Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It makes you wonder why they are so atimate about keeping that loophole open....are they worried that they may need some cash and want to keep the option open to arm dubious people?
This is one small step of many. Liberals can't be trusted, so with liberals, you have to start just as early as they do.
But you'll trust the guy who wants to buy a gun "off the record". Does a shit-for-brains moron like yourself stop for a split second and wonder why the guy is having to buy a gun without going through a background check?
Of course the answer is no. As long as its not your family members or anyone you know getting killed (yet), there is no need to wonder what he is going to be doing with the weapon...
Its basically why the society is in the situation it is...trust nobody regardless of how much sense they make if they look differently than you, worship differently, or have some objectional political views...sums up the GOP perfectly.
And what "reasonable measures" are going to be next?
Limiting magazine and clip sizes so rampage killers will have to re-load. This gives people time to run and react and draw their own weaponry/return fire.
According to the multiple award winning series Frontline, the guy who tried to murder Gabby Gifford (the congresswoman from Arizona) had a 33 round clip on his Glock. He dropped his magazine while re-loading it and one of her aids grabbed it allowing the madman to be tackled and held until authorities showed up. Had he been limited to 5 bullets, people would still be alive.
It fits in the Constitution so there is no argument to be made on those grounds. It creates only a minor inconvenience for target shooters.
And when a murderer ignores your magazine limit laws? You are aware that murderers are not concerned with laws, aren't you?
Ha ha the classic response for those that have no answer to this particular issue. I don't need an inanimate object to give me a "stiffy". On the very rare occasion I do hunt I eat what ever I kill. I very much enjoy target shooting as a hobby and I would never shoot anyone unless they threatened myself or someone I loved. Hell I would even protect a stranger not because of macho bullshit but because I'm the type of guy who believes one human shouldn't pray on another.Weapon on safe until needed, finger off trigger until ready to fire, and the round hits what I'm aiming at down range.
Haven't said this for a while, but this is a classic example of men seeing their peashooter as an extension of their wiener.
This post is more macho BS from the gun lovers and why most of us don;t buy this 'we want a gun to protect our family, it's our second amendment right <inserts BS, lame excuse here>..
Why can't all the gun-loving dorks admit that they like the sound a gun makes when fired, the smell of gun powder, and how they get a little stiffie when they hit the target/animal/person they are aiming at.
With a little practice one can change out magazines quicker than it takes to describe the process or even quicker switching to a secondary. Please point out the part of the Constitution that covers clips sizes of firearms.Not from gun shows but from individuals hard up for quick cash.
It makes you wonder why they are so atimate about keeping that loophole open....are they worried that they may need some cash and want to keep the option open to arm dubious people?
This is one small step of many. Liberals can't be trusted, so with liberals, you have to start just as early as they do.
But you'll trust the guy who wants to buy a gun "off the record". Does a shit-for-brains moron like yourself stop for a split second and wonder why the guy is having to buy a gun without going through a background check?
Of course the answer is no. As long as its not your family members or anyone you know getting killed (yet), there is no need to wonder what he is going to be doing with the weapon...
Its basically why the society is in the situation it is...trust nobody regardless of how much sense they make if they look differently than you, worship differently, or have some objectional political views...sums up the GOP perfectly.
And what "reasonable measures" are going to be next?
Limiting magazine and clip sizes so rampage killers will have to re-load. This gives people time to run and react and draw their own weaponry/return fire.
According to the multiple award winning series Frontline, the guy who tried to murder Gabby Gifford (the congresswoman from Arizona) had a 33 round clip on his Glock. He dropped his magazine while re-loading it and one of her aids grabbed it allowing the madman to be tackled and held until authorities showed up. Had he been limited to 5 bullets, people would still be alive.
It fits in the Constitution so there is no argument to be made on those grounds. It creates only a minor inconvenience for target shooters.
I don't want my magazines limited any more than I want my auto limited to 60mph so some people won't speed. I may need 30rnds someday, I have no idea and neither do you. It ain't your call, or the governments.Limiting magazine and clip sizes so rampage killers will have to re-load. This gives people time to run and react and draw their own weaponry/return fire.
According to the multiple award winning series Frontline, the guy who tried to murder Gabby Gifford (the congresswoman from Arizona) had a 33 round clip on his Glock. He dropped his magazine while re-loading it and one of her aids grabbed it allowing the madman to be tackled and held until authorities showed up. Had he been limited to 5 bullets, people would still be alive.
It fits in the Constitution so there is no argument to be made on those grounds. It creates only a minor inconvenience for target shooters.
Why do you only post petulant lies?He's your president too. 332-206No more than usual, no.
Umm, not really. They're horrific, but every shooting is horrific. These no more than the ones that came before, or the ones yet to come.
Looks to me like the only "new" development is that the press is having less and less luck getting people to shout in wrath.
And that has nothing to do with the shootings per se. Only that people are realizing the media is driving their reactions, and have decided not to play their game to generate headlines any more.
