Conservatives are now attacking survivors of school shootings

[Faun]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1990/roll534.xml

INSUFFICIENT. Has no information on what they voted for, other than the title of the bill.

Why is it my fault you’re too stupid to know what bill S. 3266 (1990) is or how to find it?

Regardless of your ignorance, you asked for a link to the roll call and I gave you one.

 

[Faun]

Not much of a response, but predictable, since the information is historical fact that can't be refuted.

What more needed to be said??

 

[protectionist]

Why is it my fault you’re too stupid to know what bill S. 3266 (1990) is or how to find it?

Regardless of your ignorance, you asked for a link to the roll call and I gave you one.

I was hoping for something that also shows what the roll call was for. You think you can handle it ?

 

[protectionist]

What more needed to be said??

He could have responded to the specific things mentioned (ex. Hasan's attack on the troops, and thereby Obama's negligence, or treason, by not removing Hasan with a dishonorable discharge, as was requested by every Army officer in Fort Hood from the rank of major and above)

 

[sealybobo]

I'm sure you know much more than a trauma surgeon who teaches this, loser.

Surgeons don't know jack shit about firearms and ballistics, moron. Surgeons don't teach it.

Are you actually saying that they have no experience in this area?
A trauma surgeon knows more about the damage caused by the various types of weapons than anyone else, dope.

You mofos are especially stupid and desperate this go around.

I was hoping it would be affordable healthcare that got young people to vote not this.

Maybe this generation will be less pathetic than the one just before them.

Every generation is more pathetic than the last.

Every generation is more pathetic than the last.

In your family?

No doubt.

Interesting the changes or evolution of parenting since ww2. If you grew up in the war your parents showed no love. Parents went from hitting to not hitting

 

[protectionist]

Imbecile, Republicans control the most of the federal government and they’re not even making an effort to get rid of gun free zones. And why would they when all but one voted aye when it it was put to a vote? And your stupid excuse of a filibuster fails you because Republicans could do away with filibusters if they really wanted to, which they don’t.

As far as state and local jurisdictions, many would follow the federal government’s lead if they were to abolish gun free zones.

When "it" (Crime Control act of 1990) was put to a vote, it was a small part of a much larger, comprehensive bill that contained many other things. Often, when bills are passed in congress, they contain numerous sub-bills. Gun-free zones was one of these sub-bills that legislators had to vote for, in order to get a series of other things put into law.

So it's wrong to say that "it" was put to a vote. Actually, a whole slew of things were put to a vote - which happened to contain gun-free zones, only one item among all these others >>

Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990

Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990

Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990

Criminal Victims Protection Act of 1990

Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990

Financial Institutions Anti-Fraud Enforcement Act of 1990

Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990

Mandatory Detention for Offenders Convicted of Serious Crimes Act

National Child Search Assistance Act of 1990

National Law Enforcement Cooperation Act of 1990

Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990

Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990

Now maybe you'll have enough perspective on it, to keep from having other posters call you "Imbecile". You're welcome.

 

[Faun]

Why is it my fault you’re too stupid to know what bill S. 3266 (1990) is or how to find it?

Regardless of your ignorance, you asked for a link to the roll call and I gave you one.

I was hoping for something that also shows what the roll call was for. You think you can handle it ?

Why would you hope for that when I already gave you a link to it??

 

[protectionist]

Why would you hope for that when I already said what they voted for??

And even being as stupid as you are to not know what I was talking about even though I already said, I gave you a link which shows the bill number. I would think even a moron like you could google it; but it seems you’re even dumber than a moron.

What could be dumber than to post something like this, which was entirely refuted an hour before you posted it. See post # 1146. Sheeesh!

 

[protectionist]

Why would you hope for that when I already gave you a link to it??

All you gave was the title and the roll call. I'm the one who posted the CONTENT of it - here in Post # 1146. And showing why your post was insufficient.

