So what do Democrats think about this pic?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by ristactionjakso (6115 posts) -

64957_462567140467510_1480886587_n.jpg

JFK, a Democrat, believed in the Second Admendment. And look, he is holding a assault rifle. I believe he is correct and knew the true meaning of the Second Admendment. Obama is wrong in this attack on assault weapons.

#2 Posted by chessmaster1989 (29714 posts) -
He doesn't give much of an interpretation of the second amendment, he merely says what it is and says he thinks its important.
#3 Posted by AIIison (67 posts) -
JFK can do whatever he wants. We just do not want uneduacated hill billies and psychos with them.
#4 Posted by thegerg (15896 posts) -
[QUOTE="AIIison"]JFK can do whatever he wants. We just do not want uneduacated hill billies and psychos with them.

I don't think anyone wants psychos to have guns, but to disallow someone their rights simply because they're uneducated is quite elitist and, honestly, disgusting. (What is quite ironic is that you misspell the word "uneducated" in a post in which you are saying that those people are somehow lesser than you.)
#5 Posted by AIIison (67 posts) -
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="AIIison"]JFK can do whatever he wants. We just do not want uneduacated hill billies and psychos with them.

I don't think anyone wants psychos to have guns, but to disallow someone their rights simply because they're uneducated is quite elitist and, honestly, disgusting. (What is quite ironic is that you misspell the word "uneducated" in a post in which you are saying that those people are somehow lesser than you.)

Oh **** off Captain America. This thread is not about your morals? Some people are just smarter, learn the fact. Would you give a monkey a gun?
#6 Posted by GazaAli (23588 posts) -
Are you going to fight the U.S army with pistols and rifles?
#7 Posted by psymon100 (6835 posts) -

Would you give a monkey a gun?AIIison

Yes but I wouldn't give them any bullets for it.

#8 Posted by ristactionjakso (6115 posts) -

Are you going to fight the U.S army with pistols and rifles?GazaAli
Do you really think the army will stand against millions of armed people? Unless the government bombs itself, there is no way it can win.

#9 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -
He doesn't give much of an interpretation of the second amendment, he merely says what it is and says he thinks its important.chessmaster1989
#10 Posted by GazaAli (23588 posts) -

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]Are you going to fight the U.S army with pistols and rifles?ristactionjakso

Do you really think the army will stand against millions of armed people? Unless the government bombs itself, there is no way it can win.

Your argument does not need armed civilians whatsoever. The Iranian revolution, the Tunisian revolution, the Egyptian revolution all proceeded without armed populations.
#11 Posted by GreySeal9 (25042 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="AIIison"]JFK can do whatever he wants. We just do not want uneduacated hill billies and psychos with them.AIIison
I don't think anyone wants psychos to have guns, but to disallow someone their rights simply because they're uneducated is quite elitist and, honestly, disgusting. (What is quite ironic is that you misspell the word "uneducated" in a post in which you are saying that those people are somehow lesser than you.)

Oh **** off Captain America. This thread is not about your morals? Some people are just smarter, learn the fact. Would you give a monkey a gun?

You certainly aren't.

#13 Posted by ristactionjakso (6115 posts) -

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]Are you going to fight the U.S army with pistols and rifles?GazaAli

Do you really think the army will stand against millions of armed people? Unless the government bombs itself, there is no way it can win.

Your argument does not need armed civilians whatsoever. The Iranian revolution, the Tunisian revolution, the Egyptian revolution all proceeded without armed populations.

Because they don't have the right to own firearms.

#14 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

I love how the president hints at something that "might" happen and people are falling apart emotionally (don't take muh guns!). If nothing comes of all this hoopla, **** trolls will have nothing on the POTUS.

#15 Posted by GazaAli (23588 posts) -

[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]Do you really think the army will stand against millions of armed people? Unless the government bombs itself, there is no way it can win.

ristactionjakso

Your argument does not need armed civilians whatsoever. The Iranian revolution, the Tunisian revolution, the Egyptian revolution all proceeded without armed populations.

Because they don't have the right to own firearms.

What does that mean? What I was pointing at is the fact that you do not need an armed population to overthrow a tyrannical government.
#16 Posted by BossPerson (9117 posts) -

Look at Libya and Syria. Those people are armed to the teeth (very easy to get assault weapons in arab countries) and yet those revolutions would fail without air support. Syria is moving at a ultra slow pace because of the lack of air power

should we be able to buy fighter jets?

