Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 171 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21938

      http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/us/oregon-college-shooting/index.html :-[

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Hmmm…we can’t go more than a day without pushing an agenda, can we?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Hmmm...we can't go more than a day without pushing an agenda, can we?

      think about how ironic that comment is^^^^ my post usually track the events. no events, no "agenda" to push, right? wow, that wasn't the best comment you've ever made, but at least you didn't go with the obvious "gun free zone" lol

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      “Its just mental health and not the guns” EXCEPThere: 13 dead, 20 injured  . .  report of 4 guns (often early reports are wrong)Denver movie theater:  I think dozen killed, as many as 50 injured  . .  the guy had many gunsLouisiana movie theater: 2 killed, a couple injured (I think?) . . . 2 gunsTennessee movie theater:  zero killed . . . no gun (bb gun) yeah . . . just mental health issues

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      my post usually track the events. no events, no "agenda" to push, right?

      Not 5 minutes later...

      "Its just mental health and not the guns" EXCEPThere: 13 dead, 20 injured  . .  report of 4 guns (often early reports are wrong)Denver movie theater:  I think dozen killed, as many as 50 injured  . .  the guy had many gunsLouisiana movie theater: 2 killed, a couple injured (I think?) . . . 2 gunsTennessee movie theater:  zero killed . . . no gun (bb gun) yeah . . . just mental health issues

      Thanks, buddy!

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      my post usually track the events. no events, no "agenda" to push, right?

      Not 5 minutes later...

      "Its just mental health and not the guns" EXCEPThere: 13 dead, 20 injured  . .  report of 4 guns (often early reports are wrong)Denver movie theater:  I think dozen killed, as many as 50 injured  . .  the guy had many gunsLouisiana movie theater: 2 killed, a couple injured (I think?) . . . 2 gunsTennessee movie theater:  zero killed . . . no gun (bb gun) yeah . . . just mental health issues

      Thanks, buddy!huh, the thread was created because of the event.  You undercut yourself by posting what you did because you think I post a lot well that's because there is a lot of gun violencelolnever mind, carry on

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2436

      It’s been reported HOURS AGO that the gunman asked each person what religion they were.If they answered "Christian", they were shot in the head.Of course, Obama knows this..... but it's the NRA's fault. Disgusting.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      It's been reported HOURS AGO that the gunman asked each person what religion they were.If they answered "Christian", they were shot in the head.Of course, Obama knows this..... but it's the NRA's fault. Disgusting.

      I think Haldol is the name of the drug

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1419

      It's been reported HOURS AGO that the gunman asked each person what religion they were.If they answered "Christian", they were shot in the head.Of course, Obama knows this..... but it's the NRA's fault. Disgusting.

      dude based on your posting history, I think you vastly mischaracterize the role of the presidentanyways, the kid was on 4chan talking about it before handhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3256735/Don-t-school-tomorrow-northwest-Disturbing-warning-message-appears-4Chan-night-shooting-Oregon-college.htmlI know its dailymail, so take it with a grain of salt, but they're probably the only ones that are going to touch 4chan... now you want to talk about mental health issues... the line between trolling and reality... the line between pathetic internet user and normal kid... good f*ckin luck trying to pull that grilled cheese sandwich apartsorry chronic, not everything's as easy as "fuggin muzlum terrorists again... fuggin dang o'bummer just wont call it what it is"it's deeper than that... it MAY contain a hint of it (I don't know anything about the actual kid yet)... and its deeper than just gun control... and deeper than just mental health... this kind of stuff (and the kids egging him on, either jokingly or not... and you'd have to go check out 4chan and 9gag for yourself to really see how deep the rabbit hole is...), this kind of stuff is a strange societal, f*cked up experiment of sorts... combine a strange, over stimulated, over exposed, oversexualized, overmedicated, weird developing underbelly of society, that creates these pockets of strange disillusioned, disconnected, undeveloped people; combined with the anonymity of the internet; combined with the relative easy access of weapons...I mean look at this anonymous kid encouraging him:"Another message pleaded 'Make us proud anon' while another read, 'Kill them all for us.' But it appears some people using the controversial message board did not see a real intent behind the alleged post.A user wrote: 'In this very clearly hypothetical situation you actually shoot people in your high school or college, try to aim for s***** people at least. Spare the kind fools, humdrum druggies, and churchies and go for he whom really terrorises the populous: Chads and Stacies who have scorned many and yourself.The post continued: 'You'll do the world a favour by purging part of the population that only exists to consume resources and act for themselves.' "there just is no simple answer to this weird sh*t... and we're seeing the results of the experiment begin to unfold... and whatever answer does come if this kind of sh*t continues, it probably won't be good for the rest of us (internet censorship, limitations of citizens' rights, etc).  Or maybe nothing happens.  And maybe those 4chan and 9gag kids grow up and grow out of it... but there are somethings you just can't "unknow" or "unsee", and these kids are all exposed to it daily, and they're bound to be affected by it.  And these days, with the weird psyco-active "medications" these kids are being filled with, and the disconnectedness they feel, consequences no longer matteralso, pardon my rambling, etc - been writing for over 8 hours and the wheels are starting to fall off.  hope my point comes across

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I am no fan of Obama but this is undeniable truth:

      "How can you make the argument with a straight face that more guns will make us safer?" he asked, noting that there's about one gun for every man, woman and child in the U.S."When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer," he said. "When Americans are killed in hurricanes and floods, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities. We have seat-belt laws because we know it saves lives.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1151

      I am no fan of Obama but this is undeniable truth:

      "How can you make the argument with a straight face that more guns will make us safer?" he asked, noting that there's about one gun for every man, woman and child in the U.S."When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer," he said. "When Americans are killed in hurricanes and floods, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities. We have seat-belt laws because we know it saves lives.

      Cool, now help me out here.This kid was 20, and Oregon state law is you must be 21+ to purchase/possess a firearm. How exactly would more laws or tighter restrictions stop someone who would already acquire a firearm illegally?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I am no fan of Obama but this is undeniable truth:

      "How can you make the argument with a straight face that more guns will make us safer?" he asked, noting that there's about one gun for every man, woman and child in the U.S."When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer," he said. "When Americans are killed in hurricanes and floods, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities. We have seat-belt laws because we know it saves lives.

      Cool, now help me out here.This kid was 20, and Oregon state law is you must be 21+ to purchase/possess a firearm. How exactly would more laws or tighter restrictions stop someone who would already acquire a firearm illegally?

      Help yourself. It's easy in la la land

      A law enforcement official identified the gunman as Chris Harper Mercer, 26.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I am no fan of Obama but this is undeniable truth:

      "How can you make the argument with a straight face that more guns will make us safer?" he asked, noting that there's about one gun for every man, woman and child in the U.S."When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer," he said. "When Americans are killed in hurricanes and floods, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities. We have seat-belt laws because we know it saves lives.

      Cool, now help me out here.This kid was 20, and Oregon state law is you must be 21+ to purchase/possess a firearm. How exactly would more laws or tighter restrictions stop someone who would already acquire a firearm illegally?

      Help yourself. It's easy in la la land

      A law enforcement official identified the gunman as Chris Harper Mercer, 26.

      Weird. First report I read this morning in la la land was that a suspect was in custody.Btw, what kind of firearm, how many shots were fired, what was the caliber used, how was the firearm acquired?Just curious...

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1419

      I am no fan of Obama but this is undeniable truth:

      "How can you make the argument with a straight face that more guns will make us safer?" he asked, noting that there's about one gun for every man, woman and child in the U.S."When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer," he said. "When Americans are killed in hurricanes and floods, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities. We have seat-belt laws because we know it saves lives.

      Cool, now help me out here.This kid was 20, and Oregon state law is you must be 21+ to purchase/possess a firearm. How exactly would more laws or tighter restrictions stop someone who would already acquire a firearm illegally?

      Help yourself. It's easy in la la land

      A law enforcement official identified the gunman as Chris Harper Mercer, 26.

      Weird. First report I read this morning in la la land was that a suspect was in custody.Btw, what kind of firearm, how many shots were fired, what was the caliber used, how was the firearm acquired?Just curious...

      They don't have google in la la land?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1151

      Help yourself. It's easy in la la land

      A law enforcement official identified the gunman as Chris Harper Mercer, 26.

      Obviously I was going by early reports who reported he was 20, even mentioned in your dailymail link. Nice gotcha moment, though.The jist of the original comment still stands. There are tight drug laws yet you can buy drugs virtually everywhere. How exactly will more gun laws prevent criminals and people set on acquiring weapons illegally? I am all for better background investigations and mental health checks, but it seems silly to think laws will stop criminals when they don't obey them to begin with.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I am no fan of Obama but this is undeniable truth:

      "How can you make the argument with a straight face that more guns will make us safer?" he asked, noting that there's about one gun for every man, woman and child in the U.S."When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer," he said. "When Americans are killed in hurricanes and floods, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities. We have seat-belt laws because we know it saves lives.

      Cool, now help me out here.This kid was 20, and Oregon state law is you must be 21+ to purchase/possess a firearm. How exactly would more laws or tighter restrictions stop someone who would already acquire a firearm illegally?

      Help yourself. It's easy in la la land

      A law enforcement official identified the gunman as Chris Harper Mercer, 26.

      Weird. First report I read this morning in la la land was that a suspect was in custody.Btw, what kind of firearm, how many shots were fired, what was the caliber used, how was the firearm acquired?Just curious...

      early report are 4 guns at least 2 handguns and one long gun, but you're simultaneously criticizing early reporting AND asking for detail from the early reporting?By the way, how many shots were fired? Fair to say at least 10? ;-)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Help yourself. It's easy in la la land

      A law enforcement official identified the gunman as Chris Harper Mercer, 26.

      Obviously I was going by early reports who reported he was 20, even mentioned in your dailymail link. Nice gotcha moment, though.The jist of the original comment still stands. There are tight drug laws yet you can buy drugs virtually everywhere.

      if you want to do the drug comparison,  you can buy drugs illegally in many places because there is a black market.  Drugs only purpose is not to kill.  Drugs cause many problems, but the sole purpose isn't to kill.  We TRY to do all that we reasonably can to reduce the impact of drugs on society.  By comparison, guns are for killing. You can buy guns LEGALLY almost anywhere and that includes if you are violent felon.  That makes sense?People like you raise the same red herring every time. In essence, the argument is that no gun laws make sense unless they are foolproof.  There is a not a single other "public ill" that is treated that way.  But the reason gun people make that absurd argument is that they really don't want to lose THEIR guns.  "The 30,000 deaths or so a year are worth the right to have MY guns."We requires licenses and air bags and seat belts to drive a car. There are laws all over the highways (speed limits, stop lights).  You have to register your car and carry insurance  People are killed in cars everyday.  We take very reasonable step to reduce the death caused by cars because cars are essential to life in the US. By comparison, guns are not even close to essential, they have a very low social utility, their sole purpose is to kill . . . and so unlike cars they are virtually unregulated?  yeah, that makes sense.Its a question of balance and the balance is way off because a motivated and well-funded minority holds sway in Congress so that they can sell a lot of guns

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1151

      Help yourself. It's easy in la la land

      A law enforcement official identified the gunman as Chris Harper Mercer, 26.

