Homz Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 How exactly would the repubs have banned abortion? The dems now control the congress (they are able to put together a veto proof majority) and the whitehouse' date=' and they will probably get to stack the Supreme Court with the probable retirement of at least 2 judges over the next couple of years. Eric Holder (the Attn. General) has already stated his desire to have MORE gun control as has Obama and many of the Dem Senators and Congressman. Wake up Homz.[/quote'] These are the kind of posts that remind me daily how nice it is to actually think on my own. I need no party or special Sunday sermons to tell me how to think. You are incapable of seeing through the smoke screen and making your own decisions based on logic and facts. Gun laws come and go. As I'm sure your aware the Supreme court will not allow the ownership of guns to be diminished. For that matter neither will the democrats. These hot button issues are good for only one thing. How about as a brain exercise (something you righties need more often then the rest of us) you figure out what the hot button issues do for the party that champions their cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daerious Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Yeah, what Homz said, the Supreme Court (and democrats) would never allow ownership of guns to be diminished, like by a ban on assault rifles and magazines over 10 rounds.... oh wait, nevermind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daerious Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Buy a red sports car. It's cool too and people can actually see you with it without calling the cops. Try walking into a 7/11 with that rifle in tow. Sports cars are also good for midlife crisis prevention. Try walking into the 7/11 with your red sports car in tow. Sports cars kill more "innocent" people than rifles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daerious Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 The only time in recent memory the government actually confiscated legal fire arms I personally have never worried about them confiscating legal firearms, it's the ones they make illegal that I worry will be confiscated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daerious Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Sorry for the several posts at the end but I was late, have a short attention span, and answered as I read them. By the way, good buy man, they are vastly more expensive around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 These are the kind of posts that remind me daily how nice it would be to actually think on my own. I need special Sunday sermons to tell me how to think. I am incapable of seeing any truth other than what my Union boss tells me to think. Can you recommend some brain exercises to help me gain some knowledge about anything at all? I'm really not half as smart as a second grader. Please tell me about the rabbits again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I find all the talk about Obama a bit amusing. The only time in recent memory the government actually confiscated legal fire arms was during the aftermath of Katrina. 'Black Water' private security company did it under contract for 'Home Land Security' and at the orders of the Bush Administration. True typically there may end up being a few more restrictions on the gun enthusiasts' date=' but it wont last. It's the republicans you need to keep your sites on. [/quote'] You make outrageously stupid and erroneous statements, never provide any proof to back them up and when challenged, you change the subject and make attacks. Here are the facts about the gun confiscation after Katrina. If you have ANY proof that the Federal Government, George Bush or republicans ordered or participated in the Illegal gun confiscation in New Orleans. Please show me. As for the libocrats not trying to destroy the 2nd Amendment, I guess you are unaware of the D.C. gun laws that were recently struck down by the Supreme Court (D.C. is a completely democrat controlled city). You must also be unaware of Chicago's gun laws (also a democrat controlled city) http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_il.htm You must also be blissfully unaware of N.Y. Cities gun laws... http://www.nysrpa.org/nygunlaws.htm While N.Y. City and Chicago do not explicity outlaw many/most guns, they require licences which are at the discretion of LEOs to issue, which means that they are rarely if ever issued. http://www.reason.com/news/show/32966.html http://www.gunsandammomag.com/cs/Satellite/IMO_GA/Story_C/Hard+Times+In+The+Big+Easy http://volokh.com/posts/1153899155.shtml http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1616777/posts http://gunowners.org/notb.htm http://www.examiner.com/x-2206-Cleveland-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m2d20-Gun-confiscation-can-it-happen-again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 You make outrageously stupid and erroneous statements' date=' never provide any proof to back them up and when challenged, you change the subject and make attacks. Here are the facts about the gun confiscation after Katrina. If you have ANY proof that the Federal Government, George Bush or republicans ordered or participated in the Illegal gun confiscation in New Orleans. Please show me. As for the libocrats not trying to destroy the 2nd Amendment, I guess you are unaware of the D.C. gun laws that were recently struck down by the Supreme Court (D.C. is a completely democrat controlled city). You must also be unaware of Chicago's gun laws (also a democrat controlled city) http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_il.htm You must also be blissfully unaware of N.Y. Cities gun laws... http://www.nysrpa.org/nygunlaws.htm While N.Y. City and Chicago do not explicity outlaw many/most guns, they require licences which are at the discretion of LEOs to issue, which means that they are rarely if ever issued. http://www.reason.com/news/show/32966.html http://www.gunsandammomag.com/cs/Satellite/IMO_GA/Story_C/Hard+Times+In+The+Big+Easy http://volokh.com/posts/1153899155.shtml http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1616777/posts http://gunowners.org/notb.htm http://www.examiner.com/x-2206-Cleveland-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m2d20-Gun-confiscation-can-it-happen-again [/quote'] I learned long ago trying to argue with a zealot is pointless, as is reading most of your pointless posts. STick to the pictures you seem to do that well enough. It wouldn't matter what proof I offered you would refute it. In fact I, unlike you am not trying to gain points for my fearless