#17 Posted by GazaAli (23588 posts) -

Look at Libya and Syria. Those people are armed to the teeth (very easy to get assault weapons in arab countries) and yet those revolutions would fail without air support. Syria is moving at a ultra slow pace because of the lack of air power

BossPerson
I mean for fvck sake AK-47 sells like hotcake in the region.
#18 Posted by thegerg (15896 posts) -
[QUOTE="AIIison"][QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="AIIison"]JFK can do whatever he wants. We just do not want uneduacated hill billies and psychos with them.

I don't think anyone wants psychos to have guns, but to disallow someone their rights simply because they're uneducated is quite elitist and, honestly, disgusting. (What is quite ironic is that you misspell the word "uneducated" in a post in which you are saying that those people are somehow lesser than you.)

Oh **** off Captain America. This thread is not about your morals? Some people are just smarter, learn the fact. Would you give a monkey a gun?

Yes, some people are smarter. That has nothing to do with the fact that you seem to wish to deny Americans their rights based on their level of education. Let's not forget that that was the same justification used to prevent blacks from voting in many places for generations. It's inhumane and disgusting.
#19 Posted by ristactionjakso (6115 posts) -

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

[QUOTE="GazaAli"] Your argument does not need armed civilians whatsoever. The Iranian revolution, the Tunisian revolution, the Egyptian revolution all proceeded without armed populations.GazaAli

Because they don't have the right to own firearms.

What does that mean? What I was pointing at is the fact that you do not need an armed population to overthrow a tyrannical government.

It means they are un armed because they don't have the choice to own guns. If America has a revolution, its gonna be over very quickly. Doesn't matter if we need or not, we have the right to firearms.

#20 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -

Look at Libya and Syria. Those people are armed to the teeth (very easy to get assault weapons in arab countries) and yet those revolutions would fail without air support. Syria is moving at a ultra slow pace because of the lack of air power

should we be able to buy fighter jets?

BossPerson
I find it funny that everyone seems to think having guns is the key to overthrow a tyrannical government. Not even fvcking close. There are so many other factors that go into a successful armed rebellion that to blatantly disregard them is nothing short of utter stupidity.
#21 Posted by ristactionjakso (6115 posts) -

[QUOTE="AIIison"][QUOTE="thegerg"] I don't think anyone wants psychos to have guns, but to disallow someone their rights simply because they're uneducated is quite elitist and, honestly, disgusting. (What is quite ironic is that you misspell the word "uneducated" in a post in which you are saying that those people are somehow lesser than you.)thegerg
Oh **** off Captain America. This thread is not about your morals? Some people are just smarter, learn the fact. Would you give a monkey a gun?

Yes, some people are smarter. That has nothing to do with the fact that you seem to wish to deny Americans their rights based on their level of education. Let's not forget that that was the same justification used to prevent blacks from voting in many places for generations. It's inhumane and disgusting.

Good point there. Most liberal democrats are ignorant to their own ingorance.

#22 Posted by BossPerson (9117 posts) -
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Look at Libya and Syria. Those people are armed to the teeth (very easy to get assault weapons in arab countries) and yet those revolutions would fail without air support. Syria is moving at a ultra slow pace because of the lack of air power

GazaAli
I mean for fvck sake AK-47 sells like hotcake in the region.

also note: low crime rates and no mass shootings. But I guess we have car bombings to balance that out
#23 Posted by GazaAli (23588 posts) -

[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]Because they don't have the right to own firearms.

ristactionjakso

What does that mean? What I was pointing at is the fact that you do not need an armed population to overthrow a tyrannical government.

It means they are un armed because they don't have the choice to own guns. If America has a revolution, its gonna be over very quickly. Doesn't matter if we need or not, we have the right to firearms.

Yea...sure
#24 Posted by GreySeal9 (25042 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="AIIison"] Oh **** off Captain America. This thread is not about your morals? Some people are just smarter, learn the fact. Would you give a monkey a gun?ristactionjakso

Yes, some people are smarter. That has nothing to do with the fact that you seem to wish to deny Americans their rights based on their level of education. Let's not forget that that was the same justification used to prevent blacks from voting in many places for generations. It's inhumane and disgusting.

Good point there. Most liberal democrats are ignorant to their own ingorance.

You're one of the most rabid and blind hyperpartisans on this board. You really have no room to call anybody ignorant, especially when you you think Obama "cheated" to get re-elected.

