- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 34,159
- Reaction score
- 37,636
- Location
- With Yo Mama
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Cons want another civil war bring it on, the North would kick their ass again, please bring it.
I don't give a **** how many guns they have the other side will always have more, and of course more money also, the South is as poor as ****, and least educated..
Guns won't do a damn thing for those sorry inbreds when we are dropping Missiles on your ass, and Nuking you Waco Style!!
Thermonuclear weapons MF..:lamo
Hmmm...interesting. The gun sellers love a good mass killing because gun sales go up. I guess that's what Rahm Emanuel was talking about when he spoke of the good crises and not letting them go to waste. So by your logic, I guess we can say that the anti-gun politicians and anti-gun advocates, like Obama and most other Liberals, love a good mass killing because they have one more thing they can use to advance their agendas.
My comparison is spot on. Your logic tells you that gun sellers love to see people slaughtered because it benefits them. And I'm saying in return that Liberals love to see people slaughtered because it benefits them. Thanks for reminding us of people who use mass slaughters for their own personal gain. Yes, even your beloved Liberal lawmakers. "Oh how sad. 9 people died. Our hearts go out to their families. We need gun control. Everyone mobilize!"
Rahm Emanuel was right, huh.
My logic tells me gun sellers love to sell guns. You just can't accept the fact that mass killings spur gun sales. Kids died in CT, not much in the way of gun control passed. But a whole lot more guns got sold. Your just pissed because I pointed it out. Tough!
I'm a heartless liberal, what can I say? I don't have my views because I "care," I have my views because it's been proven, and/or in the process of being proven that liberal policies cost less in the long run, kill fewer people, and create fewer enemies.
No, you stop being dishonest. Here's what Luther said on page 1 of this thread: "If they try to ban guns the carnage at Sandy Hook will barely be a blip on the radar. If they try to confiscate guns the Civil War will look like a blip on the radar."
This isn't talk of revolution; this is a prediction.
And when I've wondered what would cause Americans to get off their apathy, I've always thought that it would be over the right to keep and bear arms. <This isn't talk of revolution either; it's also a prediction.
Which 'law' do you suppose would have prevented this? No assault rifle used. Magazine capacity not an issue. Handgun not a military style combat rifle. Waiting period not relevant...weapon was purchased months ago. Background checks not relevant...weapon purchased by his father. No bans on 2 or more military style features to a weapon would have been relevant. Bans on specific types of ammo (especially 'armor piercing bullets') would not have been relevant.
At the end of the day...you like everyone else is just trying to further a ridiculous agenda as evidenced by your bleating on about the NRA.
I would hope gun sellers and manufacturers don't count on mass killings but they sure don't hurt their business.
I don't recall asking you the question, Nota. Stop defending a man who talks of revolution and is unwilling to put his money where his mouth is.
The right to own a gun is not unrestricted and 90% believe it should be more restricted by background checks so no. I am talking about our legislators who have been bought out by the NRA and are financed by the gun companies who just want to make a buck no matter what the consequences. How would comprehensive background checks effect your right to own a gun by the way? You couldn't pass them?
yet again that is wrong-its your leaders calling for gun bans that spur the sales.
Yes, of course, silence the opposition. That's what Freedom is all about!!
that's because the NRA does stuff that really upsets the left
they help elect conservatives.
Yes, of course, silence the opposition. That's what Freedom is all about!!
True to a point. However its the mass killings that lead to people calling for stricter control over guns. Which in turn, with the help of the NRA crazies, lead the paranoid to the gun dealers. You can rationalize all you want, mass killings help spur gun sales.
yet again that is wrong-its your leaders calling for gun bans that spur the sales.
some gun sellers like seeing Democrat attempts to ban guns because that does increase their sales. Massacres do not. its the reactionary Democrat solution to massacres that does
Man, when you put it that way, it's almost as if mass shootings are a financial benefit to gun companies. Remember the run on guns immediately after Sandy Hook?
The NRA also has a board member who has blamed the State Senator who was gunned down and then blamed him for the death of the other eight.
Pretty sick don't you think?
Since South Carolina couldn't pass a law for CC in churches.
And they're not electing conservatives--let's get that straight--they're electing GOPs .
True to a point. However its the mass killings that lead to people calling for stricter control over guns. Which in turn, with the help of the NRA crazies, lead the paranoid to the gun dealers. You can rationalize all you want, mass killings help spur gun sales. People call for stricter control all the time but its after these traumatic events that the gun crazies think there is more of a chance of some type of control actually happening.
Man, when you put it that way, it's almost as if mass shootings are a financial benefit to gun companies. Remember the run on guns immediately after Sandy Hook?
Cons want another civil war bring it on, the North would kick their ass again, please bring it.
I don't give a **** how many guns they have the other side will always have more, and of course more money also, the South is as poor as ****, and least educated..
Guns won't do a damn thing for those sorry inbreds when we are dropping Missiles on your ass, and Nuking you Waco Style!!
Thermonuclear weapons MF..:lamo
Which leaders are calling for gun bans?
I've heard zero leaders calling for gun bans.
You know that and continue to peddle this lie .
I realize you hate what you perceive to be the politics of most gun owners. so you will call the NRA "crazies" mainly because the NRA opposes the very politicians you want in office. But the fact remains, in 1993, the 15 round magazines for my Frederick Craig Custom built Para-Ordnance 1911 cost me 45 dollars. I saw that the clinton gun ban was going to prevent those magazines from being made and sold to non-government civilians for 10 years, So I bought ten more so I had enough to compete (wear and tear-I lose about a magazine a year). Smart move on my part-by 1995, those same magazines cost over 150 dollars. People who were trying to get into the USPSA game were effectively shut out or had to pony up several thousand dollars just to be able to compete with people like me who had amassed sufficient gear to run at the top levels before the Clintonista idiocy.
its people like you who hope that the chances of gun control will pass after a massacre which is why you all demand gun bans more stridently after such bloodshed.
the crazies are those who think that honest people should have their rights restricted because of the actions of someone who ignores the penalties for capital murder
and again, you call people like us crazy because we don't buy into the collectivist welfare socialist culture that seems to be the unifying theme of the gun banner movement
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?