More and more people are opting to seek solutions that actually work, instead.
Only an idiot would think that. Basically the frequency has reduced the outrage; it's exactly the what the fundraisers at the NRA wanted--the atmosphere at least. Nobody is outraged any longer and the monies continue to pour in as they work hard to ramp up the fear factor.
What made Sandy Hook so painful was that it was 6 year olds. NRA executives had wives that were busting their balls to do something. When nothing was done, it sank in that our government was too entrenched to make any changes. Subsequent blood baths in Oregon, San Bernadino, Colorado, just dulled the senses. San Bernadino was unique because it was a Muslim and supposed ISIS involvement so it had some legs. But overall the public has moved on knowing that the Congress can offer nothing but thoughts and prayers to the victims of the NRA strategy.
Only an idiot would think that the public is blaming the media. Human nature is to express outrage at the outset of an issue then as it becomes the norm, the outrage disappears. Like when you discovered your kid dented your fender on Sunday, you were pissed. You're still not the same level of pissed on Tuesday and even less so on Friday.
Thank God we have a President that is actually doing something--as minor as it is--and is offering something other than thoughts and prayers to the victims.
What your President
If they save one life, they are worth it.did was find an opportunity (once again) to use these poor souls to advance his political agenda. Even by his own admission these new policies won't do squat, but it's one step of many to try and get as close as he can to stomping on the Second amendment.
What are the new rules? You sell a gun in a building; you have to do a background check. Call the building a gun show or a garage, you don't have to. Closing that loophole will help.He also displayed his hatred in our system of government. When will you people wake up? We have a balance of power for a reason. Our founders designed it that way so people like DumBama can't overtake the entire government and make rules all by his lonesome.
What DumBama didn't realize however is the ammunition (excuse the pun) that he gave to us freedom loving gun owners. Now when terrible things happen, we will be here to remind everybody how his stupidity didn't solve one problem when it comes to guns, and that it only empowered the criminal element even more.
That is what us liberals are counting on. People like you to continue to insist they can do nothing and offer only "thoughts and prayers" to widows, widowers, and the mothers and fathers having to bury their kids. Your empty gestures and empty words are, politically, music to our ears.
Keep up the good work, the cold shoulders, and the opposition to common sense gun control measures. It pays dividends to the Democrats and the NRA who is really laughing all the way to the bank off of idiots just like the ones you see in the mirror every day.
Well keep laughing, because the ownership and love of guns is growing every day in this country, and when people like DumBama goes against them, that pushes more people to our side.
The fact is closing any loophole won't stop one murder in this country. How long have recreational narcotics been illegal here? Yet we have the highest percentage of our population locked up in prison over any other industrialized country in the world because of the out-of-control drug usage.
Just do something. Yeah, it doesn't matter if it works or not, just do something so it looks good. Only a liberal would want new laws against an object instead of the people who use the object for criminal activity. What's next on the liberal agenda, locking up guns instead of people when crimes are committed?
It's almost a crime how unsophisticated you are. Our side? 80 pct of NRA members polled said they would welcome harsher background checks. Only scared little pissants who are worried about the sky falling are against them. Unfortunately, the GOP congressional caucus is full of these pissants.
70% of violent crime is not committed with a gun... so, not so much.rustic wrote: Drop in the ocean compared to real crime, look up black on black crime.
But that is exactly what contributes to real crime...
... black on black and otherwise.
heh.Not from gun shows but from individuals hard up for quick cash.
There is no loophole.Not from gun shows but from individuals hard up for quick cash.
It makes you wonder why they are so atimate about keeping that loophole open
Since most states do not have registration, the huge majority of private sales are "off the record".Not from gun shows but from individuals hard up for quick cash.
It makes you wonder why they are so atimate about keeping that loophole open....are they worried that they may need some cash and want to keep the option open to arm dubious people?
This is one small step of many. Liberals can't be trusted, so with liberals, you have to start just as early as they do.
But you'll trust the guy who wants to buy a gun "off the record".
Mindless inanity - see VA Tech.Limiting magazine and clip sizes so rampage killers will have to re-load. This gives people time to run and react and draw their own weaponry/return fire.Not from gun shows but from individuals hard up for quick cash.
It makes you wonder why they are so atimate about keeping that loophole open....are they worried that they may need some cash and want to keep the option open to arm dubious people?
This is one small step of many. Liberals can't be trusted, so with liberals, you have to start just as early as they do.
But you'll trust the guy who wants to buy a gun "off the record". Does a shit-for-brains moron like yourself stop for a split second and wonder why the guy is having to buy a gun without going through a background check?
Of course the answer is no. As long as its not your family members or anyone you know getting killed (yet), there is no need to wonder what he is going to be doing with the weapon...
Its basically why the society is in the situation it is...trust nobody regardless of how much sense they make if they look differently than you, worship differently, or have some objectional political views...sums up the GOP perfectly.
And what "reasonable measures" are going to be next?
