A LOOK AT THE LEGENDARY SINGING STARS DaQuan Bowers

[chace1986]

Take it to the cove...

[spartan]

I have for many years and will be a paying member for the rest of my life.

If people want to get stupid political in here, I am game.

What is the argument in support of banning assault rifles and/or reducing magazine capacity?

Apparently it is not so common sense. If you are not in law enforcement or the military you have no need, and you should not have the right. It's as simple as that. I am a gun owner. I have weapons for hunting and for self defense. I also have dogs and a security system. I don't feel the need to get a permit to carry a gun with me every where I go. Not every American has the right to own a gun. This is not the 1700s. We are not at war with England and most of us get our meat at the local market. Guns are not a necessity of life and the people that wrote the Constitution were dealing with flintlocks, not AK-47s.

After what happened in December I thought no politician would dare argue against background checks. I was wrong. Too complicated, too expensive, and unenforceable. BS. Pass the costs along to the purchaser. We have to start somewhere. We've got nutjobs watching the news and planning ways to kill even more for bigger headlines. Isn't it worth it if we can eliminate even one Sandy Hook? Fully automatic weapons and high capacity magazines belong in our armories, not in our homes. I know they account for a very small percentage of deaths each year, but again, if it eliminates even one Sandy Hook, to me it's worth the effort.

I am not advocating taking guns away from everybody, but I am in favor of some reasonable limits and restrictions. I also favor mandatory safety training for all first time buyers. Background checks are essential. I've had two friends and two relatives die as the result of gunshot wounds. One was accidental and three were intentional. Two of the three were justifiable, and one saved me the trouble. Maybe it takes a tragic experience to make some people come to their senses. You would think a mass burial of children would be enough. You'd be wrong.

Sparky, if you are a gun owner I am thinking you ought to know you cannot buy a fully automatic weapon? At least not without a very expensive and lengthy Federal permit.

Also, with all due respect, who are you determine what I need and do not? That asides, I don't NEED an F150, but I have one because it is useful and I like it.

Last but not least, if a sensible and intelligent conversation was had, I am sure sensible and intelligent solutions would be achieved. However, the rush to implement bans and laws that have nothing to do with solving the alleged problem but are more politically than practically driven very quickly builds a strong and defensive wall.

[Dolorous Jason]

Take it to the cove...

Please , no . Then Peanut Butter Boy will get involved.

[1sparkybuc]

I have for many years and will be a paying member for the rest of my life.

If people want to get stupid political in here, I am game.

What is the argument in support of banning assault rifles and/or reducing magazine capacity?

Apparently it is not so common sense. If you are not in law enforcement or the military you have no need, and you should not have the right. It's as simple as that. I am a gun owner. I have weapons for hunting and for self defense. I also have dogs and a security system. I don't feel the need to get a permit to carry a gun with me every where I go. Not every American has the right to own a gun. This is not the 1700s. We are not at war with England and most of us get our meat at the local market. Guns are not a necessity of life and the people that wrote the Constitution were dealing with flintlocks, not AK-47s.

After what happened in December I thought no politician would dare argue against background checks. I was wrong. Too complicated, too expensive, and unenforceable. BS. Pass the costs along to the purchaser. We have to start somewhere. We've got nutjobs watching the news and planning ways to kill even more for bigger headlines. Isn't it worth it if we can eliminate even one Sandy Hook? Fully automatic weapons and high capacity magazines belong in our armories, not in our homes. I know they account for a very small percentage of deaths each year, but again, if it eliminates even one Sandy Hook, to me it's worth the effort.

I am not advocating taking guns away from everybody, but I am in favor of some reasonable limits and restrictions. I also favor mandatory safety training for all first time buyers. Background checks are essential. I've had two friends and two relatives die as the result of gunshot wounds. One was accidental and three were intentional. Two of the three were justifiable, and one saved me the trouble. Maybe it takes a tragic experience to make some people come to their senses. You would think a mass burial of children would be enough. You'd be wrong.

Sparky, if you are a gun owner I am thinking you ought to know you cannot buy a fully automatic weapon? At least not without a very expensive and lengthy Federal permit.

Also, with all due respect, who are you determine what I need and do not? That asides, I don't NEED an F150, but I have one because it is useful and I like it.

Last but not least, if a sensible and intelligent conversation was had, I am sure sensible and intelligent solutions would be achieved. However, the rush to implement bans and laws that have nothing to do with solving the alleged problem but are more politically than practically driven very quickly builds a strong and defensive wall.