      Obviously I was going by early reports who reported he was 20, even mentioned in your dailymail link. Nice gotcha moment, though.The jist of the original comment still stands. There are tight drug laws yet you can buy drugs virtually everywhere.

      if you want to do the drug comparison,  you can buy drugs illegally in many places because there is a black market.  Drugs only purpose is not to kill.  Drugs cause many problems, but the sole purpose isn't to kill.  We TRY to do all that we reasonably can to reduce the impact of drugs on society.  By comparison, guns are for killing. You can buy guns LEGALLY almost anywhere and that includes if you are violent felon.  That makes sense?People like you raise the same red herring every time. In essence, the argument is that no gun laws make sense unless they are foolproof.  There is a not a single other "public ill" that is treated that way.  But the reason gun people make that absurd argument is that they really don't want to lose THEIR guns.  "The 30,000 deaths or so a year are worth the right to have MY guns."We requires licenses and air bags and seat belts to drive a car. There are laws all over the highways (speed limits, stop lights).  You have to register your car and carry insurance  People are killed in cars everyday.  We take very reasonable step to reduce the death caused by cars because cars are essential to life in the US. By comparison, guns are not even close to essential, they have a very low social utility, their sole purpose is to kill . . . and so unlike cars they are virtually unregulated?  yeah, that makes sense.Its a question of balance and the balance is way off because a motivated and well-funded minority holds sway in Congress so that they can sell a lot of guns

      Where exactly can a violent felon legally purchase a firearm? The only thing close during a quick google search shows a link to vpc.org that states the felon can apply to the ATF. If thats what you are referring to, then theres a problem with the ATF, a government agency. I'm also curious what steps you would personally like put to place. Its one thing to complain about something, its another to put forth a common sense resolution.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Help yourself. It's easy in la la land

      A law enforcement official identified the gunman as Chris Harper Mercer, 26.

      Obviously I was going by early reports who reported he was 20, even mentioned in your dailymail link. Nice gotcha moment, though.The jist of the original comment still stands. There are tight drug laws yet you can buy drugs virtually everywhere.

      if you want to do the drug comparison,  you can buy drugs illegally in many places because there is a black market.  Drugs only purpose is not to kill.  Drugs cause many problems, but the sole purpose isn't to kill.  We TRY to do all that we reasonably can to reduce the impact of drugs on society.  By comparison, guns are for killing. You can buy guns LEGALLY almost anywhere and that includes if you are violent felon.  That makes sense?People like you raise the same red herring every time. In essence, the argument is that no gun laws make sense unless they are foolproof.  There is a not a single other "public ill" that is treated that way.  But the reason gun people make that absurd argument is that they really don't want to lose THEIR guns.  "The 30,000 deaths or so a year are worth the right to have MY guns."We requires licenses and air bags and seat belts to drive a car. There are laws all over the highways (speed limits, stop lights).  You have to register your car and carry insurance  People are killed in cars everyday.  We take very reasonable step to reduce the death caused by cars because cars are essential to life in the US. By comparison, guns are not even close to essential, they have a very low social utility, their sole purpose is to kill . . . and so unlike cars they are virtually unregulated?  yeah, that makes sense.Its a question of balance and the balance is way off because a motivated and well-funded minority holds sway in Congress so that they can sell a lot of guns

      Where exactly can a violent felon legally purchase a firearm?

      from any private seller or, if you like to buy online, from any private seller on armslist or any one of a number of sites.Again, this highlights the lunacy that occurs when the laws are dictated by the lobby.  So, with shrinking gun ownership in the best market (the US), the gun industry needs a good secondary market so that people can get rid of old "toys" to get new "toys."  As a result, a felon cannot legally buy a gun inside a brick and mortar gun shop  BUT can buy a gun right in the parkignlot from a private person.So, even if you are out on bond today for shooting someone yesterday all you need is $1500 and to click "I agree" and you can have this whole AR-15 package:http://www.armslist.com/posts/4743496/tampa-rifles-for-sale--ultimate-ar-15-package-dealand 600 rounds of ammo!wooohoo!!!!!That INTENTIONAL gap in the law makes no sense from a Public Health perspective. It makes a ton of sense if you want to sell a lot of guns.  Welcome to America.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      One of the dumbest defense you hear from gun types is “its mental health not the guns. ” Obviously, its both but the reason the “mental health” argument is stupid is because someone only shows up on the gun database if they have been ADJUDICATED incompetent.  Newsweek just addressed this absurdity:

      Efforts aimed at keeping the mentally ill from guns have done little to lower the overall crime rate. In 2001, Connecticut added patients who had been involuntarily committed to mental institutions to the  National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The result? Violent crime among those persons dropped by over 50 percent, but since they constitute such a small percentage of the criminal population only 14 violent crimes were prevented—not 14 mass shootings, just 14 violent crimes. That’s good as far as it goes, but Swanson notes: “It's like if you had a vaccine that was going to work against a particular public health epidemic, but only seven percent of the people got the vaccine. It might work great for them, but it's not going to affect the epidemic.”

      Gun types HATE to hear this but its easier to restrict access to guns than it is to preemptively cut off a crazy person before a mass murder. Any mass murder is crazy, most were seeking help just like this guy apparently, BUT THAT IS A MILLION MILES AWAY FROM BEING COMMITTED OR ADJUDICATED INCOMPETENT

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      Even if you could absolutely prove that a few thousand lives would be saved per year, those lives would be worth it to the ammosexuals. Their lives are expendable. Every firearm that is out there needs to stay on the market, because tyranny is imminent.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Even if you could absolutely prove that a few thousand lives would be saved per year, those lives would be worth it to the ammosexuals. Their lives are expendable. Every firearm that is out there needs to stay on the market, because tyranny is imminent.

      Yep and any measure to reduce gun violence is "really" just "an effort to take MY guns."

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      Yup. f06.png"You give them liberal bastards a inch, and they'll take a God damn mile"

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2436

      Notice all these mass killings take place in GUN FREE ZONES.Want to cut the numbers to 1/10 of what they are??Make ConsealCarry more widespread.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      297 shootings so far this year involving multiple injuries or deaths….You seriously gonna try to sell that ALL of these events are taking place in gun free zones?Nope. Quite the opposite actually. In the majority of these scenarios, citizens were able to carry.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      I am a gun owner and have a CWP, I actually don’t know how many guns are in our house.  We enjoy target shooting with hand and long guns, and go clay shooting with shotguns.  However owning a gun does not make me feel safer, the thought of defending myself and shooting another human being as never crossed my mind.A lot is made of the 2nd amendment but in the 21st century is irrelevant.  Maybe 200+ years ago an armed militia might have been able to stand up to a musket bearing government but that is not the case today.  The funny thing is the 2nd amendment was influenced by the English Bill of Rights from 1689.  Different time........different laws and rights.  Its time to take a serious look at gun ownership in the USA.  More controls are needed, and ultimately the US needs to adjust to the 21st century.   

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      297 shootings so far this year involving multiple injuries or deaths....You seriously gonna try to sell that ALL of these events are taking place in gun free zones?Nope. Quite the opposite actually. In the majority of these scenarios, citizens were able to carry.

      The gun lobby make a lot of the right to carry and the good it might do.  There are very few instances where a law abiding citizen actually do some good with their concealed weapons.  Many gun owners are driven by fear and bogeymen and don't have the balls to run towards the noise of gun shots.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      Again, this highlights the lunacy that occurs when the laws are dictated by the lobby.  So, with shrinking gun ownership in the best market (the US), the gun industry needs a good secondary market so that people can get rid of old "toys" to get new "toys."  As a result, a felon cannot legally buy a gun inside a brick and mortar gun shop  BUT can buy a gun right in the parkignlot from a private person.

      Lunacy indeed.  I have sat next to a couple of dubious looking young guys at a gun show that bought 18 cheap 9mm semi automatics.  No questions asked and although the sale is tracked in the gun shops system its in no other database.  They were very obviously buying the guns for fellow gang members with criminal records or simply to sell for a profit on the black market.As a very minimum all gun sales should be tracked in a national database.  If I buy a gun and sell it on all the same background checks should occur.  If you need to sell a used gun it should be through a gun dealer (for a small fee)who does the background checks and ensures the registration of the gun is tracked.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      Again, this highlights the lunacy that occurs when the laws are dictated by the lobby.  So, with shrinking gun ownership in the best market (the US), the gun industry needs a good secondary market so that people can get rid of old "toys" to get new "toys."  As a result, a felon cannot legally buy a gun inside a brick and mortar gun shop  BUT can buy a gun right in the parkignlot from a private person.

      Lunacy indeed.  I have sat next to a couple of dubious looking young guys at a gun show that bought 18 cheap 9mm semi automatics.  No questions asked and although the sale is tracked in the gun shops system its in no other database.  They were very obviously buying the guns for fellow gang members with criminal records or simply to sell for a profit on the black market.As a very minimum all gun sales should be tracked in a national database.  If I buy a gun and sell it on all the same background checks should occur.  If you need to sell a used gun it should be through a gun dealer (for a small fee)who does the background checks and ensures the registration of the gun is tracked.

      "Tracked"?"National Database"?"Registration"?orange-light-alarm-md.pngBig Government Alert!Funny how the same conservatives talk about how the government is trying to overstep and infringe on their 2nd amendment rights, yet they are the loudest to scream that citizens must "comply! comply! comply!" when law enforcement violates citizen's 4th amendment rights on a regular basis.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      LOL…..I don’t think most people even know how weak gun control is in America.  I can buy a dozen assault riffles and a 1,000 of ammo for each then sell then to anyone I want privately.  Cars are registered and insured its nuts that there are zero control on guns.  151002-your-republican-congress-in-action.jpg

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      What that picture and those stats do not tell you is how many of those deaths and shootings were staged, as Sandy Hook was, in order to get the tide rolling on rounding up the guns……..............

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      What that picture and those stats do not tell you is how many of those deaths and shootings were staged, as Sandy Hook was, in order to get the tide rolling on rounding up the guns....................

      Shhhh.  That's a secret

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2436

      What that picture and those stats do not tell you is how many of those deaths and shootings were staged, as Sandy Hook was, in order to get the tide rolling on rounding up the guns....................

      Are you playing the part of OneTruth today?Amazing rendition!

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Yup. f06.png"You give them liberal bastards a inch, and they'll take a God damn mile"

      You're right! We should use Chicago as a shining example of stricter gun laws. I mean, September was quite a peaceful month. http://wgntv.com/2015/09/30/murders-keep-adding-up-for-the-deadliest-september-in-chicago-since-2002/chi-prosecutors-5-charged-after-helicopter-spo-001.jpg"We will most definitely obey gun laws. We are just children. We were just minding our own business and spreading the word of the Lord".

