Another idiot with a gun

[Peikko 1,575]

From what I've read on this and other threads preventing this sort of thing invariably comes down to ensuring that everyone should be allowed to carry a gun for protection, because you just never know when your father, brother, or uncle will snap and start shooting.

"Johnny dear, what have I told you about wearing your gun at the dinner table?"

"** off b!tch! How dare you infringe on my constitutionally enshrined, God ordained holy rights! I don't trust any of you bastards as far as I could kick you! and if dad tries to slap me again I'll blow his motherfucking head off!"

This stuff is comedic gold - time to start writing 'Little America'

[natty bumppo 297]

That's what I really find obnoxious, this attempt to suggest that guns are so innocuous and that anything else could and would do by those who purport to be 'responsible' gun owners. No, it would not. Guns were invented for a reason and it wasn't because they looked cool.

no, what's really obnoxious is someone who can't even vote here telling usc's that they shouldn't own guns.

Someone must be scared about potentially taking a mental health exam

maybe you should be required to pass a test to vote? sound fair?

maybe you should be required to pass a test to prove you can live alone ... without gov't people in your house?

maybe you should be required to pass a test before writing, talking, etc

maybe you should be required to pass a test to to be protected from a unnecessary search and or seizure

maybe you should pass a test to determine if you are accorded due process

etc ....

The first one, I would agree to, and would welcome it in this country. The rest of those are a red herring. None of those have the ability to take someone elses lives. Nice try though natty, do try again.

so you support jim crowe laws. amazing how full circle the left has become.

well ... at least NS is honest in support of the old jim crowe laws. wonder which USC demographic will suffer the most?

[The Dude 206]

That's what I really find obnoxious, this attempt to suggest that guns are so innocuous and that anything else could and would do by those who purport to be 'responsible' gun owners. No, it would not. Guns were invented for a reason and it wasn't because they looked cool.

no, what's really obnoxious is someone who can't even vote here telling usc's that they shouldn't own guns.

Someone must be scared about potentially taking a mental health exam

maybe you should be required to pass a test to vote? sound fair?

maybe you should be required to pass a test to prove you can live alone ... without gov't people in your house?

maybe you should be required to pass a test before writing, talking, etc

maybe you should be required to pass a test to to be protected from a unnecessary search and or seizure

maybe you should pass a test to determine if you are accorded due process

etc ....

The first one, I would agree to, and would welcome it in this country. The rest of those are a red herring. None of those have the ability to take someone elses lives. Nice try though natty, do try again.

so you support jim crowe laws. amazing how full circle the left has become.

well ... at least NS is honest in support of the old jim crowe laws. wonder which USC demographic will suffer the most?

LoL.... Charles and Natty posting is like watching these two

[natty bumppo 297]

yes, you did agree with natty's post. or do you just run off and post without thinking about the ramifications?

now tell me what's so special about a high capacity magazine? a bit of practice and one can swap out magazines in a very short time. that is, after all, what they were designed for.

ammo piercing ammo is already banned for private use. surely you knew that, didn't you? no?

as for sharing information between state and federal government, you might check out the brady bill and what it requires. it's already in effect, although as from the story in the op, not effectively.

and before anyone else decides to fire rounds my way, i'm all for someone losing their firearms on the first incident of domestic violence........

First sane thing you've said all day

As who my employer is, I'm privy to quite a bit of info that I can't share. However, I can tell you charles that there are companies out there that still produce those rounds. They simply modify one aspect of them and sell them under the radar. Yes, I do agree that someone trained could reload smaller magazines quickly enough that they could pump out almost as many rounds as a high capacity. However, I'm not worried so much about those with that sort of training. Someone with law enforcement, or military training could do a lot more damage with a lot less than your average citizen. Those people are also a lot smaller in number.

How can you honestly defend having high capacity magazines or assault rifles?

now we're off on assault rifles.......

and somewhere on vj i've posted before two pics and asked for people to identify the "assault rifle" funny thing was, only those familiar with guns knew the answer.

it was the same gun, just cosmetic modifications were made.

I believe I was the one of the people that answered that one correctly.

fixored

you may have answered the question correctly ... just not the first and only one ...

Edited September 9, 2009 by Natty Bumppo

[natty bumppo 297]

all aggressors, foreign and DOMESTIC... nothing fuzzy

Hmmm... so you're implying that those 'millions' who've died defending these constitutional rights... have done so against domestic aggressors?

I'd love to see that history book in your library.

Anyway... lets see where this thread goes. With your entrance and Charles' insistence on seeing things that are not there I can predict that things will go nowhere rational very fast.

