Page 17 of 24 FirstFirst ... 7101112131415161718192021222324 LastLast
Results 209 to 221 of 310
  1. #209
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Eufaula OK
    Posts
    4,175
    One of things that is most likely to make it to law is the background checks.
    This will make it necessary to have a BC if you give your son or daughter a gun, any change of ownership. I got a problem with that.

  2. #210
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by jmac00 View Post
    in the last 10 mass shooting since 2007,(since NObama has been in office) the "assault weapon" has been used four times. ALL by mentally deficient individuals.

    of the 3.5 million modern sporting rifles in public your chances of being in a mass shooting are miniscule compared to being killed by your doctor, or drunk driver.

    ALL mass shooting are done by deranged individuals, mostly using hand guns. Yet not one of you gun banners even mention banning hand guns. All you seem to think about is the four modern sporting rifles used by a mental case.
    AR 15 and like is shorthand for these weapons and accessories. I believe all weapons and their availabilty used in mass-shooting should be considered.

    Your desire to ban the modern sporting rifle is skewed only because a deranged scumbag shot 21 children.

    If Lanza had shot up a mall, would you still be willing to ban modern sporting rifles. From previous history, I think not.
    I've often seen far more than 21 children in a mall.

    I will grant you that killing children is more horrifying but any mass-shooting is sad.



    BTW, I notice you are now calling these weapons modern sporting rifles. Is that an edict from the NRA?

  3. #211
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by glennac View Post
    So you let some commie loving socialist judge appointed by either a left wing Democrat or a RINO Republican and approved by a majority of commie loving left wing Democratic Senators read and interpret the Constitution for you since you can't read it or understand the plain language in it yourself. Figures.
    I doubt Justice Scalia would be described by any sane person over the age of 3 as a "commie loving socialist."


    FYI- Scalia was appointed by Reagan.




    The rest of us can read and don't need some Marxist to read and interpret the US Constitution for us. Thank you, thank you very much.
    Why hell boy, just this post of yours alone gives strong evidence that you not only have trouble reading but you are equally inept at history and constitutional law not to mention a narrowly focused intellectual menu.

  4. #212
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Helioson View Post
    Sorry I'm a newbie, please forgive me.
    well we all can't be seasoned veterans but do try to learn something about a person before you label them.

    Do you really believe that "ban" equals no "mass-shootings"?

    If you do, why is it that Connecticut had a ban in place before SH took place and Lanza was still able to carry out what he did?
    I have neither said nor do I believe a ban equals no "mass shootings"

    I believe that what you and other "anti-gunners" really want is a complete, across the board gun ban, aka "slippery slope"
    I can't speak for others, but I am a gun owner myself and I believe a complete ban on firearms would be a violation of the 2nd A.

    Help me understand, I'm a little new to this subject.
    A comprehensive approach is needed which does include a restriction on certain weapons and accessories as well as other actions. No, this solution would not prevent all mass-shootings but has the potential to lessen the death toll and deter likely mass-shooters.

  5. #213
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Chicagoland Area
    Posts
    4,681
    I stopped following this thread pages ago, but decided to chime in. Anyone ever hear of the Dick Act? HR11654 I am unable to find info on any gubmint site but everywhere else states it is unlawful to inact any type of gun control. http://www.meetup.com/usconstitution...thread=7361877

    http://youtu.be/eMlzYFx2ZtM
    Officially, Down for the count

    YOU HAVE TO GET OFF YOUR ASS TO GET ON YOUR FEET

    I know enough to know, I don't know enough
    Liberalism-Ideas so good they mandate them

  6. #214
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    in my lumpy chair
    Posts
    1,951
    For the socially engineered morons here.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KztkvfeyO80
    Last edited by lolson; 02-18-2013 at 12:17 PM. Reason: more than one
    I dont warranty Tinkeritus

  7. #215
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Jax View Post
    The "If it save just one life" simply shows they have no consideration for the law abiding gun owner, and willing to sign it away so casually.
    As a law abiding gun owner, I believe it is a perfectly reasonable and valid point and gives due consideration to the gun owner. We must also keep in mind that mass-shootings involve more than one child, often many more.

  8. #216
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Jax View Post
    One of things that is most likely to make it to law is the background checks.
    This will make it necessary to have a BC if you give your son or daughter a gun, any change of ownership. I got a problem with that.
    One model proposes transfer through a licensed gun dealer for a nominal fee.