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      Ah, Chicago.Ammosexuals love to point out Chicago as the perfect example of how banning people from carrying weapons is a huge failure.Two huge problems with that example...1. The gang violence there is not proportionally figured into the equation. 2. You CAN conceal carry in Chicago.In the case of People v. Aguilar, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition of concealed carry was unconstitutional. They have been accepting and issuing concealed carry licenses since the beginning of 2014.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Ah, Chicago.Ammosexuals love to point out Chicago as the perfect example of how banning people from carrying weapons is a huge failure.Two huge problems with that example...1. The gang violence there is not proportionally figured into the equation. 2. You CAN conceal carry in Chicago.In the case of People v. Aguilar, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition of concealed carry was unconstitutional. They have been accepting and issuing concealed carry licenses since the beginning of 2014.

      Ahhh...now I'm labeled an "ammosexual".Could you please tell me how I earned that title?*** I'll grab some popcorn ***

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Yup. f06.png"You give them liberal bastards a inch, and they'll take a God damn mile"

      You're right! We should use Chicago as a shining example of stricter gun laws. I mean, September was quite a peaceful month. http://wgntv.com/2015/09/30/murders-keep-adding-up-for-the-deadliest-september-in-chicago-since-2002/chi-prosecutors-5-charged-after-helicopter-spo-001.jpg"We will most definitely obey gun laws. We are just children. We were just minding our own business and spreading the word of the Lord".

      The Chicago argument is a Buggsy staple. Congrats.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Ah, Chicago.Ammosexuals love to point out Chicago as the perfect example of how banning people from carrying weapons is a huge failure.Two huge problems with that example...1. The gang violence there is not proportionally figured into the equation. 2. You CAN conceal carry in Chicago.In the case of People v. Aguilar, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition of concealed carry was unconstitutional. They have been accepting and issuing concealed carry licenses since the beginning of 2014.

      Ahhh...now I'm labeled an "ammosexual".Could you please tell me how I earned that title?*** I'll grab some popcorn ***

      How about I get it for you while you consider how silly the Chicago argument is v

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Yup. f06.png"You give them liberal bastards a inch, and they'll take a God damn mile"

      You're right! We should use Chicago as a shining example of stricter gun laws. I mean, September was quite a peaceful month. http://wgntv.com/2015/09/30/murders-keep-adding-up-for-the-deadliest-september-in-chicago-since-2002/chi-prosecutors-5-charged-after-helicopter-spo-001.jpg"We will most definitely obey gun laws. We are just children. We were just minding our own business and spreading the word of the Lord".

      The Chicago argument is a Buggsy staple. Congrats.

      Ah yes...Mr. "AR's are the weapon of choice in mass shootings".Wondered where you were...

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Ah, Chicago.Ammosexuals love to point out Chicago as the perfect example of how banning people from carrying weapons is a huge failure.Two huge problems with that example...1. The gang violence there is not proportionally figured into the equation. 2. You CAN conceal carry in Chicago.In the case of People v. Aguilar, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition of concealed carry was unconstitutional. They have been accepting and issuing concealed carry licenses since the beginning of 2014.

      Ahhh...now I'm labeled an "ammosexual".Could you please tell me how I earned that title?*** I'll grab some popcorn ***

      How about I get it for you while you consider how silly the Chicago argument is v

      I forgot you were here. I'll pop 2 bags.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2436

      I think they need to start a "Bullets 4 Peanut Butter" campaign!Peanut-Butter-Baby.jpg

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      Ah, Chicago.Ammosexuals love to point out Chicago as the perfect example of how banning people from carrying weapons is a huge failure.Two huge problems with that example...1. The gang violence there is not proportionally figured into the equation. 2. You CAN conceal carry in Chicago.In the case of People v. Aguilar, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition of concealed carry was unconstitutional. They have been accepting and issuing concealed carry licenses since the beginning of 2014.

      Ahhh...now I'm labeled an "ammosexual".Could you please tell me how I earned that title?*** I'll grab some popcorn ***

      I didn't label you anything. I don't know if you are an ammosexual, but you are certainly using an expired and erroneous example that was created by them.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      What that picture and those stats do not tell you is how many of those deaths and shootings were staged, as Sandy Hook was, in order to get the tide rolling on rounding up the guns....................

      Are you playing the part of OneTruth today?Amazing rendition!

      didn't think the blue font was needed because of the level of hyperbole that is in that post.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Ah, Chicago.Ammosexuals love to point out Chicago as the perfect example of how banning people from carrying weapons is a huge failure.Two huge problems with that example...1. The gang violence there is not proportionally figured into the equation. 2. You CAN conceal carry in Chicago.In the case of People v. Aguilar, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition of concealed carry was unconstitutional. They have been accepting and issuing concealed carry licenses since the beginning of 2014.

      Ahhh...now I'm labeled an "ammosexual".Could you please tell me how I earned that title?*** I'll grab some popcorn ***

      I didn't label you anything. I don't know if you are an ammosexual, but you are certainly using an expired and erroneous example that was created by them.

      Ahh...of course. By the way, I'd LOVE to hear what you propose in regards to "reasonable gun control".

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      I’ll misuse Chicago example in the same manner that it has been used.In the 20+months that people HAVE been able to carry in Chicago, they have been some of the most violent 20 months for a city in US history...therefore...CONCEAL CARRY IS A FAILURE!!Nope. Even before you could carry in Chicago, it was a poor example. Chicago is a special case, and it has zero to do with 2nd amendment rights.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I'll misuse Chicago example in the same manner that it has been used.In the 20+months that people HAVE been able to carry in Chicago, they have been some of the most violent 20 months for a city in US history...therefore...CONCEAL CARRY IS A FAILURE!!Nope. Even before you could carry in Chicago, it was a poor example. Chicago is a special case, and it has zero to do with 2nd amendment rights.

      So...were you going to answer my question?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      Ah, Chicago.Ammosexuals love to point out Chicago as the perfect example of how banning people from carrying weapons is a huge failure.Two huge problems with that example...1. The gang violence there is not proportionally figured into the equation. 2. You CAN conceal carry in Chicago.In the case of People v. Aguilar, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition of concealed carry was unconstitutional. They have been accepting and issuing concealed carry licenses since the beginning of 2014.

      Ahhh...now I'm labeled an "ammosexual".Could you please tell me how I earned that title?*** I'll grab some popcorn ***

      I didn't label you anything. I don't know if you are an ammosexual, but you are certainly using an expired and erroneous example that was created by them.

      Ahh...of course. By the way, I'd LOVE to hear what you propose in regards to "reasonable gun control".

      Well, I own firearms. I am licensed to carry in Texas and all states that extend reciprocity to those with a TX CHL.  I'm for restrictions on clips, online sales, certain semi-auto weapons like the AR-15, safe storage, gun purchases and applicants for concealed carry by those under 25 would need a psychiatric eval, and of course universal background checks

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      I'll misuse Chicago example in the same manner that it has been used.In the 20+months that people HAVE been able to carry in Chicago, they have been some of the most violent 20 months for a city in US history...therefore...CONCEAL CARRY IS A FAILURE!!Nope. Even before you could carry in Chicago, it was a poor example. Chicago is a special case, and it has zero to do with 2nd amendment rights.

      So...were you going to answer my question?

      Just did.Ready to admit the "what about Chicago!!" example is a poor one?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Well, I own firearms. I am licensed to carry in Texas and all states that extend reciprocity to those with a TX CHL.  I'm for restrictions on clips, online sales, certain semi-auto weapons like the AR-15, safe storage, gun purchases and applicants for concealed carry by those under 25 would need a psychiatric eval, and of course universal background checks

      OK. Well, I own and have a CCL as well. I am a supporter of ending "private sales'. I am a supporter of universal background checks. I'm also a supporter of mandatory proficiency and safety courses for 1st time buyers. I think all online sales should go through a licensed FFL dealer for pickup. I own a number of safes (including tac ones) and am a proponent of keeping them there. I have a neutral stance on mandatory registration.I don't think there's a need for restriction on AR's, semi-automatic firearms, or magazine capacities.My 2 cents.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      Personally, I think that it’s time to introduce psychiatry into the process. Many conservatives only talk about mental health, mental health, mental health. Ok. I agree. Mental health is certainly a key factor in our gun violence today. Let's get medical professionals involved in the vetting process for at least those whose brains are proven to not be fully developed as of yet.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Personally, I think that it's time to introduce psychiatry into the process. Many conservatives only talk about mental health, mental health, mental health. Ok. I agree. Mental health is certainly a key factor in our gun violence today. Let's get medical professionals involved in the vetting process for at least those whose brains are proven to not be fully developed as of yet.

      I'm not opposed to any of this. I'd also like to see the media (after a mass shooting) spend ZERO time on the shooter.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      By the way, I'd LOVE to hear what you propose in regards to "reasonable gun control".

      Reasonable controls don't really infringe on the law abiding citizens right to own a gun.1.  All new guns should be balistically fingerprinted. 2.  All gun sales, new and used, should be via a licensed firearms dealer with full background checks.3.  Guns owners should get basic education on gun safety, handling and storage.4.  All guns should be registered in a national database.There is really no need for assault style rifles.  They are useless for hunting and target shooting and serve no other purpose that massage the ego of the little men that own them.  Magazine capacities on other weapons should be restricted to ten rounds, with semi automatic shotguns limited to five rounds.None of the above measures would impact 95% of gun owners.    In fact the ballistic finger printing and registering of all firearms would benefit law abiding citizens.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      There is really no need for assault style rifles.  They are useless for hunting and target shooting and serve no other purpose that massage the ego of the little men that own them. 

      Thanks for letting me know that! You figured me out!

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      I'd also like to see the media (after a mass shooting) spend ZERO time on the shooter.

      I agree with that but it is worth mentioning many thousands of people die every year from other types of shootings.  There are around 20,000 people a year that use firearms in suicides.  Sure there are other ways of killing yourself but not many are as deadly and easy to accomplish as using a gun.  Hundreds of people get killed in domestic violence situations every year also.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Reasonable controls don't really infringe on the law abiding citizens right to own a gun.

      That depends on what is defined as reasonable.

      1.  All new guns should be balistically fingerprinted.

      That's something new to the table. Interesting idea.

      2.  All gun sales, new and used, should be via a licensed firearms dealer with full background checks.

      I'm 100% for this.

      3.  Guns owners should get basic education on gun safety, handling and storage.

      I'm 100% for this.

      4.  All guns should be registered in a national database.

      I'm neutral on this.

      There is really no need for assault style rifles.  They are useless for hunting and target shooting and serve no other purpose that massage the ego of the little men that own them.

        I already addressed your hormonal and feminine take in my last post. But please explain to me how "assault style rifles" are useless for hunting and target shooting.

      Magazine capacities on other weapons should be restricted to ten rounds, with semi automatic shotguns limited to five rounds.