#25 Posted by GazaAli (23588 posts) -
[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Look at Libya and Syria. Those people are armed to the teeth (very easy to get assault weapons in arab countries) and yet those revolutions would fail without air support. Syria is moving at a ultra slow pace because of the lack of air power

BossPerson
I mean for fvck sake AK-47 sells like hotcake in the region.

also note: low crime rates and no mass shootings. But I guess we have car bombings to balance that out

Car bombings are nonexistent aside from Iraq and more recently Syria, politically influenced, confined to specific periods of time and I don't think they fall under crimes, more like terrorism which is a different category. Honestly despite it being a cesspool, the Middle East is one of the most safe places on earth.
#26 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

[QUOTE="AIIison"][QUOTE="thegerg"] I don't think anyone wants psychos to have guns, but to disallow someone their rights simply because they're uneducated is quite elitist and, honestly, disgusting. (What is quite ironic is that you misspell the word "uneducated" in a post in which you are saying that those people are somehow lesser than you.)thegerg
Oh **** off Captain America. This thread is not about your morals? Some people are just smarter, learn the fact. Would you give a monkey a gun?

Yes, some people are smarter. That has nothing to do with the fact that you seem to wish to deny Americans their rights based on their level of education. Let's not forget that that was the same justification used to prevent blacks from voting in many places for generations. It's inhumane and disgusting.

It's no more disguesting then you trying to use the fight for civil rights as a pretexted for unlimited firearm distribution. Those two aren't even close to the same thing because black people voting wouldn't harm anyone. Someone of less then average intelligence might be more prone to give into their primal brain and actually harm someone with a firearm though.

#27 Posted by ristactionjakso (6115 posts) -

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] Yes, some people are smarter. That has nothing to do with the fact that you seem to wish to deny Americans their rights based on their level of education. Let's not forget that that was the same justification used to prevent blacks from voting in many places for generations. It's inhumane and disgusting. GreySeal9

Good point there. Most liberal democrats are ignorant to their own ingorance.

You're one of the most rabid and blind hyperpartisans on this board. You really have no room to call anybody ignorant, especially when you you think Obama "cheated" to get re-elected.

is there proof he didn't? Lol:D

#28 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]Good point there. Most liberal democrats are ignorant to their own ingorance.

ristactionjakso

You're one of the most rabid and blind hyperpartisans on this board. You really have no room to call anybody ignorant, especially when you you think Obama "cheated" to get re-elected.

is there proof he didn't? Lol:D

You made the claim thus the burden of proof is on you.
#29 Posted by Wolfetan (7522 posts) -
should we be able to buy fighter jets?BossPerson
Yes.
#30 Posted by LordQuorthon (5388 posts) -

I don't think democrats light candles in front of a JFK altar the way republicans do with Reagan.

#31 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -

I don't think democrats light candles in front of a JFK altar the way republicans do with Reagan.

LordQuorthon
Rofl. Reagan is such an overrated piece of sh*t.
#32 Posted by GreySeal9 (25042 posts) -

I don't think democrats light candles in front of a JFK altar the way republicans do with Reagan.

LordQuorthon

Good point.

#33 Posted by BossPerson (9117 posts) -
[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="GazaAli"] I mean for fvck sake AK-47 sells like hotcake in the region.

also note: low crime rates and no mass shootings. But I guess we have car bombings to balance that out

Car bombings are nonexistent aside from Iraq and more recently Syria, politically influenced, confined to specific periods of time and I don't think they fall under crimes, more like terrorism which is a different category. Honestly despite it being a cesspool, the Middle East is one of the most safe places on earth.

Jordan, Lebanon, the Gulf, the Maghreb...all safe places to be as an Arab male.
#34 Posted by thegerg (15896 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="AIIison"] Oh **** off Captain America. This thread is not about your morals? Some people are just smarter, learn the fact. Would you give a monkey a gun?Yusuke420

Yes, some people are smarter. That has nothing to do with the fact that you seem to wish to deny Americans their rights based on their level of education. Let's not forget that that was the same justification used to prevent blacks from voting in many places for generations. It's inhumane and disgusting.

It's no more disguesting then you trying to use the fight for civil rights as a pretexted for unlimited firearm distribution. Those two aren't even close to the same thing because black people voting wouldn't harm anyone. Someone of less then average intelligence might be more prone to give into their primal brain and actually harm someone with a firearm though.

You seem to be very confused. I am not using the the fight for civil rights as a "pretexted" for unlimited firearm distribution. Ignorance FTL. I am simply pointing out that this isn't the first time that using ones level of education as a benchmark has been proposed as a means to restrict civil rights.