  9. #217
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by 2sac View Post
    I stopped following this thread pages ago, but decided to chime in. Anyone ever hear of the Dick Act? HR11654 I am unable to find info on any gubmint site but everywhere else states it is unlawful to inact any type of gun control. http://www.meetup.com/usconstitution...thread=7361877

    http://youtu.be/eMlzYFx2ZtM
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/dickact.asp


    Just another internet urban legend.

  10. #218
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kaufman county, Texas
    Posts
    10,251
    "No law or set of laws can keep our children completely safe. But if there's even one thing we can do, if there's just one life we can save, we've got an obligation to try," Obama said.


    Quote Originally Posted by geerair View Post
    Horrifying. An agenda that proposes an attempt to restrict the weapons used in mass-shootings in hopes of saving lives.

    Meanwhile the NRA/Gun Nut solution is more guns and hi cap mags for everybody.
    Horrifyingly stupid. You cannot go around passing inept and poorly conceived laws on 300,000,000 people willy-nilly over the loss of 30.
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    "Who ARE you people? And WHAT are you doing in my SWAMP!?" Shrek

    Service calls submitted after 3PM will be posted the next business day.

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

    "I am sorry for interrupting, please continue with your quarreling" Some chick on TV

  11. #219
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kaufman county, Texas
    Posts
    10,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Helioson View Post
    Sorry I'm a newbie, please forgive me.

    Do you really believe that "ban" equals no "mass-shootings"?

    If you do, why is it that Connecticut had a ban in place before SH took place and Lanza was still able to carry out what he did?

    I believe that what you and other "anti-gunners" really want is a complete, across the board gun ban, aka "slippery slope"
    How else are we really going to prevent the death of several school children? To do that you would have to remove every gun in America, shut down all gun manufacturing in the US, close all borders and ensure that our police and military weapons never fell into the hands of criminals. Do you really feel that way? If you were given your choice and you alone had the sole responsibility for any other children's lives in the future, could you live with that?

    Help me understand, I'm a little new to this subject.
    The anti-gun crowd know damm good and well that the assault weapon ban is stupid cosmetic foolishness on definition of "ASSAULT WEAPON". They also know that long guns are not the primary tool of crime, it is actually handguns. They have all been told, if they did not know already.

    So if they pass a ASSAULT WEAPON ban, they are going to come back the next mass shooting and say "I agree with you guys, there is only cosmetic differences so now we need to ban all semi-auto weapons". And, "I agree with you guys, handguns are more of a problem anyway, so we need to ban handguns". That is how they work. That is EXACTLY how it will incrementally happen if we let them get a hand in our hypothetical bra. Just say no. No to socialist state moron drones wanting to take away our personal freedom and independence.
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    "Who ARE you people? And WHAT are you doing in my SWAMP!?" Shrek

    Service calls submitted after 3PM will be posted the next business day.

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

    "I am sorry for interrupting, please continue with your quarreling" Some chick on TV

  12. #220
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    7,915
    Quote Originally Posted by 2sac View Post
    I stopped following this thread pages ago, but decided to chime in. Anyone ever hear of the Dick Act? HR11654 I am unable to find info on any gubmint site but everywhere else states it is unlawful to inact any type of gun control. http://www.meetup.com/usconstitution...thread=7361877

    http://youtu.be/eMlzYFx2ZtM
    All the dick act did was create the national guard and then it took all the other guys who were previously in the well regulated militia.... which is now the nat guard..... and put these civilians into what is known as the unorganized militia....or the draft pool...

    Aint no more well regulated citizen militia. You got the nat guard and you got the state militias... which you can join...but they are pretty much just for ceremonial duty.
    YOU SHALL REAP WHAT YOU HAVE _______ SOWN

  13. #221
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Western PA
    Posts
    25,761
    I'm still waiting for the rest of the "approach"

    We can disagree on the banning of a certain class of weapons all day long.

    The looney gun grabbers keep yapping about their "balanced" and "multi-faceted" approach.


    WHERE IS IT?







    The proposed AWB and other like legislation is nothing more than a 'good-natured' attempt by those in power to take more freedoms from law-abiding citizens while doing NOTHING meaningful to affect the very crimes that they wish to affect.

    Biden even said so.

    Until you come up with a plan that addresses the causative factors of mass-shootings and violence in general, you could ban ALL guns and have no affect on crime rates.

Page 17 of 24 FirstFirst ... 7101112131415161718192021222324 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event