      What would this do? And does your 10-round mag restriction apply to pistols as well?

      None of the above measures would impact 95% of gun owners.    In fact the ballistic finger printing and registering of all firearms would benefit law abiding citizens.

      Weren't you just saying we should restrict AR's and restrict magazine capacities? That would impact millions of gun owners.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I'd also like to see the media (after a mass shooting) spend ZERO time on the shooter.

      I agree with that but it is worth mentioning many thousands of people die every year from other types of shootings.  There are around 20,000 people a year that use firearms in suicides.  Sure there are other ways of killing yourself but not many are as deadly and easy to accomplish as using a gun.  Hundreds of people get killed in domestic violence situations every year also.

      I'm not arguing that. But, how many people were murdered by firearms in Chicago last weekend? The weekend before that? Why is that it takes a mass shooting to bring up the debate?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      I agree on the point of assault rifles. I see no need. MJS, I do think that is a little more than just feeding one’s ego in having these weapons though. Some people grew up around guns and love, plain and simply, shooting the hell out of sh*t. There are also those who believe that we are on the brink of things “going to sh*t”, and a nice chunk of society believe that tyranny is inevitable and imminent. Like I said, I don't get these POVs and I certainly have a good laugh at those who think that our own govt is about to roll in with a Jade Helm operation, and that their bunker and weapons cache can fend them off.  Also, yes, it's about way more than just the mass shootings that get nationwide and even worldwide coverage. It's about the 100's of other shootings and 1000's of other deaths per year. We'll never eliminate all shooting deaths and there will always be events that no law or regulation will prevent, but there are many that will. I think the comparison to limiting drunk driving deaths is a decent one. We'll never be able to eliminate drunk driving deaths, but with tighter restrictions and laws directed at limiting these deaths, we have seen drunk driving accidents and casualties plummet every decade. We could see the same results with reasonable gun laws and restrictions.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      Weren't you just saying we should restrict AR's and restrict magazine capacities? That would impact millions of gun owners.

      I am probably on the more extreme end of gun ownership.  I think there are eleven or twelve firearms in my house and not a single assault riffle or high capacity magazine amongst them.Ballistic finger printing,registration and tracking would reduce the number of weapons in the hands of criminals over time.  There is no overnight fix for this issue, its going to take decades to bring the US into the 21st century when it comes to reasonable gun controls.  Just got to start somewhere, and the sooner the better.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I am probably on the more extreme end of gun ownership.  I think there are eleven or twelve firearms in my house and not a single assault riffle or high capacity magazine amongst them.

      If that's on the extreme end, then I'd hate to see what category I fall in. Again, what would a magazine restriction prevent?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I continue to see and hear the argument that AR’s are useless in hunting, target shooting, and home-defense. Can anyone here who believes that, please explain your stance?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      There are also those who believe that we are on the brink of things "going to sh*t", and a nice chunk of society believe that tyranny is inevitable and imminent.

      Anyone that thinks like that is probably not mentally stable enough to own a firearm.  8)And anyways we have bought our tyrants far too many of these to put up much of a fight with peashooters,armour-b11b921.jpgah64_2.jpg

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      There are also those who believe that we are on the brink of things "going to sh*t", and a nice chunk of society believe that tyranny is inevitable and imminent.

      Anyone that thinks like that is probably not mentally stable enough to own a firearm.  8)And anyways we have bought our tyrants far too many of these to put up much of a fight with peashooters,armour-b11b921.jpgah64_2.jpg

      The only thing as ridiculous as the "everything is going to sh*t" argument, is that our service members would go to war against U.S. civilians.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      I continue to see and hear the argument that AR's are useless in hunting, target shooting, and home-defense. Can anyone here who believes that, please explain your stance?

      Well most are not terribly accurate.  AK47s and cheap short barrel ARs are not good target weapons.  Now if you spend $2-$3k or more on a good quality AR with longer barrel it might be worth using it for serious target shooting.ARs are awful weapons for home defense.  They are not really designed for close quarters and you really don't want to be firing off high velocity rounds in a domestic environment.    You miss and you might kill your neighbors (not necessarily a bad thing BTW) and if you hit the pass thrus might kill your kids.If its home defense you are looking for and want to massage your ego get a 9mm MP5.  If its good enough for the SAS its good enough for me.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      I continue to see and hear the argument that AR's are useless in hunting, target shooting, and home-defense. Can anyone here who believes that, please explain your stance?

      Hunting: I could see how you could use an AR if you were going hunting..on Isla Sorna(Jurassic Park)Target Shooting: Not useless. Home defense: Not very a very realistic scenario. Unless you are in an area where rioting and pillaging is happening right outside and you know that a group of people are beating down your door, I don't really see the use of an AR happening during home defense. It's not something that is quickly and easily accessible in a moment where quick reaction is needed, unless you walk in your home or sleep with it strapped on your person.All of these things can be done very efficiently with weapons not named AR. I personally think this is where the line is. To me, if you are saying that you should have an AR for all three of these things, then what is the argument against having fully auto weapons for Hunting/Home D/Target Shooting? 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      There are also those who believe that we are on the brink of things "going to sh*t", and a nice chunk of society believe that tyranny is inevitable and imminent.

      Anyone that thinks like that is probably not mentally stable enough to own a firearm.  8)And anyways we have bought our tyrants far too many of these to put up much of a fight with peashooters,armour-b11b921.jpgah64_2.jpg

      The only thing as ridiculous as the "everything is going to sh*t" argument, is that our service members would go to war against U.S. civilians.

      Yup. Those scenes from Bastrop, TX, where civilians were yelling and screaming at a soldier from the Army at a town hall where he was attempting to address the concerns regarding the Jade Helm operation, made me want to vomit. The paranoia that far right wing news feeds to their consumers does some pretty unsettling damage to a small sect of our citizens.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Well most are not terribly accurate.

      I'm sorry, but I disagree. And I'm willing to bet a majority of gun owners do too.

      Now if you spend $2-$3k or more on a good quality AR with longer barrel it might be worth using it for serious target shooting.

      Last time I checked, a standard AR comes standard with a 16.5" barrel. I own more than a dozen. The majority are SBR's with cans. The rest 16.5 and 18". I just sold the only one that I had with a 20" barrel. You can get a quality and accurate AR for under $1K.

      ARs are awful weapons for home defense.  They are not really designed for close quarters and you really don't want to be firing off high velocity rounds in a domestic environment.    You miss and you might kill your neighbors (not necessarily a bad thing BTW) and if you hit the pass thrus might kill your kids.

      Again, I disagree. I think they're ideal for CQB. And, I'm pretty sure SWAT and Spec-Ops think they are. Now, obviously a 20" barrel is going to cause problems clearing a corner; but an SBR is an excellent option. Btw, in regards to your ballistics argument with the 9mm and .223/556; the .223 is less likely to over penetrate than a 9mm round. A .223 is far more likely to disintegrate through sheetrock or drywall than a 9mm. This has been proven over and over again.

      If its home defense you are looking for and want to massage your ego get a 9mm MP5.  If its good enough for the SAS its good enough for me.

      There you go with the ego thing again. Lol. Whatever. I'm awaiting SBR doc stamps for my 2 MPX's. Until then, I'll have to trust the old HK416 with her AAC SR5. I'm a considerate neighbor.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Hunting: I could see how you could use an AR if you were going hunting..on Isla Sorna(Jurassic Park)

      Okay. So, what caliber and make of rifle would you use to hunt hog?

      Home defense: Not very a very realistic scenario. Unless you are in an area where rioting and pillaging is happening right outside and you know that a group of people are beating down your door, I don't really see the use of an AR happening during home defense. It's not something that is quickly and easily accessible in a moment where quick reaction is needed, unless you walk in your home or sleep with it strapped on your person.

      Just addressed this.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      In all seriousness, this has been a great discussion Chace and MJS.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      Hunting: I could see how you could use an AR if you were going hunting..on Isla Sorna(Jurassic Park)

      Okay. So, what caliber and make of rifle would you use to hunt hog?

      Home defense: Not very a very realistic scenario. Unless you are in an area where rioting and pillaging is happening right outside and you know that a group of people are beating down your door, I don't really see the use of an AR happening during home defense. It's not something that is quickly and easily accessible in a moment where quick reaction is needed, unless you walk in your home or sleep with it strapped on your person.

      Just addressed this.

      Winchester .338 and carry a .44 magnum side arm if needed for closer range.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Hunting: I could see how you could use an AR if you were going hunting..on Isla Sorna(Jurassic Park)

      Okay. So, what caliber and make of rifle would you use to hunt hog?

      Home defense: Not very a very realistic scenario. Unless you are in an area where rioting and pillaging is happening right outside and you know that a group of people are beating down your door, I don't really see the use of an AR happening during home defense. It's not something that is quickly and easily accessible in a moment where quick reaction is needed, unless you walk in your home or sleep with it strapped on your person.

      Just addressed this.

      Winchester .338 and carry a .44 magnum side arm if needed for closer range.

      .338? And to think you were insinuating that a .223/.556 was overkill! Lol!

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      Nothing I have said or insinuated had anything to do with caliber. That was MJS. I am approaching things from a capacity standpoint.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      You have to laugh at the thought of Joe Blow scurrying around his single family home in the dark of the night in his underwear engaging the evil intruders with his AR15.  Some people really do watch too much TV and play too many video games.  http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/03/foghorn/self-defense-tip-dont-use-a-rifle/And a small caliber object flying at well over 3,000 feet per second breaks up in drywall....who'd have thunk it.  Last time I put a picture up I pushed a hook about the same size as a .223 straight thru drywall at around three inches a second.....must have been the angle I guess.  LOL

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      Bottom line is America needs to take a long hard look at gun control and the impact guns have on our society. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Nothing I have said or insinuated had anything to do with caliber. That was MJS. I am approaching things from a capacity standpoint.

      5-round mags are excessive?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      5-round mags are excessive?

      Five is on the low side but there is no real need for anything greater than ten.  Some of the mass shooters used high capacity magazines so common sense dictates they should be outlawed.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      You have to laugh at the thought of Joe Blow scurrying around his single family home in the dark of the night in his underwear engaging the evil intruders with his AR15.  Some people really do watch too much TV and play too many video games.  http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/03/foghorn/self-defense-tip-dont-use-a-rifle/And a small caliber object flying at well over 3,000 feet per second breaks up in drywall....who'd have thunk it.  Last time I put a picture up I pushed a hook about the same size as a .223 straight thru drywall at around three inches a second.....must have been the angle I guess.  LOL

      Yep. You got me again. I clearly play too many video games and watch too many movies. I've already given you facts as to why a .223 round is more suitable than a 9mm in a home defense scenario. Do you have anything factual to backup your stance? Or are you going to post another link to an opinion piece.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      5-round mags are excessive?

      Five is on the low side but there is no real need for anything greater than ten.  Some of the mass shooters used high capacity magazines so common sense dictates they should be outlawed.

