The Mother Of An Aurora Victim Is 'Appalled' By John McCain en-us Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500 Sun, 16 Mar 2014 17:01:38 -0400 David Taintor B Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:23:57 -0500 The "Straight Talk" that McCain refers to is that an assault weapon ban won't pass congress because congress is full of blithering F&%#ing idiotsl like McCain. Too bad the NVA didn't shut him up permanently with one of those wonderful assault weapons. NoSingleOne Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:02:33 -0500 McCain is the one who needs the straight talk: You lost. It has been 4+ years. Get over yourself. NoSingleOne Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:56:30 -0500 McCain is the one who needs the straight talk: You lost. It has been 4+ years. Get over yourself. vafer2k Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:55:41 -0500 by your logic, we should be allowed to purchase grenades, grenade launchers and rockets, etc. because these are valuable arms just in case, the government decides to exterminate us. and i'm not saying get rid of all guns - but there has to be a sane, logical limit. vafer2k Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:53:09 -0500 you're over the top paranoid. vafer2k Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:52:06 -0500 history will eventually show whom mcccain really is/was. and it won't be good. Greg Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:06:22 -0500 The logic behind the 2nd was not that him owning a weapon would matter, but everyone owning one. The only way to read it correctly as phrased is "Well, OK, the government's going to have to have arms (a militia), so the people can have all they want too". You can disagree with the logic, argue it's an obsolete thought based on weapon technology or evolution of government, but if you read anything at all by the people who wrote it, the 2nd was absolutely definitely intended to give "the people" access to whatever weapons the government had. So the question isn't whether you believe in guns or the logic behind the 2nd. The question is whether you accept the constitution and rule of law. If you don't, admit it, fine so what do you believe in? A congress without limits and the assumption that since they are elected they can legislate whatever they want? If you do, you should be arguing for a new amendment not pretending that gun advocates are "misinterpreting" the 2nd which they most certainly are not. You are dreaming Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:40:31 -0500 "We will remain free for one reason only - because The People 'could' usurp government if/when it goes full rogue." What century do you live in? This may have been true 200 years ago, but can you honestly say that your owning an assault rifle will make one speck of difference against a modern military? I'm sure M1A1 gunners and A-10 pilots would just be shaking in their boots to see you coming at them. You are such a clown. Bossu Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:30:38 -0500 The assault weapon ban will not pass because congress has a lot of members like Mcnutty who are scared of the NRA and other gun crazy voters; they will not vote for it not because they believe in the second amendment, but because they don't want to be primaried by the right wing crazies. R U Seious? Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:13:48 -0500 The gun control agenda in three easy to follow steps: Registration, Confiscation, Extermination. If you don't think that statement is true, ask the millions of Armenians who were MURDERED under Turkish rule because they did not have the means to defend themselves with guns. Ask the 6+ million Jews and 3-4 million other ethnic groups and nationalities that were MURDERED in Nazi Germany under Adolph Hitler. Ask the 20+ million Russians who were MURDERED at the hands of "Uncle" Joe Stalin while that doyenne of Liberal thought, FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT, looked the other way. Ask the 30-40 million Chinese that were MURDERED during Mao's rule. Ask the 1.3 million Cambodians who were MURDERED under Pol Pot. Ask the millions MURDERED in Africa in the 70's, 80's, and 90's under various despotic regimes. Of coarse, you can't ask them because THEY'RE DEAD. The one common factor in all of these estimated 100 MILLION+ deaths; which are more people killed than in ALL OF THE WARS both declared and undeclared in the last century combined, is that THE VICTIMS WERE DEPRIVED OF THE MEANS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES WITH GUNS by their own governments BEFORE THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS MURDERED THEM. Don't think that it can't happen here. I'd be willing to bet that all of the 100 MILLION+ DEAD mentioned above had much the same thought. Of course, we can't ask them because their governments MURDERED THEM. Ask yourself this question: If the US government is benign, why does it need to have the Patriot Act, secret rendition sites in 50 or more countries around the world; NDAA, CISPA, SOPA, FEMA camps; TSA VIPR teams on our highways and at our bus and train stations (more security theater); 7000 MORE M-4's for DHS (the REAL military kind, you know the full-auto kind that are the REAL "assault weapons" as opposed to the civilian semi-auto kind which the government is trying to ban); DHS purchasing 1.6 BILLION rounds of hollow point ammunition (ammunition that is not allowed on the battlefield per the Rules of Land Warfare, so who are they going to use it against, no need to answer WE know); to give heavily armored vehicles to local law enforcement around the country; to have security camera's and armed drones warrantlessly spying on us everywhere, all tied together in fusion centers to coordinate video spying data; a massive data center, that has it's own power generating facility, capable of capturing and storing all of the electronic (phone, internet, radio you name it) communications occurring every second on the entire planet for the next hundred years; to forcibly feel up travelers private parts (especially children and old people) in a effort to make everyone "feel safe"; to authorize in Obama Care (HR3590.AS, Section 5210 Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps) the formation of a federal civilian armed force of equal number, equipment and training to the U.S. Military; to hold "predeployment cross training and qualification" drills involving military and civilian paramilitary forces in heavily populated United States urban areas using military armored vehicles and military helicopters firing their weapons indiscriminately (using blank ammunition); DHS's "See Something Say Something" program to turn our nation into a gaggle of government informants reminiscent of East Germany during the Cold War; to discredit right wing religious groups, pro-life groups, pro Second Amendment groups and MILITARY VETERANS returning from combat deployment as "future threats to America"? Tell me AGAIN why DHS needs 7000 full auto M4's and 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition? Instead of worrying about a law abiding citizen's semiautomatic AR15 that he uses to shoot cardboard targets a couple times a summer, why aren’t We The People PISS_OUR_PANTS TERRIFIED of the sociopaths in DHS that are ordering banned for civilians full auto M4's with enough ammo to shoot every man woman and child in this country FIVE TIMES and Congress and the President passing laws and signing Executive Orders in DIRECT CONTRAVENTION to the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Rehypothecator Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:57:23 -0500 Ever study the 2nd Amendment? Really study it? Only by IT do you have the 1st, 3rd, 4th, etc. The psychopaths in D.C. you love so much would LOVE to disarm us, so they can keep transferring our wealth to bankster & long-term welfare parasites, debase our money, f**k MORE with our food, Drone-watch the masses without end. Even if my child were to get gunned down, I would NOT support gun control. We will remain free for one reason only - because The People 'could' usurp government if/when it goes full rogue. McCainIsAMoron Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:42:46 -0500 Any of you morons who can't empathize to REMOVE assault weapons as possible from the street should get some 'straight talk'. SOMEONE YOU KNOW OR IN YOUR FAMILY WILL BE KILLED BY A GUN. Maybe then you'll STFU and get off your misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Investor Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:29:44 -0500 What's appalling is this lady's desire to strip law abiding American's of their Constitutional Rights so she can "feel better". I'm sorry she lost her son, but an Assault Weapon didn't kill her son. An Assault Weapon (other than being an imaginary description made up by the political establishment) is an inanimate object incapable of doing anything. Her son was killed by a crazed psychopath, that's what she seems incapable of understanding. Sadly, she's not interested in discussing facts, hearing about reality, or anyting related to either. She's interested in deconstructing the Constitution so she'll "feel better", even though nothing she's proposing would protect even a single innocent life. belogical Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:07:31 -0500 He told her the truth, what does she want him to do lie to her like Obama does