TTAYL

don't recognize that? i'm not surprised.......

enemies of the us can be domestic too ya know.

wonder if anyone will get the irony of the historical significance of the date of the booking pic?

[Ban Hammer 14,251]

That's what I really find obnoxious, this attempt to suggest that guns are so innocuous and that anything else could and would do by those who purport to be 'responsible' gun owners. No, it would not. Guns were invented for a reason and it wasn't because they looked cool.

no, what's really obnoxious is someone who can't even vote here telling usc's that they shouldn't own guns.

Someone must be scared about potentially taking a mental health exam

maybe you should be required to pass a test to vote? sound fair?

maybe you should be required to pass a test to prove you can live alone ... without gov't people in your house?

maybe you should be required to pass a test before writing, talking, etc

maybe you should be required to pass a test to to be protected from a unnecessary search and or seizure

maybe you should pass a test to determine if you are accorded due process

etc ....

The first one, I would agree to, and would welcome it in this country. The rest of those are a red herring. None of those have the ability to take someone elses lives. Nice try though natty, do try again.

so you support jim crowe laws. amazing how full circle the left has become.

well ... at least NS is honest in support of the old jim crowe laws. wonder which USC demographic will suffer the most?

LoL.... Charles and Natty posting is like watching these two

don't you have someone to go oppress?

[The Dude 206]

That's what I really find obnoxious, this attempt to suggest that guns are so innocuous and that anything else could and would do by those who purport to be 'responsible' gun owners. No, it would not. Guns were invented for a reason and it wasn't because they looked cool.

no, what's really obnoxious is someone who can't even vote here telling usc's that they shouldn't own guns.

Someone must be scared about potentially taking a mental health exam

maybe you should be required to pass a test to vote? sound fair?

maybe you should be required to pass a test to prove you can live alone ... without gov't people in your house?

maybe you should be required to pass a test before writing, talking, etc

maybe you should be required to pass a test to to be protected from a unnecessary search and or seizure

maybe you should pass a test to determine if you are accorded due process

etc ....

The first one, I would agree to, and would welcome it in this country. The rest of those are a red herring. None of those have the ability to take someone elses lives. Nice try though natty, do try again.

so you support jim crowe laws. amazing how full circle the left has become.

well ... at least NS is honest in support of the old jim crowe laws. wonder which USC demographic will suffer the most?

LoL.... Charles and Natty posting is like watching these two

don't you have someone to go oppress?

Don't you have a point to fail at making?

[natty bumppo 297]

That's what I really find obnoxious, this attempt to suggest that guns are so innocuous and that anything else could and would do by those who purport to be 'responsible' gun owners. No, it would not. Guns were invented for a reason and it wasn't because they looked cool.

no, what's really obnoxious is someone who can't even vote here telling usc's that they shouldn't own guns.

Someone must be scared about potentially taking a mental health exam

maybe you should be required to pass a test to vote? sound fair?

maybe you should be required to pass a test to prove you can live alone ... without gov't people in your house?

maybe you should be required to pass a test before writing, talking, etc

maybe you should be required to pass a test to to be protected from a unnecessary search and or seizure

maybe you should pass a test to determine if you are accorded due process

etc ....

The first one, I would agree to, and would welcome it in this country. The rest of those are a red herring. None of those have the ability to take someone elses lives. Nice try though natty, do try again.

so you support jim crowe laws. amazing how full circle the left has become.

well ... at least NS is honest in support of the old jim crowe laws. wonder which USC demographic will suffer the most?

LoL.... Charles and Natty posting is like watching these two

don't you have someone to go oppress?

I sense denial (and not the river in africa)

wonder if RJ has a room ready for NS yet?

[Heracles 417]

don't recognize that? i'm not surprised.......

enemies of the us can be domestic too ya know.

As a result, access to certain substances are further restricted. Heck, the other day I had to show ID to purchase baking soda. Or is that just a new Target supercentre thing.

maybe it's just you?

Also a republican, NRA member then turned libertarian. just saying

Edited September 9, 2009 by Booyah!

[Ban Hammer 14,251]

That's what I really find obnoxious, this attempt to suggest that guns are so innocuous and that anything else could and would do by those who purport to be 'responsible' gun owners. No, it would not. Guns were invented for a reason and it wasn't because they looked cool.

no, what's really obnoxious is someone who can't even vote here telling usc's that they shouldn't own guns.

Someone must be scared about potentially taking a mental health exam

maybe you should be required to pass a test to vote? sound fair?

maybe you should be required to pass a test to prove you can live alone ... without gov't people in your house?

maybe you should be required to pass a test before writing, talking, etc

maybe you should be required to pass a test to to be protected from a unnecessary search and or seizure

maybe you should pass a test to determine if you are accorded due process

etc ....