      I was answering Chace in regards to hog hunting. As for your comment, all of the mass shooters used guns. So common sense dictates they should be outlawed, right?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      As for your comment, all of the mass shooters used guns. So common sense dictates they should be outlawed, right?

      In a perfect world the answer would be yes. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      Nothing I have said or insinuated had anything to do with caliber. That was MJS. I am approaching things from a capacity standpoint.

      5-round mags are excessive?

      No. 5 round mags are not excessive. I'd say most people rolling with an AR-15 are doing so with a 20 round magazine. Wanna roll with a AR? Cool. I'm just not a big fan of the 20-100 round magazines. That's probably the only quarrel I have with the weapon.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Yup. f06.png"You give them liberal bastards a inch, and they'll take a God damn mile"

      You're right! We should use Chicago as a shining example of stricter gun laws. I mean, September was quite a peaceful month. http://wgntv.com/2015/09/30/murders-keep-adding-up-for-the-deadliest-september-in-chicago-since-2002/chi-prosecutors-5-charged-after-helicopter-spo-001.jpg"We will most definitely obey gun laws. We are just children. We were just minding our own business and spreading the word of the Lord".

      The Chicago argument is a Buggsy staple. Congrats.

      Ah yes...Mr. "AR's are the weapon of choice in mass shootings".Wondered where you were...

      If you're going to talk shit you should at least get the shit right. Two things you're conveniently leaving out:1) I have said I would favor banning ARs because they have such a low social utility, a point made by others in this thread. I have said the same thing about high capacity magazines 2) When I made a comment like the weapon of choice I was referring to the fact that at that time it was all the rage to dress up in body armor and grab an AR. From the Denver theater to Santa Monica to Sandy Hook. Mass murders are often copycat crimes so we have school shootings and movie theater shooting as examplesBy the way, access to guns does matter. As I have posted before (and you conveniently ignore) all one has to do is look at the three mass murder attempts in movie theaters and you will see more guns = more destruction (not even sure how that's controversial)Oh yeah, one report said this latest guy purchased 13 guns and a bunch of ammo. Too bad the 2nd Amendment says "though shall not track gun sales"

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      Oh yeah, one report said this latest guy purchased 13 guns and a bunch of ammo. Too bad the 2nd Amendment says "though shall not track gun sales"

      Having seen a similar situation at the Tampa gun show it really is time there are some sort of meaningful gun controls.If all guns were balistically finger printed and tracked you really could commit crimes with weapons unless they were stolen.  Make being in possession of a stolen firearm and mandatory 25 year sentence and they will think twice.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      If you're going to talk (censored) you should at least get the (censored) right. Two things you're conveniently leaving out:1) I have said I would favor banning ARs because they have such a low social utility, a point made by others in this thread. I have said the same thing about high capacity magazines 2) When I made a comment like the weapon of choice I was referring to the fact that at that time it was all the rage to dress up in body armor and grab an AR. From the Denver theater to Santa Monica to Sandy Hook. Mass murders are often copycat crimes so we have school shootings and movie theater shooting as examplesBy the way, access to guns does matter. As I have posted before (and you conveniently ignore) all one has to do is look at the three mass murder attempts in movie theaters and you will see more guns = more destruction (not even sure how that's controversial)Oh yeah, one report said this latest guy purchased 13 guns and a bunch of ammo. Too bad the 2nd Amendment says "though shall not track gun sales"

      Okay, buddy. It's usually been civil between us. But, if you want to be a fucking c0cksucker, then so be it. I backed up the shit I said. You mentioned that it was the "weapon of choice" for mass shooters. I buried that erroneous statement with statistics from the FBI and the ATF. So, I'm pretty sure I got my shit right. You, not so much. 1. You're in favor of banning AR's because you know NOTHING about them. They have zero social utility? According to who...you? I've given plenty examples of how they're effective for hunting, plunking, and for home/property defense. You...haven't provided shit.2. Back to your "weapon of choice" bullshlt. You named 3 instances where this happened. All the "rage"? Let's look at all mass shootings over the last 5 years and see what all the "rage" was about.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Make being in possession of a stolen firearm and mandatory 25 year sentence and they will think twice.

      I'm a BIG fan of this. I think all penalties for crimes involving a firearm needs to be looked at. They need to be harsher.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from sensible gun laws.  The alternative will ultimately be a repeal of the 2nd amendment and ban on civilian ownership of firearms.Lets tackle this issue head on like a civilized democratic society instead of being the laughing stock of the entire developed world.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      The alternative will ultimately be a repeal of the 2nd amendment and ban on civilian ownership of firearms.

      That will never happen. But, I agree that we need to find a solution. Clearly, I'm pro-gun; but I've shown time and time again that I agree with sensible gun-control. We need to do something.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      That will never happen. But, I agree that we need to find a solution. Clearly, I'm pro-gun; but I've shown time and time again that I agree with sensible gun-control. We need to do something.

      It has happened in most developed countries.  I would have actually liked a few slaves (no color preference) so I don't have to work BUT they changed the law on that once upon a time.  Times change and laws and amendments written 200+ years ago have zero relevance today.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      This sudden accessibility and liberal allowance to guns is what’s caused all this.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      This sudden accessibility and liberal allowance to guns is what's caused all this.

      A decline in the number of people that love God caused this.Love God = care about other people

      I agree. Only more God fearing Muslims can solve this problem

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1419

      lol

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      lol

        ;)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      If you're going to talk (censored) you should at least get the (censored) right. Two things you're conveniently leaving out:1) I have said I would favor banning ARs because they have such a low social utility, a point made by others in this thread. I have said the same thing about high capacity magazines 2) When I made a comment like the weapon of choice I was referring to the fact that at that time it was all the rage to dress up in body armor and grab an AR. From the Denver theater to Santa Monica to Sandy Hook. Mass murders are often copycat crimes so we have school shootings and movie theater shooting as examplesBy the way, access to guns does matter. As I have posted before (and you conveniently ignore) all one has to do is look at the three mass murder attempts in movie theaters and you will see more guns = more destruction (not even sure how that's controversial)Oh yeah, one report said this latest guy purchased 13 guns and a bunch of ammo. Too bad the 2nd Amendment says "though shall not track gun sales"

      Okay, buddy. It's usually been civil between us. But, if you want to be a (censored)ing c0cksucker, then so be it. I backed up the (censored) I said. You mentioned that it was the "weapon of choice" for mass shooters. I buried that erroneous statement with statistics from the FBI and the ATF. So, I'm pretty sure I got my (censored) right. You, not so much. 1. You're in favor of banning AR's because you know NOTHING about them. They have zero social utility? According to who...you? I've given plenty examples of how they're effective for hunting, plunking, and for home/property defense. You...haven't provided (censored).2. Back to your "weapon of choice" bullshlt. You named 3 instances where this happened. All the "rage"? Let's look at all mass shootings over the last 5 years and see what all the "rage" was about.

      DH, even if an AR was the ONLY weapon for "hunting, plunking" it would have zero SOCIAL utility because so few use the gun for that reason. I also can't see an AR being better for home defense? Seriously? What, do you live on the West Bank? The point is a TINY fraction of society have a LEGIT need for that type of gun. Most who have one have it almost exclusively for sport. Also, you're just misstating the weapon of choice thing, but whatever. I explained my position

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/father-oregon-shooter-blames-gun-easy-article-1.2385380oops

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      False Flag.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Someone else can look up the specific details but the Aurora shooter bought a large number of guns and ammo before killing an injuring a bunch of people in a movie theater. This guy in Oregin purchase more than a dozen guns (and just like the CT killer apparently had a mom who was a gun nut)So, why weren't these gun and ammo sales tracked as a potential ominous sign? Well, "you cannot force us to register our guns because you'll use that info to seize our guns so we cannot defend ourselves when the government attacks us."Seriously?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      I would gladly hand my guns in if the law required me to.  Living without guns is Its hardly the end of the world.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      "you cannot force us to register our guns because you'll use that info to seize our guns so we cannot defend ourselves when the government attacks us."Seriously?

      jwj-Jade-Helm-00442.jpgYes, seriously.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      DH, even if an AR was the ONLY weapon for "hunting, plunking" it would have zero SOCIAL utility because so few use the gun for that reason.

      Never said it was the ONLY one. So few use the gun for that reason? AR's are extremely popular for plunking and are quite often used for hunting. I wonder how many people hunt and go target shooting in this country?

      I also can't see an AR being better for home defense? Seriously? What, do you live on the West Bank? The point is a TINY fraction of society have a LEGIT need for that type of gun. Most who have one have it almost exclusively for sport.

      I've given you examples. You've given nothing.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      DH, even if an AR was the ONLY weapon for "hunting, plunking" it would have zero SOCIAL utility because so few use the gun for that reason.

      Never said it was the ONLY one. So few use the gun for that reason? AR's are extremely popular for plunking and are quite often used for hunting. I wonder how many people hunt and go target shooting in this country?

      I also can't see an AR being better for home defense? Seriously? What, do you live on the West Bank? The point is a TINY fraction of society have a LEGIT need for that type of gun. Most who have one have it almost exclusively for sport.

      I've given you examples. You've given nothing.

      maybe this is lost in translation. Entertainment is a low social value. transportation high, as one example.  We accept a lot of death injury with cars because the value (transportation) is high

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      "you cannot force us to register our guns because you'll use that info to seize our guns so we cannot defend ourselves when the government attacks us."Seriously?

      jwj-Jade-Helm-00442.jpgYes, seriously.

      hey, I think I've seen that girl in my Prepper's class! In fact, I've fantasized about spending the doomsday with her.  It's right around the corner, you know?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      I bet she’s good in cot.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      The most depressing thing with each of these shootings is the total lack of debate and apathy in Washington.  Its a sad reflection of the power of lobbyist and US politics in general.  In  any other developed civilized country a mass shooting at a school would polarize the political parties and the issue would be debated and a resolution would be found.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      At the end of the day, the guns are needed more than those lives. My father and FIL have said as much. I asked them both, "if a law were passed greatly limiting the 2nd amendment and how it pertains to everyday citizens, but there was a guarantee from the future that it would save 10,000 lives per year, would you be ok with that?"Both emphatically said no. That it needs to be kept exactly like it is. Both come from different parts of the country, but share the same deep seeded worry that tyranny is imminent, and that those weapons will be needed very soon. Neither are doomsday preppers either. It's confusing as hell to me.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      At the end of the day, the guns are needed more than those lives. My father and FIL have said as much. I asked them both, "if a law were passed greatly limiting the 2nd amendment and how it pertains to everyday citizens, but there was a guarantee from the future that it would save 10,000 lives per year, would you be ok with that?"Both emphatically said no. That it needs to be kept exactly like it is. Both come from different parts of the country, but share the same deep seeded worry that tyranny is imminent, and that those weapons will be needed very soon. Neither are doomsday preppers either. It's confusing as hell to me.

