Political discussions about everything
By Leroy
#18157
BilboBagend wrote:Go ahead. The person selected to present this defense of assault weapons had no such examples. It speaks loudly either for her dishonesty or her incompetence. Much like you, liar leroy.
I notice how you refuse to address posts, only attack.
By Leroy
#18164
BilboBagend wrote:Go ahead. The person selected to present this defense of assault weapons had no such examples. It speaks loudly either for her dishonesty or her incompetence. Much like you, liar leroy.
What speaks loudly is your ignorance and hate for you fellow man.
By sillydaddy
#18272
Those that want stricter background checks and more gun bans don't know what they're saying. They probably think that they would have no problem getting a gun permit. But what if someone up there tells you no, because they simply don't want you to have one. Then what? It's not about the guns, or the permits. It's about control. If we give them what they want this time, what will they want the next time a nut kills.
User avatar
By brandon
#18279
Hmmmm, discussing wether to allow our government to keep track of and tell us which guns we can and cannot own in case they become tyrannical and we need to defend our freedoms by overthrowing it/them.


Really? :?
By BilboBagend
#18282
Aw, liar leroy makes another dishonest attack projecting his own hatred and lack of values on others. How consistent. How paranoid psychotic, how narcissistic, how filled with malice.
By Leroy
#18285
BilboBagend wrote:Aw, liar leroy makes another dishonest attack projecting his own hatred and lack of values on others. How consistent. How paranoid psychotic, how narcissistic, how filled with malice.
Have you noticed how Dildo always sides with the Criminals and the Fascists instead of the People and Innocent, and how he's constantly against enabling women to protect themselves.
By 2X8
#18324
BilboBagend wrote:Connecticut police say that they would have been unable to stop the shooter at Newtown, CT. The type of weapon would have rendered their bulletproof vests ineffective.

Thus the only actions that would have prevented the mass massacre of innocent children would have been background checks, restrictions on weapons, ammunition, and large capacity magazines.

Uhhhhh

dildo,

I don't think there would have been a check since he STOLE the guns....
By elklindo69
#18326
2X8 wrote:
BilboBagend wrote:Connecticut police say that they would have been unable to stop the shooter at Newtown, CT. The type of weapon would have rendered their bulletproof vests ineffective.

Thus the only actions that would have prevented the mass massacre of innocent children would have been background checks, restrictions on weapons, ammunition, and large capacity magazines.

Uhhhhh

dildo,

I don't think there would have been a check since he STOLE the guns....
The NRA supports the gun show loophole on background checks. So whether he stole the weapons or obtained them at a gun show. The guy still ended up with an assault rifle...
By sillydaddy
#18344
For those of you who are so determined to ban assault type weapons. Here's something for you. Does anyone remember what type of weapon Hasan used in the Fort Hood killings back in 2009. He killed 13 and wounded 29 . Witnesses say it sounded like an M-16. Also some witnesses at the firing range where Hasan practiced said he could hit silhouette targets at 100 yards with the same weapon.
By Leroy
#18347
sillydaddy wrote:For those of you who are so determined to ban assault type weapons. Here's something for you. Does anyone remember what type of weapon Hasan used in the Fort Hood killings back in 2009. He killed 13 and wounded 29 . Witnesses say it sounded like an M-16. Also some witnesses at the firing range where Hasan practiced said he could hit silhouette targets at 100 yards with the same weapon.
And if our troops had not been rendered victims by liberal thinking, they would have been carrying loaded weapons, just like they do in other nations, just like other nations troops do, and would have stopped him before he killed more than a few.
By 2X8
#18359
One comment about the '6-shot revolver being the last choice'.

I'm a fan of revolvers. While there are many advantages to a semi auto pistol there is no denying that the revolver has the advantage when it comes to misfires (rare) or jamming (sometimes not so rare).

If the semi-auto jams or misfires, you are probably out of luck. With a revolver -- even one that has been in a dusty drawer or under a bed for years -- your next shot is only a squeeze away, even after a misfire.


On topic: In (not so) Great Britain, registration was followed by confiscation. As I have heard from others. If The US can pass laws to confiscate personally owned GOLD (which was done in the past) then they certainly can pass a law to confiscate guns. This Pres seems more than willing to ignore court decisions and the constitution, so the ground work for confiscation is already in place.
By Leroy
#18372
2X8 wrote:One comment about the '6-shot revolver being the last choice'.

I'm a fan of revolvers. While there are many advantages to a semi auto pistol there is no denying that the revolver has the advantage when it comes to misfires (rare) or jamming (sometimes not so rare).

