valid theme here. The off duty police officer who had a gun and used it to protect himself got killed.

Yep, I get the sheep thing but many countries don't have the right to bear arms and we're doing ok.
Hypothetically, it would be very interesting to witness the outcome of increased gun control in the States,
I could well be wrong in my assumptions JG however I feel that these gun attacks / mass murders would dramatically decrease
as a result but no one will know unless the Government tries it, which it won't so I'll have to leave it there.

Good discussion all the same :-)

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 13, 2016 11:49AM

"Yep, I get the sheep thing but many countries don't have the right to bear arms and we're doing ok."

Would you be doing ok if another nation decided to invade Australia? (There is another version of Red Dawn which is set in Australia and was very good.)

I have always wondered what people do in the outlying regions of Australia when they need a cop and how long they have to wait for one to arrive? Are you guys allowed to own 22cal. rifles or shotguns for protection against brownies (snakes) or other animals? What will you do if someone decides to break into your home and steal everything you own with you sitting there watching TV? Will you call the cops and just sit there watching them do it or do you take the chance fo being hospitalized and fight back? You know cops cannot get there instantly at the very least it takes minutes sometimes hours depending on where you live.

pulse Report This Comment
Date: July 13, 2016 12:56PM

We solve that by not having crime, we outlawed it

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 14, 2016 11:33AM

I'm sorry, I forgot how Australia was founded. Didn't Australia start off as England's prison?

I am glad you don't have crime there I just hope you don't get any of the terrorist attacks the rest of the world gets. Gun free areas do seem to be their desired targets.