      I have gotten the same type of response from many. "It's MY guns versus some other people's lives and I want MY guns"

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      Just how the good lord intended.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      DH, even if an AR was the ONLY weapon for "hunting, plunking" it would have zero SOCIAL utility because so few use the gun for that reason.

      Never said it was the ONLY one. So few use the gun for that reason? AR's are extremely popular for plunking and are quite often used for hunting. I wonder how many people hunt and go target shooting in this country?

      I also can't see an AR being better for home defense? Seriously? What, do you live on the West Bank? The point is a TINY fraction of society have a LEGIT need for that type of gun. Most who have one have it almost exclusively for sport.

      I've given you examples. You've given nothing.

      maybe this is lost in translation. Entertainment is a low social value. transportation high, as one example.  We accept a lot of death injury with cars because the value (transportation) is high

      Well, I'm not sure why you're singling out AR's. You could lump all guns into that way of thinking.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      DH, even if an AR was the ONLY weapon for "hunting, plunking" it would have zero SOCIAL utility because so few use the gun for that reason.

      Never said it was the ONLY one. So few use the gun for that reason? AR's are extremely popular for plunking and are quite often used for hunting. I wonder how many people hunt and go target shooting in this country?

      I also can't see an AR being better for home defense? Seriously? What, do you live on the West Bank? The point is a TINY fraction of society have a LEGIT need for that type of gun. Most who have one have it almost exclusively for sport.

      I've given you examples. You've given nothing.

      maybe this is lost in translation. Entertainment is a low social value. transportation high, as one example.  We accept a lot of death injury with cars because the value (transportation) is high

      Well, I'm not sure why you're singling out AR's. You could lump all guns into that way of thinking.

      I think you know the answer, but hand guns have more legitimacy as a weapon of self defense. That is not just me saying that, the Supreme Court has said as much recently, assault rifles were banned recently (ie no constitutional issue). I agree that handguns kill and injure more but I have always said ARs would be the first to go because the overwhelming majority of citizens see them as having no real purpose beyond sport

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      At the end of the day, the guns are needed more than those lives. My father and FIL have said as much. I asked them both, "if a law were passed greatly limiting the 2nd amendment and how it pertains to everyday citizens, but there was a guarantee from the future that it would save 10,000 lives per year, would you be ok with that?"Both emphatically said no. That it needs to be kept exactly like it is. Both come from different parts of the country, but share the same deep seeded worry that tyranny is imminent, and that those weapons will be needed very soon. Neither are doomsday preppers either. It's confusing as hell to me.

      Specifically what laws would you craft that would have prevented this, and similar incidents from happening, while still preserving the spirit and intent of the second amendment? Assuming you have any interest in preserving the second amendment. I will provide you with a heads up. This has been asked of the thread protagonist ad nauseam. Suffice to say the results have been, well, inglorious.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      At the end of the day, the guns are needed more than those lives. My father and FIL have said as much. I asked them both, "if a law were passed greatly limiting the 2nd amendment and how it pertains to everyday citizens, but there was a guarantee from the future that it would save 10,000 lives per year, would you be ok with that?"Both emphatically said no. That it needs to be kept exactly like it is. Both come from different parts of the country, but share the same deep seeded worry that tyranny is imminent, and that those weapons will be needed very soon. Neither are doomsday preppers either. It's confusing as hell to me.

      Specifically what laws would you craft that would have prevented this, and similar incidents from happening, while still preserving the spirit and intent of the second amendment? Assuming you have any interest in preserving the second amendment. I will provide you with a heads up. This has been asked of the thread protagonist ad nauseam. Suffice to say the results have been, well, inglorious.

      Well, I've already spoken earlier about a few tweaks that I personally view as "common sense", but common sense is rather subjective. As far as the above example that was given to those who wanted no changes because of the fear of tyranny...The limitations were that of high capacity magazines, regulating online sales, universal background checks, and all new weapons purchased be put in a national firearms registry.Personally I'm also a fan of all gun purchases and concealed carry applicants for those under 25 needing to be subject to a psych eval along with a background check and also possibly a waiting period, microstamping, safe storage, and federal penalties for gun traffickers and gun thieves.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2436

      Get a Life, ya’ll.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      At the end of the day, the guns are needed more than those lives. My father and FIL have said as much. I asked them both, "if a law were passed greatly limiting the 2nd amendment and how it pertains to everyday citizens, but there was a guarantee from the future that it would save 10,000 lives per year, would you be ok with that?"Both emphatically said no. That it needs to be kept exactly like it is. Both come from different parts of the country, but share the same deep seeded worry that tyranny is imminent, and that those weapons will be needed very soon. Neither are doomsday preppers either. It's confusing as hell to me.

      Specifically what laws would you craft that would have prevented this, and similar incidents from happening, while still preserving the spirit and intent of the second amendment? Assuming you have any interest in preserving the second amendment. I will provide you with a heads up. This has been asked of the thread protagonist ad nauseam. Suffice to say the results have been, well, inglorious.

      Nice try dufus. I've posted ad nauseum what laws I would want to reduce gun violence, but don't let the truth color your creativity(Cyrus will now ramble on with a few weak-minded attempts to turn this discussion into a pissing match)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      At the end of the day, the guns are needed more than those lives. My father and FIL have said as much. I asked them both, "if a law were passed greatly limiting the 2nd amendment and how it pertains to everyday citizens, but there was a guarantee from the future that it would save 10,000 lives per year, would you be ok with that?"Both emphatically said no. That it needs to be kept exactly like it is. Both come from different parts of the country, but share the same deep seeded worry that tyranny is imminent, and that those weapons will be needed very soon. Neither are doomsday preppers either. It's confusing as hell to me.

      Specifically what laws would you craft that would have prevented this, and similar incidents from happening, while still preserving the spirit and intent of the second amendment? Assuming you have any interest in preserving the second amendment. I will provide you with a heads up. This has been asked of the thread protagonist ad nauseam. Suffice to say the results have been, well, inglorious.

      Well, I've already spoken earlier about a few tweaks that I personally view as "common sense", but common sense is rather subjective. As far as the above example that was given to those who wanted no changes because of the fear of tyranny...The limitations were that of high capacity magazines, regulating online sales, universal background checks, and all new weapons purchased be put in a national firearms registry.Personally I'm also a fan of all gun purchases and concealed carry applicants for those under 25 needing to be subject to a psych eval along with a background check and also possibly a waiting period, microstamping, safe storage, and federal penalties for gun traffickers and gun thieves.

      I've posted the same ideas as those in bold.the thing that always derails these discussions -- and you can see it in Cyrus' post - is the implied notion that restrictions/limitations are meaningless unless they absolutely PREVENT an act like this. There are about 30,000 deaths a year and countless injuries. There's plenty of gun violence to REDUCE with reasonable restrictions, but as you already posted, ultimately this comes down to many gun owners saying "those deaths are okay, don't mess with MY guns"

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I have always said ARs would be the first to go because the overwhelming majority of citizens see them as having no real purpose beyond sport

      Then the same could be said about pistols. I mean, they have no real purpose beyond sport as well.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      I’m seeking a second opinion. I’m sure you hear that from your clients on a regular basis.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3341

      I'm seeking a second opinion. I'm sure you hear that from your clients on a regular basis.

      Does DUI-boy have any clients?  If so, they are getting ripped off.  I'm sure his boss would love to hear about how he spends his work day.https://www.pewterreport.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=statistics;u=254I wonder how many of those were billable hours at the firm?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I have always said ARs would be the first to go because the overwhelming majority of citizens see them as having no real purpose beyond sport

      Then the same could be said about pistols. I mean, they have no real purpose beyond sport as well.

      Not true, but we crossed that ground before

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      I'm seeking a second opinion. I'm sure you hear that from your clients on a regular basis.

      Does DUI-boy have any clients?  If so, they are getting ripped off.  I'm sure his boss would love to hear about how he spends his work day.https://www.pewterreport.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=statistics;u=254I wonder how many of those were billable hours at the firm?

      In fairness to our scholarly friend I believe he's in the UK at the moment. Which means it's nearly 3:30 in the afternoon. We both know that by that time of the day he's usually three sheets to the wind.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I have always said ARs would be the first to go because the overwhelming majority of citizens see them as having no real purpose beyond sport

      Then the same could be said about pistols. I mean, they have no real purpose beyond sport as well.

      Not true, but we crossed that ground before

      Based on your logic, it is.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I have always said ARs would be the first to go because the overwhelming majority of citizens see them as having no real purpose beyond sport

      Then the same could be said about pistols. I mean, they have no real purpose beyond sport as well.

      Not true, but we crossed that ground before

      Based on your logic, it is.

      Well, I am not asking or expecting you to agree but there is an obvious difference between the way society perceives a hand gun and an AR. No big deal though, I don't expect you to accept that (because you have a dozen ARs, right?).

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I have always said ARs would be the first to go because the overwhelming majority of citizens see them as having no real purpose beyond sport

      Then the same could be said about pistols. I mean, they have no real purpose beyond sport as well.

      Not true, but we crossed that ground before

      Based on your logic, it is.

      Well, I am not asking or expecting you to agree but there is an obvious difference between the way society perceives a hand gun and an AR. No big deal though, I don't expect you to accept that (because you have a dozen ARs, right?).

      Society sees an AR as big, bad and scary; even though pistols kill far more people. People like you are why the AR-pistol market and firearms like the SigSauer MPX are so huge right now.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I have always said ARs would be the first to go because the overwhelming majority of citizens see them as having no real purpose beyond sport

      Then the same could be said about pistols. I mean, they have no real purpose beyond sport as well.

      Not true, but we crossed that ground before

      Based on your logic, it is.

      Well, I am not asking or expecting you to agree but there is an obvious difference between the way society perceives a hand gun and an AR. No big deal though, I don't expect you to accept that (because you have a dozen ARs, right?).

      Society sees an AR as big, bad and scary; even though pistols kill far more people. People like you are why the AR-pistol market and firearms like the SigSauer MPX are so huge right now.

      So you take a shot at me by ... Agreeing with me? Um, okay. Thanks

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I have always said ARs would be the first to go because the overwhelming majority of citizens see them as having no real purpose beyond sport

      Then the same could be said about pistols. I mean, they have no real purpose beyond sport as well.

      Not true, but we crossed that ground before

      Based on your logic, it is.

      Well, I am not asking or expecting you to agree but there is an obvious difference between the way society perceives a hand gun and an AR. No big deal though, I don't expect you to accept that (because you have a dozen ARs, right?).

      Society sees an AR as big, bad and scary; even though pistols kill far more people. People like you are why the AR-pistol market and firearms like the SigSauer MPX are so huge right now.

      So you take a shot at me by ... Agreeing with me? Um, okay. Thanks

      Lol. Okay.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      Repetitive, pointless, droning. That’s all that’s left. This board has fallen into complete sh1t.pierre-beteille-cant-take-it-anymore-1343014384_b.jpg

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Repetitive, pointless, droning. That's all that's left. This board has fallen into complete sh1t.pierre-beteille-cant-take-it-anymore-1343014384_b.jpg

      What did you expect with a thread like this?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      Repetitive, pointless, droning. That's all that's left. This board has fallen into complete sh1t.pierre-beteille-cant-take-it-anymore-1343014384_b.jpg

      What did you expect with a thread like this?

