So what do Democrats think about this pic?

  • 179 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for ristactionjakso
#1 Posted by ristactionjakso (6118 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.

Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#2 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 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.
Avatar image for AIIison
#3 Posted by AIIison (73 posts) -
JFK can do whatever he wants. We just do not want uneduacated hill billies and psychos with them.
Avatar image for thegerg
#4 Posted by thegerg (18283 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.)
Avatar image for AIIison
#5 Posted by AIIison (73 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?
Avatar image for GazaAli
#6 Posted by GazaAli (25216 posts) -
Are you going to fight the U.S army with pistols and rifles?
Avatar image for psymon100
#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.

Avatar image for ristactionjakso
#8 Posted by ristactionjakso (6118 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.

Avatar image for Rich3232
#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
Avatar image for GazaAli
#10 Posted by GazaAli (25216 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.
Avatar image for GreySeal9
#11 Posted by GreySeal9 (28247 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.

Avatar image for ristactionjakso
#13 Posted by ristactionjakso (6118 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.

Avatar image for Yusuke420
#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.

Avatar image for GazaAli
#15 Posted by GazaAli (25216 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.
Avatar image for BossPerson
#16 Posted by BossPerson (9177 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?

Avatar image for GazaAli
#17 Posted by GazaAli (25216 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.
Avatar image for thegerg
#18 Posted by thegerg (18283 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.
Avatar image for ristactionjakso
#19 Posted by ristactionjakso (6118 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.

Avatar image for Rich3232
#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.
Avatar image for ristactionjakso
#21 Posted by ristactionjakso (6118 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.

Avatar image for BossPerson
#22 Posted by BossPerson (9177 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
Avatar image for GazaAli
#23 Posted by GazaAli (25216 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
Avatar image for GreySeal9
#24 Posted by GreySeal9 (28247 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.

Avatar image for GazaAli
#25 Posted by GazaAli (25216 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.
Avatar image for Yusuke420
#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.

Avatar image for ristactionjakso
#27 Posted by ristactionjakso (6118 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

Avatar image for Rich3232
#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.
Avatar image for Wolfetan
#29 Posted by Wolfetan (7522 posts) -
should we be able to buy fighter jets?BossPerson
Yes.
Avatar image for LordQuorthon
#30 Posted by LordQuorthon (5703 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Rich3232
#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.
Avatar image for GreySeal9
#32 Posted by GreySeal9 (28247 posts) -

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

LordQuorthon

Good point.

Avatar image for BossPerson
#33 Posted by BossPerson (9177 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.
Avatar image for thegerg
#34 Posted by thegerg (18283 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.

Avatar image for Yusuke420
#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.

Avatar image for thegerg
#36 Posted by thegerg (18283 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.

Avatar image for layton2012
#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.
Avatar image for UnknownSniper65
#38 Posted by UnknownSniper65 (9238 posts) -

thats his opinion

Avatar image for thegerg
#39 Posted by thegerg (18283 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."
Avatar image for Yusuke420
#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.

Avatar image for thegerg
#41 Posted by thegerg (18283 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.

Avatar image for sonicare
#42 Posted by sonicare (55457 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. . . . .
Avatar image for Blue-Sky
#43 Posted by Blue-Sky (10379 posts) -

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

Avatar image for sonicare
#44 Posted by sonicare (55457 posts) -

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

Blue-Sky
Stil better than a religion thread. lol.
Avatar image for thegerg
#45 Posted by thegerg (18283 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
?
Avatar image for perfect_blue
#46 Posted by Perfect_Blue (30033 posts) -

ff there was no second amendment jfk would still be alive

Avatar image for thegerg
#47 Posted by thegerg (18283 posts) -

ff there was no second amendment jfk would still be alive

Aljosa23
Haha, unlikely.
Avatar image for Fightingfan
#48 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
Live by the gun; die by the gun. That's what that says to me.
Avatar image for Big_Pecks
#49 Posted by Big_Pecks (5972 posts) -

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

Avatar image for BossPerson
#50 Posted by BossPerson (9177 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.