Crazy MA Anti-Gun Legislation, Did it pass or fail?

[NoNukes]

When abortion clinics are bombed and Doctors are murdered. The right onlt wants to listen to the Supreme Court when it suits them. The same with the Constitution.

Do Conservatives support bombing and murder? Please provide links.
You seem particularly stupid today.

Stupidity seems to be his norm.

More childish insults, you open your mouth, but have nothing to say. What a shame. You know I am correct and pull that right wing insult game.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What a crock of paranoid crap.

Dude, you have an IQ less than 50....

I'm JUST sayin....

 

[Uncensored2008]

More childish insults,

How is that insulting?

Acknowledging that water is wet is not an insult.

 

[NoNukes]

Well said.

I find it pitiful how many Americans neither agree with the above paragraph nor understand that it articulates the very reason for the Second Amendment. They think the right of ordinary citizens to be armed exists only for defense against criminals and to hunt.

What a crock of paranoid crap.

Not at all. We need to protect ourselves from psychopath progressives who want to legislate every aspect of our lives.

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep.

I am smart enough not to live in a country where I feel that I need to be armed.

This would be funny if you guys were not serious.

 

[NoNukes]

What a crock of paranoid crap.

Dude, you have an IQ less than 50....

I'm JUST sayin....

You would be wrong by about 100 points. Just sayin....

You right wingers have nothing at all to say, just cheap insults. At least they could be funny, or original.

 

[NoNukes]

Good night girls, do not forget to sleep with a gun under your pillow.

 

[The Rabbi]

When abortion clinics are bombed and Doctors are murdered. The right onlt wants to listen to the Supreme Court when it suits them. The same with the Constitution.

Do Conservatives support bombing and murder? Please provide links.
You seem particularly stupid today.

The childish insults are lazy, thought you were better than that. First time this year I was wrong. The people doing the bombing and murder sure are not liberals, if I were like you, I would be calling you stupid. I am not like that though, just like playing with you gun nuts.

So in other words, no, conservatives do not support bombing and murder.
FWIW liberals commit heinous crimes as much as conservatives.

And it isn't childing calling you stupid. It is a simple statement of fact.

 

[Spoonman]

Do Conservatives support bombing and murder? Please provide links.
You seem particularly stupid today.

Stupidity seems to be his norm.

More childish insults, you open your mouth, but have nothing to say. What a shame. You know I am correct and pull that right wing insult game.

He didn't open his mouth, he was typing.

 

[Spoonman]

What a crock of paranoid crap.

Not at all. We need to protect ourselves from psychopath progressives who want to legislate every aspect of our lives.

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep.

I am smart enough not to live in a country where I feel that I need to be armed.

This would be funny if you guys were not serious.

You live in a country where you can't be armed. So much for your freedoms.

 

[tonystewart1]

The Judge would be great but of course it's illegal in Kalifornia.

Probably not a bad thing.
I think it's a gimmick and I don't stock them. Check the website Box O' Truth for their testing of the gun.

I have a 20ga pump at home and a few handguns. At the shop it's a Beretta 1200 12ga.
In TN we can have pretty much whatever we want. And I don't notice that shootings are any higher than in, say, Detroit. Memphis sucks but that has to do with the population, not the number of guns.

It's probably not an efficient weapon for self defense but the fact that this state tells you that you can not have one while they are legal everywhere else just makes you want one more.

Its not efficent for defense but it is fun fun fun fun to shoot. It feel massive in your hands.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

I'm not. I want the public as well armed as the cops at the very least. It helps remind the police that they are not our lords and masters. Civilians must be the most powerful force if we would retain liberty.

[...]

Well said.

I find it pitiful how many Americans neither agree with the above paragraph nor understand that it articulates the very reason for the Second Amendment. They think the right of ordinary citizens to be armed exists only for defense against criminals and to hunt.

What a crock of paranoid crap.

This is a discussion forum, not a schoolyard wall. So you need to be more substantive in your replies unless you wish to be perceived as a belligerent adolescent nitwit with limited capacity for intelligent discourse.

 

[cutter]

[...]

I'm not. I want the public as well armed as the cops at the very least. It helps remind the police that they are not our lords and masters. Civilians must be the most powerful force if we would retain liberty.

[...]

Well said.

I find it pitiful how many Americans neither agree with the above paragraph nor understand that it articulates the very reason for the Second Amendment. They think the right of ordinary citizens to be armed exists only for defense against criminals and to hunt.

What a crock of paranoid crap.