#35 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

So you think that anyone who wants should have a weapon with no type of regulation what so ever? I'm calling your analogy false because denying voting rights wasn't truthfully based on intelligence tests (which we should have anyway, but that's another issue) but purely on the color of their skin. They are in no way, shape, or form connected or the same.

#36 Posted by thegerg (15896 posts) -

So you think that anyone who wants should have a weapon with no type of regulation what so ever? I'm calling your analogy false because denying voting rights wasn't truthfully based on intelligence tests (which we should have anyway, but that's another issue) but purely on the color of their skin. They are in no way, shape, or form connected or the same.

Yusuke420

"So you think that anyone who wants should have a weapon with no type of regulation what so ever?"

No. Do you?

"I'm calling your analogy false because denying voting rights wasn't truthfully based on intelligence tests (which we should have anyway, but that's another issue) but purely on the color of their skin. "

I never said it was based on intelligence tests.

"They are in no way, shape, or form connected or the same."

Yes, they are. You seem to be very confused. Many blacks were denied their civil rights using their lack of education as a justification. The poster I quoted wishes to do the same (deny the civil rights of) to hill billies.

#37 Posted by layton2012 (3489 posts) -
Do we even have militias anymore? Even if we do I doubt they are well-regulated. Regardless of what JFK, I still feel in sight of the many gun related crimes that were committed last year, that we have to do something, doing nothing doesn't change anything and more crimes will happen. Something must change.
#38 Posted by UnknownSniper65 (9228 posts) -

thats his opinion

#39 Posted by thegerg (15896 posts) -
Do we even have militias anymore? Even if we do I doubt they are well-regulated. Regardless of what JFK, I still feel in sight of the many gun related crimes that were committed last year, that we have to do something, doing nothing doesn't change anything and more crimes will happen. Something must change.layton2012
"Do we even have militias anymore?" Yes "Even if we do I doubt they are well-regulated." Then you're wrong. These militias train quite a bit, and are currently deployed across the globe. Look up the "National Guard."
#40 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

The intelligence tests were used as a basis, but even if someone black passed the test, they'd still be denied based off of some other fabricated reason. If it was a legitimate test, I, nor any other black person would have had a problem with them.

#41 Posted by thegerg (15896 posts) -

The intelligence tests were used as a basis, but even if someone black passed the test, they'd still be denied based off of some other fabricated reason. If it was a legitimate test, I, nor any other black person would have had a problem with them.

Yusuke420

"The intelligence tests were used as a basis"

No, they did not perform intelligence tests. They tested to see if you could read. If you couldn't read, you couldn't vote. Education, not intelligence.

" If it was a legitimate test, I, nor any other black person would have had a problem with them."

I have a very hard time believing that all backs would be OK with people being denied their civil rights simply because they're uneducated.

#42 Posted by sonicare (53602 posts) -

I don't think democrats light candles in front of a JFK altar the way republicans do with Reagan.

LordQuorthon
There's the eternal flame for JFK. . . . .
#43 Posted by Blue-Sky (10343 posts) -

Everytime I peek at this board there's always a gun thread.

#44 Posted by sonicare (53602 posts) -

Everytime I peek at this board there's always a gun thread.

Blue-Sky
Stil better than a religion thread. lol.
#45 Posted by thegerg (15896 posts) -

A WELL REGULATED MILITIAA WELL REGULATED MILITIAA WELL REGULATED MILITIAA WELL REGULATED MILITIAA WELL REGULATED MILITIAA WELL REGULATED MILITIAA WELL REGULATED MILITIAA WELL REGULATED MILITIAA WELL REGULATED MILITIA

BossPerson
?
#46 Posted by Aljosa23 (25838 posts) -

ff there was no second amendment jfk would still be alive

#47 Posted by thegerg (15896 posts) -

ff there was no second amendment jfk would still be alive

Aljosa23
Haha, unlikely.
#48 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
Live by the gun; die by the gun. That's what that says to me.
#49 Posted by Big_Pecks (5583 posts) -

My computer says that it's 2013, not 1960.

#50 Posted by BossPerson (9117 posts) -
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

A WELL REGULATED MILITIAA WELL REGULATED MILITIAA WELL REGULATED MILITIAA WELL REGULATED MILITIAA WELL REGULATED MILITIAA WELL REGULATED MILITIAA WELL REGULATED MILITIAA WELL REGULATED MILITIAA WELL REGULATED MILITIA

thegerg
?

keep the guns to people in a well regulated militia.