      Don't expect me to entertain you like you've entertained Vinnie for the last year.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Repetitive, pointless, droning. That's all that's left. This board has fallen into complete sh1t.pierre-beteille-cant-take-it-anymore-1343014384_b.jpg

      What did you expect with a thread like this?

      Don't expect me to entertain you like you've entertained Vinnie for the last year.

      Yet, here you are.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      Repetitive, pointless, droning. That's all that's left. This board has fallen into complete sh1t.pierre-beteille-cant-take-it-anymore-1343014384_b.jpg

      What did you expect with a thread like this?

      Don't expect me to entertain you like you've entertained Vinnie for the last year.

      Yet, here you are.

      If you don't like what I say you have the freedom to leave.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Repetitive, pointless, droning. That's all that's left. This board has fallen into complete sh1t.pierre-beteille-cant-take-it-anymore-1343014384_b.jpg

      What did you expect with a thread like this?

      Don't expect me to entertain you like you've entertained Vinnie for the last year.

      Yet, here you are.

      If you don't like what I say you have the freedom to leave.

      DItto.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      Open question. Specifically what laws would you craft that would have prevented this, and similar incidents from happening, while still preserving the spirit and intent of the second amendment? Assuming you have any interest in preserving the second amendment.

      This seems to be a question which many of the anti-gun activists on this board would like to avoid. Which of you lot would like to take me on in this discussion?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Open question. Specifically what laws would you craft that would have prevented this, and similar incidents from happening, while still preserving the spirit and intent of the second amendment? Assuming you have any interest in preserving the second amendment.

      This seems to be a question which many of the anti-gun activists on this board would like to avoid. Which of you lot would like to take me on in this discussion?

      I would love to debate you on it, but the problem is I'm on your side of the argument.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      Open question. Specifically what laws would you craft that would have prevented this, and similar incidents from happening, while still preserving the spirit and intent of the second amendment? Assuming you have any interest in preserving the second amendment.

      This seems to be a question which many of the anti-gun activists on this board would like to avoid. Which of you lot would like to take me on in this discussion?

      I would love to debate you on it, but the problem is I'm on your side of the argument.

      Jeez, no kidding  ::). At some point I've been hoping you'd come to that realization. You're the gun owner. I don't even own a gun. Stop being combative and pull your head out of your ass and realize the arguments I'm making are the ones that would benefit you as much as anyone. Dude you can be your own worst enemy.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I think the first step towards “reasonable” gun control, is to enforce and strengthen universal background checks. Close the gun show loopholes and mandate that all online purchases are filtered to a FFL dealer. The current Class 3 licensing and categorization of certain weapons keeps us from needing a ban on anything. Perhaps we can actually properly punish offenders who commit crimes with firearms. Oh, and maybe we can actually enforce the laws that are currently in place.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Open question. Specifically what laws would you craft that would have prevented this, and similar incidents from happening, while still preserving the spirit and intent of the second amendment? Assuming you have any interest in preserving the second amendment.

      This seems to be a question which many of the anti-gun activists on this board would like to avoid. Which of you lot would like to take me on in this discussion?

      I would love to debate you on it, but the problem is I'm on your side of the argument.

      Jeez, no kidding  ::). At some point I've been hoping you'd come to that realization. You're the gun owner. I don't even own a gun. Stop being combative and pull your head out of your ass and realize the arguments I'm making are the ones that would benefit you as much as anyone. Dude you can be your own worst enemy.

      Cyrus, I've always respected you as a poster. You usually have an excellent take on the topics you post in. The only time I get combative with you, is when you're acting like a pompous douche. I know where you stand on this topic and I'm interested to see the anti-gunner's response to your question.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      I think the first step towards "reasonable" gun control, is to enforce and strengthen universal background checks. Close the gun show loopholes and mandate that all online purchases are filtered to a FFL dealer.

      As far as i know online gun sales are filtered through an FFL holder. Regardless of that , tell me how your suggestive new requirements would have prevented an incident like this (or similar) from happening? I encourage you to use as much statical data as you feel you need.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I think the first step towards "reasonable" gun control, is to enforce and strengthen universal background checks. Close the gun show loopholes and mandate that all online purchases are filtered to a FFL dealer.

      As far as i know online gun sales are filtered through an FFL holder. Regardless of that , tell me how your suggestive new requirements would have prevented an incident like this (or similar) from happening? I encourage you to use as much statical data as you feel you need.

      I've never used the site that Vin keeps referring to. I believe it's Armslist (I could be wrong), so I'm not too familiar with it. The majority of my transactions have gone through GunBroker. All transactions are filtered through an FFL dealer. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it would've prevented the latest shooting. I don't think it would've. I'm simply saying it could be a middle ground. Could be...

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      Open question. Specifically what laws would you craft that would have prevented this, and similar incidents from happening, while still preserving the spirit and intent of the second amendment? Assuming you have any interest in preserving the second amendment.

      This seems to be a question which many of the anti-gun activists on this board would like to avoid. Which of you lot would like to take me on in this discussion?

      I would love to debate you on it, but the problem is I'm on your side of the argument.

      Jeez, no kidding  ::). At some point I've been hoping you'd come to that realization. You're the gun owner. I don't even own a gun. Stop being combative and pull your head out of your ass and realize the arguments I'm making are the ones that would benefit you as much as anyone. Dude you can be your own worst enemy.

      Cyrus, I've always respected you as a poster. You usually have an excellent take on the topics you post in. The only time I get combative with you, is when you're acting like a pompous douche. I know where you stand on this topic and I'm interested to see the anti-gunner's response to your question.

      No worries. I take the role as an agent provocateur to elicit people to think (when I can). I'm not a douche but I don't like posters getting away w/  talking points and lazy thinking. Especially on issues involving politics and government, especially as it relates to constitutionally protected liberties.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      I think the first step towards "reasonable" gun control, is to enforce and strengthen universal background checks. Close the gun show loopholes and mandate that all online purchases are filtered to a FFL dealer.

      As far as i know online gun sales are filtered through an FFL holder. Regardless of that , tell me how your suggestive new requirements would have prevented an incident like this (or similar) from happening? I encourage you to use as much statical data as you feel you need.

      I've never used the site that Vin keeps referring to. I believe it's Armslist (I could be wrong), so I'm not too familiar with it. The majority of my transactions have gone through GunBroker. All transactions are filtered through an FFL dealer. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it would've prevented the latest shooting. I don't think it would've. I'm simply saying it could be a middle ground. Could be...

      Correct it wouldn't have. I'm not interested in middle ground or appeasement. Nor should you be. If the anti-gun crowd has an argument then they should be heard. But to conform to the latest political activism for the sake of knee jerk reaction is a fools errand and a possible dangerous precedent.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Open question. Specifically what laws would you craft that would have prevented this, and similar incidents from happening, while still preserving the spirit and intent of the second amendment? Assuming you have any interest in preserving the second amendment.

      This seems to be a question which many of the anti-gun activists on this board would like to avoid. Which of you lot would like to take me on in this discussion?

      I would love to debate you on it, but the problem is I'm on your side of the argument.

      Jeez, no kidding  ::). At some point I've been hoping you'd come to that realization. You're the gun owner. I don't even own a gun. Stop being combative and pull your head out of your ass and realize the arguments I'm making are the ones that would benefit you as much as anyone. Dude you can be your own worst enemy.

      Cyrus, I've always respected you as a poster. You usually have an excellent take on the topics you post in. The only time I get combative with you, is when you're acting like a pompous douche. I know where you stand on this topic and I'm interested to see the anti-gunner's response to your question.

      No worries. I take the role as an agent provocateur to elicit people to think (when I can). I'm not a douche but I don't like posters getting away w/  talking points and lazy thinking. Especially on issues involving politics and government, especially as it relates to constitutionally protected liberties.

      Fair enough.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I think the first step towards "reasonable" gun control, is to enforce and strengthen universal background checks. Close the gun show loopholes and mandate that all online purchases are filtered to a FFL dealer.

      As far as i know online gun sales are filtered through an FFL holder. Regardless of that , tell me how your suggestive new requirements would have prevented an incident like this (or similar) from happening? I encourage you to use as much statical data as you feel you need.

      I've never used the site that Vin keeps referring to. I believe it's Armslist (I could be wrong), so I'm not too familiar with it. The majority of my transactions have gone through GunBroker. All transactions are filtered through an FFL dealer. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it would've prevented the latest shooting. I don't think it would've. I'm simply saying it could be a middle ground. Could be...

      Correct it wouldn't have. I'm not interested in middle ground or appeasement. Nor should you be. If the anti-gun crowd has an argument then they should be heard. But to conform to the latest political activism for the sake of knee jerk reaction is a fools errand and a possible dangerous precedent.

      My middle ground statement could be a horrible idea. I acknowledge that. My biggest issue with anti-gunners are how extremely uninformed they are on the subject. A perfect example is the AR. More than half of the anti-gunners I know and speak with think they're fully-automatic and that you can walk into a Walmart and walk right out with one. I'm simply asking them to do some research on it.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      My biggest issue with anti-gunners are how extremely uninformed they are on the subject. A perfect example is the AR.More than half of the anti-gunners I know and speak with think they're fully-automatic and that you can walk into a Walmart and walk right out with one. I'm simply asking them to do some research on it.

      Ha! That reminds me of a funny story involving our beloved protagonist, but I'll let Biggs tell that story, if he's so inclined.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      My biggest issue with anti-gunners are how extremely uninformed they are on the subject. A perfect example is the AR.More than half of the anti-gunners I know and speak with think they're fully-automatic and that you can walk into a Walmart and walk right out with one. I'm simply asking them to do some research on it.

      Ha! That reminds me of a funny story involving our beloved protagonist, but I'll let Biggs tell that story, if he's so inclined.

      Damn! You're going to make me wait?! Lol

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      My biggest issue with anti-gunners are how extremely uninformed they are on the subject. A perfect example is the AR.More than half of the anti-gunners I know and speak with think they're fully-automatic and that you can walk into a Walmart and walk right out with one. I'm simply asking them to do some research on it.

      Ha! That reminds me of a funny story involving our beloved protagonist, but I'll let Biggs tell that story, if he's so inclined.

      Damn! You're going to make me wait?! Lol

      If Illuminator was still around he could tell you as well. Miss the livin' hell out of that guy. With no exceptions the best poster this forum has ever seen.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I think the first step towards "reasonable" gun control, is to enforce and strengthen universal background checks. Close the gun show loopholes and mandate that all online purchases are filtered to a FFL dealer.

      As far as i know online gun sales are filtered through an FFL holder. Regardless of that , tell me how your suggestive new requirements would have prevented an incident like this (or similar) from happening? I encourage you to use as much statical data as you feel you need.