All it takes is a computer to find out how to convert a semiautomatic weapon to a fully automatic weapon, and according to a recent documentary I saw on PBS, there are out there and available. I can't determine anything for anyone outside of my family, but I have earned the right to voice my opinion. If you cared about anyone other than yourself, you would agree. If you had lost a child at Sandy Hook you wouldn't be arguing against reasonable controls concerning guns. I say we should do everything possible to protect our children. You don't agree. There is no point for compromise.

[1sparkybuc]

I have for many years and will be a paying member for the rest of my life.

If people want to get stupid political in here, I am game.

What is the argument in support of banning assault rifles and/or reducing magazine capacity?

Apparently it is not so common sense. If you are not in law enforcement or the military you have no need, and you should not have the right. It's as simple as that. I am a gun owner. I have weapons for hunting and for self defense. I also have dogs and a security system. I don't feel the need to get a permit to carry a gun with me every where I go. Not every American has the right to own a gun. This is not the 1700s. We are not at war with England and most of us get our meat at the local market. Guns are not a necessity of life and the people that wrote the Constitution were dealing with flintlocks, not AK-47s.

After what happened in December I thought no politician would dare argue against background checks. I was wrong. Too complicated, too expensive, and unenforceable. BS. Pass the costs along to the purchaser. We have to start somewhere. We've got nutjobs watching the news and planning ways to kill even more for bigger headlines. Isn't it worth it if we can eliminate even one Sandy Hook? Fully automatic weapons and high capacity magazines belong in our armories, not in our homes. I know they account for a very small percentage of deaths each year, but again, if it eliminates even one Sandy Hook, to me it's worth the effort.

I am not advocating taking guns away from everybody, but I am in favor of some reasonable limits and restrictions. I also favor mandatory safety training for all first time buyers. Background checks are essential. I've had two friends and two relatives die as the result of gunshot wounds. One was accidental and three were intentional. Two of the three were justifiable, and one saved me the trouble. Maybe it takes a tragic experience to make some people come to their senses. You would think a mass burial of children would be enough. You'd be wrong.

All of our personal feelings aside, do you know why it was and still is seen as so important for the citizens to not lose their gun rights?

The learned lesson that the nature of government is to expand until it's out of control and the citizens will need to defend themselves from their own government.

That is why, regardless of how any of us feel.

Reread the first sentence of my last paragraph.

[Biggs3535]

I have for many years and will be a paying member for the rest of my life.

If people want to get stupid political in here, I am game.

What is the argument in support of banning assault rifles and/or reducing magazine capacity?

Apparently it is not so common sense. If you are not in law enforcement or the military you have no need, and you should not have the right. It's as simple as that. I am a gun owner. I have weapons for hunting and for self defense. I also have dogs and a security system. I don't feel the need to get a permit to carry a gun with me every where I go. Not every American has the right to own a gun. This is not the 1700s. We are not at war with England and most of us get our meat at the local market. Guns are not a necessity of life and the people that wrote the Constitution were dealing with flintlocks, not AK-47s.

After what happened in December I thought no politician would dare argue against background checks. I was wrong. Too complicated, too expensive, and unenforceable. BS. Pass the costs along to the purchaser. We have to start somewhere. We've got nutjobs watching the news and planning ways to kill even more for bigger headlines. Isn't it worth it if we can eliminate even one Sandy Hook? Fully automatic weapons and high capacity magazines belong in our armories, not in our homes. I know they account for a very small percentage of deaths each year, but again, if it eliminates even one Sandy Hook, to me it's worth the effort.

I am not advocating taking guns away from everybody, but I am in favor of some reasonable limits and restrictions. I also favor mandatory safety training for all first time buyers. Background checks are essential. I've had two friends and two relatives die as the result of gunshot wounds. One was accidental and three were intentional. Two of the three were justifiable, and one saved me the trouble. Maybe it takes a tragic experience to make some people come to their senses. You would think a mass burial of children would be enough. You'd be wrong.

Sparky, if you are a gun owner I am thinking you ought to know you cannot buy a fully automatic weapon? At least not without a very expensive and lengthy Federal permit.

Also, with all due respect, who are you determine what I need and do not? That asides, I don't NEED an F150, but I have one because it is useful and I like it.

Last but not least, if a sensible and intelligent conversation was had, I am sure sensible and intelligent solutions would be achieved. However, the rush to implement bans and laws that have nothing to do with solving the alleged problem but are more politically than practically driven very quickly builds a strong and defensive wall.

All it takes is a computer to find out how to convert a semiautomatic weapon to a fully automatic weapon, and according to a recent documentary I saw on PBS, there are out there and available. I can't determine anything for anyone outside of my family, but I have earned the right to voice my opinion. If you cared about anyone other than yourself, you would agree. If you had lost a child at Sandy Hook you wouldn't be arguing against reasonable controls concerning guns. I say we should do everything possible to protect our children. You don't agree. There is no point for compromise.