leader Neo or perhaps buy a stairway to heaven for being a good christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 BTW I like your new rifle too Fenn. My comments, if anyone had taken the time to read them, weren't directed towards ownership of guns by private citizens. KSG and others just look for a reason to attack me. Fu*k em if they can't take a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 P.S. I did a 'Republican Memory Search' also known as a Google search and it took me all of 10 or less seconds to find hundreds of articles on the 'New Orleans Gun Grab'. No I wont paste them, mostly because I want the fu*king retards on the right to do their own leg work. Hey Republicans. I suggest you keep up the good recruiting. Who knows by the time the next presidential election rolls around those on the side of the people will make up 80% of the population instead of the current 65%. Crying baby a$$holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 The only time in recent memory the government actually confiscated legal fire arms was during the aftermath of Katrina. 'Black Water' private security company did it under contract for 'Home Land Security' and at the orders of the Bush Administration. You're a liar. Police Chief Eddie Compass' date=' under the direct orders of Mayor Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin. No Blackwater, no Bush. It's the republicans you need to keep your sites on. Explain. The same is true of the democrats on gun control issues. They also wont do sh1t. To many votes will be lost. Zealots don't care about votes. Once in power the gun-banners will lie' date=' cheat, sue, hide, whatever it takes to gain as much ground as possible. They don't expect to remain in power. That's exactly why I think these things ought to be outlawed. What things? Clarify, please. I don't think most folks buy those for the "intimidation factor." Why do most folks buy them? Please enlighten me.... I've owned several of them myself (all made by Colt) and I know probably 25 people who have at least one right now. I've seen thousands of them sold' date=' hundreds of them in use at target matches, and NONE used in a crime. What can YOU tell me about them Hoyt? Gun laws come and go. As I'm sure your aware the Supreme court will not allow the ownership of guns to be diminished. For that matter neither will the democrats. Name ONE Democrat who will not vote for tighter gun restrictions. I'll name 250 that will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoyt Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Hoyt wrote:I don't think most folks buy those for the "intimidation factor." Neo responded: Why do most folks buy them? Please enlighten me.... NeoCon, if you could read, you would see I was responding to another gun lover/caresser who said "why do people buy sport cars, Coach handbags, . . . . . .? I realize you folks buy "assualt weapons" for "intimidation." That's my point and exactly why they should be outlawed and anyone who has or wants them should be given a pre-emptive psychological exam to ensure they are not a homegrown terrorist and/or psychopath. Sorry you feel the need to use such weapons to "intimidate" and bolster whatever you feel you are lacking. Seems to be a common trait among right wingers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I think that the country would be better served if, instead of testing people before they bought a gun, we tested people before we let them vote...All voters should be required to know who their 2 Senators are, their congressman's name, which party is in control of the congress at the time, what the current POTUS and VPOTUS names and parties are, and at least some of the current issues. Then we could do a drug test and breathalyzer test to make sure the voter isn't impaired at the time of the vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mick Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I think that the country would be better served if' date=' instead of testing people before they bought a gun, we tested people before we let them vote...All voters should be required to know who their 2 Senators are, their congressman's name, which party is in control of the congress at the time, what the current POTUS and VPOTUS names and parties are, and at least some of the current issues. Then we could do a drug test and breathalyzer test to make sure the voter isn't impaired at the time of the vote. [/quote'] Sad as it is I agree I know people who voted for pres and then just checked box's in a pattern the rest of the ballot. At the very least read the blue book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoyt Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I think that the country would be better served if' date=' instead of testing people before they bought a gun, we tested people before we let them vote...All voters should be required to know who their 2 Senators are, their congressman's name, which party is in control of the congress at the time, what the current POTUS and VPOTUS names and parties are, and at least some of the current issues. Then we could do a drug test and breathalyzer test to make sure the voter isn't impaired at the time of the vote. [/quote'] We actually had such tests back in the 1950s. The right wingers loved them because the tests were specifically designed by racists to keep minorities from voting. I would not want us to return to those days. Even mentally challenged people -- including right wingers -- have a right to vote in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mick Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Any idiot who is against general ownership of firearms is in denial of history, case law and reality in terms of what made America "American." In fact, one might make the case that the UK, our mother country from which we received our concept of "rights," is not nearly as free as it was prior to the 1920s when they began anti firearms legislation that contravened the entire concept of a "right" to self defense. There's no "right" if there's no capacity to exercise it. People also need to understand that firearms and "shooters" have far more in common with guitars and "guitar players" than they might notice at first glance. Who "needs" a firearm? Well, about as many people as "need" a guitar. Who "needs" more than one firearm or guitar? Probably nobody. Why buy the fancy, decked out version that's mechanically identical to others, whether it's a matter of gold plating and inlays or other cosmetic features? The question is the same whether about guitars or firearms. Frankly in the only time in my 63 years that I figured I needed to take overt action in self defense vs. a