      First sentence - wrongSecond sentence - see my last comment to Chace. Lol. Exactly

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      When it comes to using a car, which of the following represents an unreasonable restraint on your freedom:1 age restrictions2 license3 registration4 insurance requirement5 seat belts6 traffic ordinances (speed limits, etc)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      Yep. You won’t answer the question because you know damn well it kills the stupid sh!t that you’ve been repeating on this forum for at least the past two years. You’re done.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Swing …. missFunny thing is that I called it perfectly. Lol

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      I think the first step towards "reasonable" gun control, is to enforce and strengthen universal background checks. Close the gun show loopholes and mandate that all online purchases are filtered to a FFL dealer. The current Class 3 licensing and categorization of certain weapons keeps us from needing a ban on anything. Perhaps we can actually properly punish offenders who commit crimes with firearms. Oh, and maybe we can actually enforce the laws that are currently in place.

      The gun show loophole is irrelevant, and over stated.  Very few weapons sold at gun shows end up in the hands of criminals.  All online sales are handled by a FFL dealer today.I think the punishment for gun crimes are currently pretty severe, how much more than 10-20-LIFE is required?  And I am curious as to what laws currently in place that are not being enforced?Its very simple of the second amendment remains real gun controls are required.  Every gun in circulation should be registered and it should be illegal to sell a gun without a FFL dealer involved.  More background checks are required with longer wait periods. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      The gun show loophole is irrelevant, and over stated.

      So is banning AR's and high capacity "clips".

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      The gun show loophole is irrelevant, and over stated.

      So is banning AR's and high capacity "clips".

      Not really, quite a few mass shootings have involved assault riffles and/or high capacity clips.  Bottom line is there is no need for civilians to own assault riffles or high capacity clips.We hear the gun show loophole all too often.  Its not a gun show loophole its a private citizen selling firearms without background checks loophole.The FBI numbers suggest less than 3% of guns used by gangs and criminals were obtained at gun shows.  To the best of my knowledge not a single mass shooter obtained guns via the gun show loophole.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Not really, quite a few mass shootings have involved assault riffles and/or high capacity clips. 

      Yet, the majority of them have been committed by firearms that aren't assault rifles.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      Not really, quite a few mass shootings have involved assault riffles and/or high capacity clips. 

      Yet, the majority of them have been committed by firearms that aren't assault rifles.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Not really, quite a few mass shootings have involved assault riffles and/or high capacity clips. 

      Yet, the majority of them have been committed by firearms that aren't assault rifles.

      Your definition of a high capacity MAGAZINE is an opinion.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Just a question for all those anti-gun members who are in favor of banning AR’s and “high capacity” mags…How do you suggest we go about that?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Just a question for all those anti-gun members who are in favor of banning AR's and "high capacity" mags...How do you suggest we go about that?

      Not the same way it was done last time, lol

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      The gun show loophole is irrelevant, and over stated.

      So is banning AR's and high capacity "clips".

      Not really, quite a few mass shootings have involved assault riffles and/or high capacity clips.  Bottom line is there is no need for civilians to own assault riffles or high capacity clips.We hear the gun show loophole all too often.  Its not a gun show loophole its a private citizen selling firearms without background checks loophole.The FBI numbers suggest less than 3% of guns used by gangs and criminals were obtained at gun shows.  To the best of my knowledge not a single mass shooter obtained guns via the gun show loophole.

      Right, so same points I have made. I agree

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      The gun show loophole is irrelevant, and over stated.

      So is banning AR's and high capacity "clips".

      Not really, quite a few mass shootings have involved assault riffles and/or high capacity clips.  Bottom line is there is no need for civilians to own assault riffles or high capacity clips.We hear the gun show loophole all too often.  Its not a gun show loophole its a private citizen selling firearms without background checks loophole.The FBI numbers suggest less than 3% of guns used by gangs and criminals were obtained at gun shows.  To the best of my knowledge not a single mass shooter obtained guns via the gun show loophole.

      Right, so same points I have made. I agree

      Odd. You've talked more about closing gunshow loop holes more than anyone.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      The gun show loophole is irrelevant, and over stated.

      So is banning AR's and high capacity "clips".

      Not really, quite a few mass shootings have involved assault riffles and/or high capacity clips.  Bottom line is there is no need for civilians to own assault riffles or high capacity clips.We hear the gun show loophole all too often.  Its not a gun show loophole its a private citizen selling firearms without background checks loophole.The FBI numbers suggest less than 3% of guns used by gangs and criminals were obtained at gun shows.  To the best of my knowledge not a single mass shooter obtained guns via the gun show loophole.

      Right, so same points I have made. I agree

      Odd. You've talked more about closing gunshow loop holes more than anyone.

      Armslist is the private sellers loophole, but I have said that ALL loopholes should be closed because they are profit-driven and have nothing to do with the second amendment. The notion that a violent felon cannot LEGALLY buy a gun in a gun store but can LEGALLY buy a gun in the parking lot is the absurd result of a powerful, economically-motivated lobby

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      The gun show loophole is irrelevant, and over stated.

      So is banning AR's and high capacity "clips".

      Not really, quite a few mass shootings have involved assault riffles and/or high capacity clips.  Bottom line is there is no need for civilians to own assault riffles or high capacity clips.We hear the gun show loophole all too often.  Its not a gun show loophole its a private citizen selling firearms without background checks loophole.The FBI numbers suggest less than 3% of guns used by gangs and criminals were obtained at gun shows.  To the best of my knowledge not a single mass shooter obtained guns via the gun show loophole.

      Right, so same points I have made. I agree

      Odd. You've talked more about closing gunshow loop holes more than anyone.

      Armslist is the private sellers loophole, but I have said that ALL loopholes should be closed because they are profit-driven and have nothing to do with the second amendment. The notion that a violent felon cannot LEGALLY buy a gun in a gun store but can LEGALLY buy a gun in the parking lot is the absurd result of a powerful, economically-motivated lobby

      I'm cool with closing it. I think it needs to be. That's one of the things we need to focus on, not bans.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      The gun show loophole is irrelevant, and over stated.

      So is banning AR's and high capacity "clips".

      Not really, quite a few mass shootings have involved assault riffles and/or high capacity clips.  Bottom line is there is no need for civilians to own assault riffles or high capacity clips.We hear the gun show loophole all too often.  Its not a gun show loophole its a private citizen selling firearms without background checks loophole.The FBI numbers suggest less than 3% of guns used by gangs and criminals were obtained at gun shows.  To the best of my knowledge not a single mass shooter obtained guns via the gun show loophole.

      Right, so same points I have made. I agree

      Odd. You've talked more about closing gunshow loop holes more than anyone.

      Armslist is the private sellers loophole, but I have said that ALL loopholes should be closed because they are profit-driven and have nothing to do with the second amendment. The notion that a violent felon cannot LEGALLY buy a gun in a gun store but can LEGALLY buy a gun in the parking lot is the absurd result of a powerful, economically-motivated lobby

      I'm cool with closing it. I think it needs to be. That's one of the things we need to focus on, not bans.

      Most wholesale bans would be unconstitutional

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      I'm cool with closing it. I think it needs to be. That's one of the things we need to focus on, not bans.

      You're okay with making private sales illegal?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I'm cool with closing it. I think it needs to be. That's one of the things we need to focus on, not bans.

      You're okay with making private sales illegal?

      Lol "illegal"Oooh ... Scary

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      Just a question for all those anti-gun members who are in favor of banning AR's and "high capacity" mags...How do you suggest we go about that?

      I am not anti gun, my house is full of them.  I am a sensible citizen that realizes things have to change.  There are several ways bans can be implemented.  The obvious start is banning the sales of assault rifles and ammunition.  Making it illegal to use them at ranges would be the next step.  Then a ban on civilian ownership with some form of compensation for handing weapons into the authorities.  Then after that make it a felony offense to own an assault rifle carrying the same sentence as any other criminal usage of a gun.Many other countries have banned or greatly reduced civilian access to firearms.  If the law changes and owning some types of guns is illegal the overwhelming majority of law abiding citizens will comply. Just banning the sale of new assault rifles is a start.  That coupled with more gun controls and registering will reduce firearm deaths significantly. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 52

      You're okay with making private sales illegal?

      Private sales would still be legal they would just have to go through a firearms dealer with all the same checks that new gun sales have.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Sound familiar?http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/15/politics/defy-gun-lobby/index.html

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      The obvious start is banning the sales of assault rifles and ammunition. 

      Banning ammunition? What?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1151

      So say you get all your gun control laws passed, how do you stop a nutcase from stealing the gun from a lawful owner who passed all your background checks and is a productive member of society? The past several mass shootings all were with stolen guns from relatives.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      So say you get all your gun control laws passed, how do you stop a nutcase from stealing the gun from a lawful owner who passed all your background checks and is a productive member of society? The past several mass shootings all were with stolen guns from relatives.

      Good lord, that's not true. Start with getting your facts straight

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5438

      So say you get all your gun control laws passed, how do you stop a nutcase from stealing the gun from a lawful owner who passed all your background checks and is a productive member of society? The past several mass shootings all were with stolen guns from relatives.

      Good lord, that's not true. Start with getting your facts straight

      Docker-Bubble-Living-in-a-Dome-with-Homer-500x383.png

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Mass murder attempt at a school today in Sweeden. 2 killed, 2 injured. Not quite Sandy Hook. So what was the difference? This crazy person had a sword and a knife. It's not just mental health, guns matter

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      The real question is whether or not those were assault knifes or tactical swords. I think there should be a “buy back” program if that’s the case.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      The real question is whether or not those were assault knifes or tactical swords. I think there should be a "buy back" program if that's the case.

      your brother in arms, Buggsy, would say you are "butthurt" when it comes to your prized assault rifles.Kidding, besides "assault knives" is just a term used by the idiot anti-knife crowd, none of whom should allowed to opposed assault knives without knowing that an actual assault knife has a 3" or greater handle and a curve of no greater than 1% . .  . they don't know what they are talking about when it comes to the technical specifications of knives and so their point of view is invalid . . they just think they're scary . .  that's the real issue!!!By the way, DH . .  . any thoughts on my actual point? Access to guns does matter, its not just mental health? Plenty of proof of that around . . . for eyes willing to see

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      More NRA absurdityhttp://money.cnn.com/2015/10/21/news/police-selling-seized-guns/index.html

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      The real question is whether or not those were assault knifes or tactical swords. I think there should be a "buy back" program if that's the case.

      your brother in arms, Buggsy, would say you are "butthurt" when it comes to your prized assault rifles.By the way, DH . .  . any thoughts on my actual point? Access to guns does matter, its not just mental health? Plenty of proof of that around . . . for eyes willing to see

      I'm not "butthurt" about my assault rifles. They aren't going anywhere. As far as your actual point, when have I ever said it's just mental health?

      Please wait…

Viewing 171 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.