The first one, I would agree to, and would welcome it in this country. The rest of those are a red herring. None of those have the ability to take someone elses lives. Nice try though natty, do try again.

so you support jim crowe laws. amazing how full circle the left has become.

well ... at least NS is honest in support of the old jim crowe laws. wonder which USC demographic will suffer the most?

LoL.... Charles and Natty posting is like watching these two

don't you have someone to go oppress?

Don't you have a point to fail at making?

grab a butterfly net, things are over your head......again!

[tmma 467]

just askin'...how did McVeigh get roped in to this?

maybe I should just read the thread.

-------

my 2/c on topic -I own a weapon and I am not an idiot. That's all.

[The Dude 206]

That's what I really find obnoxious, this attempt to suggest that guns are so innocuous and that anything else could and would do by those who purport to be 'responsible' gun owners. No, it would not. Guns were invented for a reason and it wasn't because they looked cool.

no, what's really obnoxious is someone who can't even vote here telling usc's that they shouldn't own guns.

Someone must be scared about potentially taking a mental health exam

maybe you should be required to pass a test to vote? sound fair?

maybe you should be required to pass a test to prove you can live alone ... without gov't people in your house?

maybe you should be required to pass a test before writing, talking, etc

maybe you should be required to pass a test to to be protected from a unnecessary search and or seizure

maybe you should pass a test to determine if you are accorded due process

etc ....

The first one, I would agree to, and would welcome it in this country. The rest of those are a red herring. None of those have the ability to take someone elses lives. Nice try though natty, do try again.

so you support jim crowe laws. amazing how full circle the left has become.

well ... at least NS is honest in support of the old jim crowe laws. wonder which USC demographic will suffer the most?

LoL.... Charles and Natty posting is like watching these two

don't you have someone to go oppress?

I sense denial (and not the river in africa)

wonder if RJ has a room ready for NS yet?

I see Natty and Charles are sipping from the same cup of fail today. Nice try though.

[HAL 9000 96]

at least i'm a bit more broad minded about gun ownership and have some expertise in the matter, as opposed to you.

I don't purport to be a gun expert. As to how 'broad minded' I am regarding gun ownership - that's guess work on your part. The only things you know for certain about my opinion on guns is that it's foolish to assume a cavalier attitude about firearms in order to further an agenda. Foolish in the extreme. That it's foolish to believe that gun owners are some how safer than non gun owners and that there is no correlation between legal gun ownership and gun crime and finally that this notion that gun ownership rights guarentee the integrity of freedom as being about as foolish a notion as you can get. That's all you know because that's all I have ever posted.

what i do know is this - any time there is something about taking away guns, you're there......

As a response to what I posted, that's meaningless.

as are 100% of your posts on the topic of guns..........

kinda like some are when gun laws and ownership is explained to them?

personally, i tend to think we'll see more and more instances like this as the left wingers continue their campaign to paint gun owners as "nutcases" "weirdos" and so on. and as more and more fall for the rhetoric and dispose of their means of self defense, that's just more unarmed victims for the dregs of society to prey upon.

As much as we'll continue to see actual lunatics killing their own families with legally purchased firearms.

that was a post about the ability of self defense......

kinda like some are when gun laws and ownership is explained to them?

personally, i tend to think we'll see more and more instances like this as the left wingers continue their campaign to paint gun owners as "nutcases" "weirdos" and so on. and as more and more fall for the rhetoric and dispose of their means of self defense, that's just more unarmed victims for the dregs of society to prey upon.

*sigh*

Charles you are just so seriously over-reaching.

I give up.

gun grabbers are usually over reaching too. i'm quite happy that many vj'ers are not on the judicial bench.

Murderer crazies' self defense of what?

[Heracles 417]

I just cannot see any logical rebuttal on why anyone would want to keep guns unrestricted. The only logical statement that came close was Charles mentioning that a certain demographic, that is most vulnerable, would use them for protection; which is fair enough. What about everyone else? No one in a city should be able to own a gun. That is just common sense.

I also posted facts illustrating the homicide rates by means of firearms, which show a clear correlation between lower homicide rates when guns are controlled. While quite the opposite when guns are not. America's homicide rate is now in the same status as 2nd and 3rd world countries. Is that what some people want America to be classed as? As a 3rd World nation. Do you not realized how embarrassing it is to be ranked like that?

Excluding 3rd world countries, I have never met a group of people who are so adamant against blocking progress and change. That are so insistent of keeping their country down. Be it health care or be it guns.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Booyah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Now kids, its important to be prepared. The important thing is that you shoot your father before he shoots you!