human being, it was during a saloon gig with a band - and I used the headstock of my guitar. It's "funny" too because in several communities I'm aware of, there's little concern about "reenactors" walking around with firearms that may or may not be loaded, but get really "up tight" about a U.S. Civil War cavalry saber that, in modern recreations, usually is far less sharp than the average soup spoon. The bottom line is that those both favoring and disfavoring private ownership of firearms are doing so with a major difference in perspective. One group is afraid of everybody else, especially those with the ability to defend themselves. The other group isn't. One group believes (contrary to at least one lawsuit claiming it's the responsibility of police to protect people - that found police have no such responsibility) that government agencies such as police have all the "rights" to defense and will care for the rest of us. The other group figures that any such argument is as irrelevant to their "natural" or "God-given" rights as human beings as ownership of a guitar. Frankly unless one is involved in competition shooting, the AR to me is not at all needed. But then, I really don't care much for a Telecaster, either. Much rather have a 335 and 175. And it's for exactly the same reasons: I don't do stuff that I care for what a Tele does, but I do enjoy material with the 175. Same thing exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 We actually had such tests back in the 1950s. The right wingers loved them because the tests were specifically designed by racists to keep minorities from voting. I would not want us to return to those days. Even mentally challenged people -- including right wingers -- have a right to vote in this country. It's funny you mention that Hoyt...It was the Democrats at the time that were in favor of segregation, and who didn't want blacks to vote. It was the republicans in Congress that finally got the voters rights bill passed, it was democrats like the Governors of Arkansas, and other Southern states who were racists...It was a Republican President that freed the slaves... I know that everyone has a right to vote, and I accept that. Folks like you don't seem to accept the right of free people to own guns...Here's what one of the liberal heroes said about voters... "The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." John F. Kennedy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 What purpose does it serve to list the atrocities of each party. I have no party loyalty. If your party loyalty is greater then you patriotism or for your love of mankind then your no American to me. I have no use for anyone who thinks that way, on any issue. At the moment the Republicans are descending while the Democrats are ascending . If you are incapable of dealing with this then please move to a compound in the Arizona Desert and shoot lots of rocks and snakes. The rest of America has things to accomplish. Get the hell out of the way. If you offended then keep in mind I could have just said move to France. A$$holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoyt Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 It's funny you mention that Hoyt...It was the Democrats at the time that were in favor of segregation' date=' and who didn't want blacks to vote. It was the republicans in Congress that finally got the voters rights bill passed, it was democrats like the Governors of Arkansas, and other Southern states who were racists...It was a Republican President that freed the slaves... I know that everyone has a right to vote, and I accept that. Folks like you don't seem to accept the right of free people to own guns...Here's what one of the liberal heroes said about voters... "The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." John F. Kennedy [/quote'] It's funny you ignore the historical fact that the Dixiecrats -- right wing racists -- moved quickly to the Republican Party along with Storm Thurmond, the Lotts, etc. And, the Republican Party welcomed them with open arms. Right wingers today, are usually Republicans, and a significant percentage are racists/bigots who want a return to "states rights" to discriminate, poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. I bet you are a Republican, or worse a so-called Libertarian. My favorite memory of the last election was the 1 Republican who went to the NAACP event out of the 11 old white guys vying for Prez. The others figured they'd actually solidify the bigot vote by not going. Much of the right wingers' gun fancy is based upon racism/bigotry too. But that's another topic. No sane person needs an "assualt weapon". The Constitution did not contemplate citizens owning weapons for mass killing. The sooner we face that fact, the better. Like I've said before, my six shooter and machete are plenty protection for me and most others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoyt Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I've always wondered what Jesus looked like under the "right wing version" of Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FennRx Posted March 15, 2009 Author Share Posted March 15, 2009 still waiting for a definition of assault rifle. as usual, you ignore the posts that call you out. the AR15 fires the .223, which many rifles use. i have never heard Libtards scream about those rifles? and why? because the AR15 looks like an M16 and therefore is the same as an M16. should all rifles that fire the .223 should be outlawed? is anyone who owns any of these rifles insane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I've always wondered what Jesus looked like under the "right wing version" of Christianity. That pic looks a lot like the pics of Osama Binladen with his Ak-47. Just an observation. Both pics are used to motivate crazy people who will do anything for their agenda/ ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfpup Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I've always wondered what Jesus looked like under the "right wing version" of Christianity. Except Jesus was black, wasn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 still waiting for a definition of assault rifle. as usual' date=' you ignore the posts that call you out. the AR15 fires the .223, which many rifles use. i have never heard Libtards scream about those rifles? and why? because the AR15 [i']looks[/i] like an M16 and therefore is the same as an M16. should all rifles that fire the .223 should be outlawed? is anyone who owns any of these rifles insane? Fenn I don't know if you noticed. I have nothing against gun ownership. Regardless of what others want to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.