How does limiting the weapons most strongly protected by the constitution to magazines 1/2 to 1/3 their standard size fit into the constitution?It fits in the Constitution...
Mindless nonsense from someone who fully understand he has nothing of value to add to the conversation.Haven't said this for a while, but this is a classic example of men seeing their peashooter as an extension of their wiener.Weapon on safe until needed, finger off trigger until ready to fire, and the round hits what I'm aiming at down range.
Some may, some may not. You're assuming facts not in evidence.
With a little practice one can change out magazines quicker than it takes to describe the process or even quicker switching to a secondary. Please point out the part of the Constitution that covers clips sizes of firearms.It makes you wonder why they are so atimate about keeping that loophole open....are they worried that they may need some cash and want to keep the option open to arm dubious people?
This is one small step of many. Liberals can't be trusted, so with liberals, you have to start just as early as they do.
But you'll trust the guy who wants to buy a gun "off the record". Does a shit-for-brains moron like yourself stop for a split second and wonder why the guy is having to buy a gun without going through a background check?
Of course the answer is no. As long as its not your family members or anyone you know getting killed (yet), there is no need to wonder what he is going to be doing with the weapon...
Its basically why the society is in the situation it is...trust nobody regardless of how much sense they make if they look differently than you, worship differently, or have some objectional political views...sums up the GOP perfectly.
And what "reasonable measures" are going to be next?
Limiting magazine and clip sizes so rampage killers will have to re-load. This gives people time to run and react and draw their own weaponry/return fire.
According to the multiple award winning series Frontline, the guy who tried to murder Gabby Gifford (the congresswoman from Arizona) had a 33 round clip on his Glock. He dropped his magazine while re-loading it and one of her aids grabbed it allowing the madman to be tackled and held until authorities showed up. Had he been limited to 5 bullets, people would still be alive.
It fits in the Constitution so there is no argument to be made on those grounds. It creates only a minor inconvenience for target shooters.
With a little practice one can change out magazines quicker than it takes to describe the process or even quicker switching to a secondary. Please point out the part of the Constitution that covers clips sizes of firearms.This is one small step of many. Liberals can't be trusted, so with liberals, you have to start just as early as they do.
But you'll trust the guy who wants to buy a gun "off the record". Does a shit-for-brains moron like yourself stop for a split second and wonder why the guy is having to buy a gun without going through a background check?
Of course the answer is no. As long as its not your family members or anyone you know getting killed (yet), there is no need to wonder what he is going to be doing with the weapon...
Its basically why the society is in the situation it is...trust nobody regardless of how much sense they make if they look differently than you, worship differently, or have some objectional political views...sums up the GOP perfectly.
And what "reasonable measures" are going to be next?
Limiting magazine and clip sizes so rampage killers will have to re-load. This gives people time to run and react and draw their own weaponry/return fire.
According to the multiple award winning series Frontline, the guy who tried to murder Gabby Gifford (the congresswoman from Arizona) had a 33 round clip on his Glock. He dropped his magazine while re-loading it and one of her aids grabbed it allowing the madman to be tackled and held until authorities showed up. Had he been limited to 5 bullets, people would still be alive.
It fits in the Constitution so there is no argument to be made on those grounds. It creates only a minor inconvenience for target shooters.
How fast to break off, expel the old magazine, drop in a new piece and reacquire target?
Ha ha the classic response for those that have no answer to this particular issue. I don't need an inanimate object to give me a "stiffy". On the very rare occasion I do hunt I eat what ever I kill. I very much enjoy target shooting as a hobby and I would never shoot anyone unless they threatened myself or someone I loved. Hell I would even protect a stranger not because of macho bullshit but because I'm the type of guy who believes one human shouldn't pray on another.
Mindless nonsense from someone who fully understand he has nothing of value to add to the conversation.Haven't said this for a while, but this is a classic example of men seeing their peashooter as an extension of their wiener.Weapon on safe until needed, finger off trigger until ready to fire, and the round hits what I'm aiming at down range.
Not in the slightest -- in fact, you only serve to further prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.Hit a nerve, huh?Mindless nonsense from someone who fully understand he has nothing of value to add to the conversation.Haven't said this for a while, but this is a classic example of men seeing their peashooter as an extension of their wiener.Weapon on safe until needed, finger off trigger until ready to fire, and the round hits what I'm aiming at down range.
[
Not in the slightest -- in fact, you only serve to further prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Keep up the good work.
You haven't even addressed my points, which are all rational BTW.[
Not in the slightest -- in fact, you only serve to further prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Keep up the good work.
You haven't even addressed my points, which are all rational BTW.[
Not in the slightest -- in fact, you only serve to further prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Keep up the good work.
Your "point":
Haven't said this for a while, but this is a classic example of men seeing their peashooter as an extension of their wiener.
This is an ad-hom -- mindless nonsense, and the final resting place of those that recognize they have nothing worthwhile to say.