You talk outta your ass quite often.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/28/the-problem-is-not-gun-laws-watch-the-emotional-speech-by-a-sandy-hook-victims-dad-that-got-a-standing-ovation/

[1sparkybuc]

I have for many years and will be a paying member for the rest of my life.

If people want to get stupid political in here, I am game.

What is the argument in support of banning assault rifles and/or reducing magazine capacity?

Apparently it is not so common sense. If you are not in law enforcement or the military you have no need, and you should not have the right. It's as simple as that. I am a gun owner. I have weapons for hunting and for self defense. I also have dogs and a security system. I don't feel the need to get a permit to carry a gun with me every where I go. Not every American has the right to own a gun. This is not the 1700s. We are not at war with England and most of us get our meat at the local market. Guns are not a necessity of life and the people that wrote the Constitution were dealing with flintlocks, not AK-47s.

After what happened in December I thought no politician would dare argue against background checks. I was wrong. Too complicated, too expensive, and unenforceable. BS. Pass the costs along to the purchaser. We have to start somewhere. We've got nutjobs watching the news and planning ways to kill even more for bigger headlines. Isn't it worth it if we can eliminate even one Sandy Hook? Fully automatic weapons and high capacity magazines belong in our armories, not in our homes. I know they account for a very small percentage of deaths each year, but again, if it eliminates even one Sandy Hook, to me it's worth the effort.

I am not advocating taking guns away from everybody, but I am in favor of some reasonable limits and restrictions. I also favor mandatory safety training for all first time buyers. Background checks are essential. I've had two friends and two relatives die as the result of gunshot wounds. One was accidental and three were intentional. Two of the three were justifiable, and one saved me the trouble. Maybe it takes a tragic experience to make some people come to their senses. You would think a mass burial of children would be enough. You'd be wrong.

Sparky, if you are a gun owner I am thinking you ought to know you cannot buy a fully automatic weapon? At least not without a very expensive and lengthy Federal permit.

Also, with all due respect, who are you determine what I need and do not? That asides, I don't NEED an F150, but I have one because it is useful and I like it.

Last but not least, if a sensible and intelligent conversation was had, I am sure sensible and intelligent solutions would be achieved. However, the rush to implement bans and laws that have nothing to do with solving the alleged problem but are more politically than practically driven very quickly builds a strong and defensive wall.

All it takes is a computer to find out how to convert a semiautomatic weapon to a fully automatic weapon, and according to a recent documentary I saw on PBS, there are out there and available. I can't determine anything for anyone outside of my family, but I have earned the right to voice my opinion. If you cared about anyone other than yourself, you would agree. If you had lost a child at Sandy Hook you wouldn't be arguing against reasonable controls concerning guns. I say we should do everything possible to protect our children. You don't agree. There is no point for compromise.

You talk outta your ass quite often.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/28/the-problem-is-not-gun-laws-watch-the-emotional-speech-by-a-sandy-hook-victims-dad-that-got-a-standing-ovation/

I'm not at all surprised that a person like you would object to reasonable controls. The key word is reasonable and you are not, never have been, and unlikely to ever be. All in all, you are an **CENSORED**, and nothing comes out of you worth listening to.

[chace1986]

"If you cared about anyone other than yourself, you would agree."

"You don't agree with me, therefore, you root for children to die in a shooting massacre."

[Biggs3535]

"If you cared about anyone other than yourself, you would agree."

"You don't agree with me, therefore, you root for children to die in a shooting massacre."

He's just being reasonable.

[VinBucFan]

"If you cared about anyone other than yourself, you would agree."

"You don't agree with me, therefore, you root for children to die in a shooting massacre."

He's just being reasonable.

Another "it's not me, it's everyone else" post

[Biggs3535]

"If you cared about anyone other than yourself, you would agree."

"You don't agree with me, therefore, you root for children to die in a shooting massacre."

He's just being reasonable.

Another "it's not me, it's everyone else" post

"What are posts retards make, Alex?"

[VinBucFan]

Buggsy - multiple suspensions, yet it's "everyone else". Lol

[1sparkybuc]

"If you cared about anyone other than yourself, you would agree."

"You don't agree with me, therefore, you root for children to die in a shooting massacre."

You are another one that lacks the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. It must be very frustrating for you.

[chace1986]

"If you cared about anyone other than yourself, you would agree."

"You don't agree with me, therefore, you root for children to die in a shooting massacre."

You are another one that lacks the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. It must be very frustrating for you.

You set such a fine example, Mr. 6 decades.

Reasonable, my ass.

[Biggs3535]

Buggsy - multiple suspensions, yet it's "everyone else". Lol

If you keep saying it, it may become true.