Secondly, your very dumb signature about Trump and a disabled reported is WRONG. What's more, it was shown to be wrong, in dozens of publications, more than a year ago. You still now (Feb. 2018) don't know the story on this fake news Hillary campaign committee lie ? HA HA . I'll explain it to you if you really still don't know.

 

[Faun]

Why would you hope for that when I already gave you a link to it??

All you gave was the title and the roll call. I'm the one who posted the CONTENT of it - here in Post # 1146. And showing why your post was insufficient.

Secondly, your very dumb signature about Trump and a disabled reported is WRONG. What's more, it was shown to be wrong, in dozens of publications, more than a year ago. You still now (Feb. 2018) don't know the story on this fake news Hillary campaign committee lie ? HA HA . I'll explain it to you if you really still don't know.

LOL

My signature is only wrong to brain-dead cons. At least we know to which herd you belong.

 

[protectionist]

LOL

My signature is only wrong to brain-dead cons. At least we know to which herd you belong.

Liberals are the most information-deprived folks in America. Since YOU obviously are the brain-dead one here, regarding Trump and Kovaleski, here is your cure >>

Serge Kovaleski - Trump was referring to Kovaleski's denial and recant of his September 2001 Washington Post article, in which he reported Muslims cheering on rooftops and holding tailgate-style parties shortly after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Play back the video. Trump says "Ah, I can't remember Ah, I don't know what I said"

He was mocking Kovaleski's refusal to admit to what he had wriiten. It had nothing to do with any disability. And Kovaleski DESERVED to be mocked over that.

Trump's flailing his arms around, has no connection to Kovaleski o rhis disability. Kovaleski isn't even able to move his arms in the that manner, and Trump has mocked other people the same way, none of whom had any disability.

The attack on Trump was PURE DISHONEST FABRICATION, perpetrated by Hillary and the MSM.

Amazing that you're still conned over this.

 

[Faun]

LOL

My signature is only wrong to brain-dead cons. At least we know to which herd you belong.

Liberals are the most information-deprived folks in America. Since YOU obviously are the brain-dead one here, regarding Trump and Kovaleski, here is your cure >>

Serge Kovaleski - Trump was referring to Kovaleski's denial and recant of his September 2001 Washington Post article, in which he reported Muslims cheering on rooftops and holding tailgate-style parties shortly after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Play back the video. Trump says "Ah, I can't remember Ah, I don't know what I said"

He was mocking Kovaleski's refusal to admit to what he had wriiten. It had nothing to do with any disability. And Kovaleski DESERVED to be mocked over that.

Trump's flailing his arms around, has no connection to Kovaleski o rhis disability. Kovaleski isn't even able to move his arms in the that manner, and Trump has mocked other people the same way, none of whom had any disability.

The attack on Trump was PURE DISHONEST FABRICATION, perpetrated by Hillary and the MSM.

Amazing that you're still conned over this.

Ohh.., so my signature is wrong because you say so.

 

[protectionist]

Ohh.., so my signature is wrong because you say so.

No, because the FACTS say so, which you, misguided by your liberal OMISSION media, were oblivious to.

I'll wager you still don't know the truth about the other false 2016 Hillary TV ads (McCain, Khizir Khan, & outsourcing).

If you want the deprogramming on those, I can supply that too. Ho hum.

 

[hunarcy]

I do my own thinking thank you. I can see clearly the NRA is a terrorist organization and this POS president is in their grips. He actually asked his sons, Beavis and Butthead, what he should do with the gun problem in this country
You voted for this buffoon.

The NRA is not a terrorist organisation, WTF you need to get a grip you are completely losing it.

They are a terrorists best friend

You do not know even what a terrorist is or you would not post such a stupid comment.

Why did the NRA block the addition of those on the Do Not Fly list to the list not to sell guns?

THE NRA wants to ensure the open flow of guns to terrorists

NRA blocks law to stop suspected terrorists from buying guns

For the same reason they oppose other appropriate firearm regulatory measures: the NRA’s idiotic slippery slope fallacy that common sense gun laws today mean ‘confiscation’ tomorrow.