If the semi-auto jams or misfires, you are probably out of luck. With a revolver -- even one that has been in a dusty drawer or under a bed for years -- your next shot is only a squeeze away, even after a misfire.
.
I like the revolver also, but, as the ones I own are long barrel, they don't make a good choice for most of the family, but we do understand the issues with a semi. I read about one chap that stored his under his bed, had not even cleaned it for years, one shot was all he got and then it jammed. I clean ours weekly, like taking out the trash, it's just a basic chore.
By Leroy
#18376
Just a little interesting factoid - a local walmart in our area sold 1800 boxes of 9mm ammunition in just one shift, according to a friend that works in their sporting goods department - it was all gone in the same day they put it out.
By snakeoil
#18426
An emotional father who lost his six-year-old son in the Newtown school shooting has been heckled by pro-gun activists as he testified at a local hearing on firearm control.

Neil Heslin, whose son Jesse was killed in last month's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, questioned the need for any civilian to own semiautomatic, military-style weapon at the state legislative subcommittee hearing in Hartford Connecticut on Monday.

But he was shouted down by members of the audience who shouted 'The Second Amendment' as he spoke.
http://smd12364.newsvine.com/_news/2013 ... at-hearing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
By snakeoil
#18428
An emotional father who lost his six-year-old son in the Newtown school shooting has been heckled by pro-gun activists as he testified at a local hearing on firearm control.

Neil Heslin, whose son Jesse was killed in last month's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, questioned the need for any civilian to own semiautomatic, military-style weapon at the state legislative subcommittee hearing in Hartford Connecticut on Monday.

But he was shouted down by members of the audience who shouted 'The Second Amendment' as he spoke.
http://smd12364.newsvine.com/_news/2013 ... at-hearing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
By Leroy
#18430
What people don't seem to understand is that a Shotgun can put more killing force down range, in one of these "school shootings" than any AR-15 can, and the Shotgun can do it in 1/10th the time.

Consider that 5 shots of 00-Buck takes about 3.5 seconds to shoot, and that's 45 projectiles launched. The same thing from an AR doesn't happen nearly as quick and not nearly as lethal per shot.

Consider this: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/video ... ns-ar-15s/

and here is the father of a Sandy Hook student - he's got it right:

"
A father of a Sandy Hook Elementary School student testified on January 28, 2013 in a Working Group Public Hearing at the Connecticut State Capitol on gun violence prevention. While Bill Stevens’ fifth grade daughter was not harmed in the incident, she was one of the children that were in “lock down” during the shooting and following it. However, Mr. Stevens said that his daughter’s friend’s little sister was one of the children that was murdered because, “when 911 and ‘lock down’ were not enough to protect her from an evil person, not protect her from an ‘assault rifle’ or some type of an inanimate object, but from an evil person.”

In speaking to those listening, Stevens said that the security at the school was “quite different from the elaborate security you all enjoy here at the Capitol.”

He then added sarcasm to make the point, “It was fun getting frisked on the way in.”

He then stated that he was not there to quote statistics, the number of lives saved with a gun or even the economic impact. He also said he wasn’t there to discuss “asinine legislation” gun control laws that were being talked about.

So what was he there to do? He read from the Connecticut State Constitution. Specifically, he cited Section 15:

SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

As he cited the Constitution, applause erupted from those listening.

“There’s no registration,” he said. “There’s no permitting. There’s no background checks. It’s quite clear.”

Stevens said he was “shocked” by some of the testimony he had heard during the day. He reminded those listening that there is a Constitution and the Bill of Rights and a process whereby the Constitution can be amended. He also said the same went for the State Constitution.

Stevens declared,

“These rights are inalienable and are endowed by our Creator, not you politicians, to all citizens regardless of gender, race, or creed.”

He also said there was such a thing as “due process” and “legislation is not due process.” Stevens said, “You want to take my rights away, let’s go to court.”

Stevens went on to warn that passing legislation before all the facts about Sandy Hook were known, which he said wouldn’t be known till the summer, could not be done in “good faith.”

He also pointed out that gun ownership is a right and should not make gun owners suspect simply because of the numbers or kinds of guns they own or even how much ammunition they have.

“My guns are not dangerous,” Stevens said. “They are at home, locked up, collecting dust and cat hair.”

“But criminals and tyrants,” he continued, “tyrants especially, beware, ‘lock down’ is not an option at the Stevens’ residence and 911 will be dialed after the security of my home has been established!”

Stevens asked, “Why is that same security that my daughter enjoys at home with her dad not available at school in Newtown? That is what you should be considering, not making her dad a criminal.”

“Charlton Heston mad the phrase, ‘From my cold dead hands’ famous,” Stevens thundered. “And I will tell you here today, you will take my ability to protect my Victoria from my cold dead hands!”

Stevens slammed his fist on the desk and walked out to applause from the citizens listening.
"

Is there a bigger cuck piece of shit?

Green Energy

You Clean energy guys shot yourself in the foot, w[…]

Secret Slut

When I was dating my wife I discovered she had an […]

Red state gun murder rate....

So that's when Sparkles was recruited as a traitor[…]

Big Beautiful Ballroom

What a putz. A sparkle pony patriot. Worthless wea[…]

Farewell Tour

Superb thread. When the history of the early days[…]

Exposing wife in phoenix

Any interested voyeurs. We are looking to expose[…]