For 55 years, you folks have proposed "common sense firearm regulatory measures" and when they don't work (because they don't intend for them to actually be effective) further "common sense firearm regulatory measures" are demanded with the sole goal of stripping our rights from us.

 

[protectionist]

[QUOTE="hunarcy, post: 19377087, member: 42934/]
For 55 years, you folks have proposed "common sense firearm regulatory measures" and when they don't work (because they don't intend for them to actually be effective) further "common sense firearm regulatory measures" are demanded with the sole goal of stripping our rights from us.[/QUOTE]
I'll buy that.

 

[Wickerthing]

[
That's clearing a field of fire not laying one down. Potato Potato
This is all you got?

So, you can set up a field of fire with a single rifle that lacks select fire?

Okay, not exactly a "lie," but completely ignorant and intentionally misleading.

A field of fire can be narrow or wide. You don't think so? Oh well why would I care? Go troll someone else. You're out of your element here.

 

[Wickerthing]

I'd take it if that's the best we can do but that's not enough. An experienced user can reload in just a few seconds. We need to limit the number of bullets that can be shot in a short period so that a time window exists for escape. I've used the term "field of fire" to describe this and was accused of not knowing about guns at all.

To a Marine, field of fire means a steady stream that must be avoided to survive. Even a single M16 or AR can produce a field of fire and that's what has to be limited. Especially, if there is just one means of escape like a classroom.

A steady barrage of bullets becomes a wall or field that the trapped can't penetrate. We need to limit weapons to those that require reloading after just a few rounds and that takes at least a good ten seconds or more. One that requires the user to take the weapon away from the muzzle pointing down range.

LOL! Perhaps you need to refresh your memory. Here's a link to the Marine Squad Rifle manuel. You should review 5-21 to find out what the Marine Corps has to say about fields of fire. That way, you might be able to create a more believable character.

http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCWP 3-11.2 Marine Rifle Squad.pdf

That's clearing a field of fire not laying one down. Potato Potato
This is all you got?

What, the fact that you're a poser pretending to be a Marine is not good enough for you? You have no credibility.

Again, that's all you got? To wish me away? OK, then I'm a girl scout. Does that make you feel better?

 

[hunarcy]

[
That's clearing a field of fire not laying one down. Potato Potato
This is all you got?

So, you can set up a field of fire with a single rifle that lacks select fire?

Okay, not exactly a "lie," but completely ignorant and intentionally misleading.

A field of fire can be narrow or wide. You don't think so? Oh well why would I care? Go troll someone else. You're out of your element here.

Came back to try to bluff your way into a character you know nothing about? Enjoy whatever attention you can get, trollboy.

 

[Wickerthing]

[

I agree completely. You are spot on.
Maybe a better term is suppressive fire. An AR excels at that role.

Really? A rifle that fires only once per trigger pull "excels" at suppressive fire?

The lies you Stalinists tell.

The poster and I were talking about an M16. Why do you feel it's so important to sound like some sort of expert? That's your schtick? I'm not impressed with all your bluster and name calling. Everybody who disagrees with you righties is either a Commie or a Stalinist or ? Sure sign that you've really got nothing to say. Just curious, what's your military background? Mr Nomenclature.

 

[Wickerthing]

[
That's clearing a field of fire not laying one down. Potato Potato
This is all you got?

So, you can set up a field of fire with a single rifle that lacks select fire?

Okay, not exactly a "lie," but completely ignorant and intentionally misleading.

A field of fire can be narrow or wide. You don't think so? Oh well why would I care? Go troll someone else. You're out of your element here.

Came back to try to bluff your way into a character you know nothing about? Enjoy whatever attention you can get, trollboy.

I'm certainly enjoying the attention I'm getting from you. It's pathetic and amusing as hell.