A little bit of paranoid may save your life some day. If you want to be naive and dead that's your choice. Maybe one of us paranoid prepared guy's can come to your rescue, maybe not, you can wait for the police. That's what that poor truck driver did after the Rodney King verdict.

 

[MikeK]

Well said.

I find it pitiful how many Americans neither agree with the above paragraph nor understand that it articulates the very reason for the Second Amendment. They think the right of ordinary citizens to be armed exists only for defense against criminals and to hunt.

What a crock of paranoid crap.

A little bit of paranoid may save your life some day. If you want to be naive and dead that's your choice. Maybe one of us paranoid prepared guy's can come to your rescue, maybe not, you can wait for the police. That's what that poor truck driver did after the Rodney King verdict.

In other words it's not necessary to love guns but it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Who said I think that? oh... that's right... you.

Here's what you posted

Gun Control.... I have mixed emotions about it. First off... I don't think anyone needs an AK or an M14. Those are military class weapons and I am fine with regulation(not bans) on those types of weapons.

You are saying you think people shouldn't have them because you don't think there is any need of them in the civilian community.

The Superme Court has ruled if a weapon does not have any military value it's not protected by the second amendment.

Show me where I said bans.... I specifically put in parentheses (NOT BANS) in my original post, you Nutjob! Do you bother to read an entire post, or do you always stop at a sentence that you don't agree with?

Again... I DON'T think anyone needs an AK or an M14. However, I do realize that we live in America. so I suggested a COMPROMISE.. you know.... that's where two sides come to the center and find a place where they can agree... look up the word sometime... it seems to be lost in the right wing vocabulary.

Show me where I said that you said ban? I cut and pasted what you posted. Was your hidden intent to mean ban?

Gun Control.... I have mixed emotions about it. First off... I don't think anyone needs an AK or an M14. Those are military class weapons and I am fine with regulation(not bans) on those types of weapons.

Who the fuck are you to say what guns someone should or shoiuldn't have? I don't think people should have video games or DVD's or TV's They show violence and show people how to commit acts of violence.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here's what you posted


You are saying you think people shouldn't have them because you don't think there is any need of them in the civilian community.

The Superme Court has ruled if a weapon does not have any military value it's not protected by the second amendment.

Show me where I said bans.... I specifically put in parentheses (NOT BANS) in my original post, you Nutjob! Do you bother to read an entire post, or do you always stop at a sentence that you don't agree with?

Again... I DON'T think anyone needs an AK or an M14. However, I do realize that we live in America. so I suggested a COMPROMISE.. you know.... that's where two sides come to the center and find a place where they can agree... look up the word sometime... it seems to be lost in the right wing vocabulary.

Why on Earth would anyone give up a right? Not only that but one memorialised in at least two Supreme Court decisions that say military rifles are the specific weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment? You don't want compromise. Just admit it.

Thats exactly right the very weapons two Supreme Court ruled on are the very weapons clinton baned and the ones obama will if given the chance ban also.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You would be wrong by about 100 points. Just sayin....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Your caretaker owes me a new monitor.

You right wingers have nothing at all to say,

Irony alert.

The truth is, you are a dolt. A caricature of the quintessential leftist. You spout mindless mantras and fail to grasp even the most rudimentary concepts. Anyone wanting to know what you think can log on to DailyKOS and bypass the middle man

.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What a crock of paranoid crap.

Not at all. We need to protect ourselves from psychopath progressives who want to legislate every aspect of our lives.

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep.

I am smart enough not to live in a country where I feel that I need to be armed.

This would be funny if you guys were not serious.

I feel I need to be armed at all times. You never know when that super rare instance is going to happen where you may need to protect yourself at a moments notice.

And yes i've been robbed at knifepoint before so things do happen, even in america.

 

[Steelplate]

Show me where I said bans.... I specifically put in parentheses (NOT BANS) in my original post, you Nutjob! Do you bother to read an entire post, or do you always stop at a sentence that you don't agree with?

Again... I DON'T think anyone needs an AK or an M14. However, I do realize that we live in America. so I suggested a COMPROMISE.. you know.... that's where two sides come to the center and find a place where they can agree... look up the word sometime... it seems to be lost in the right wing vocabulary.

Why on Earth would anyone give up a right? Not only that but one memorialised in at least two Supreme Court decisions that say military rifles are the specific weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment? You don't want compromise. Just admit it.

I know. These jackasses argue in one breath that when the constitution was written it only cover single shot, muzzle loaders and was never meant to cover automatic weapons or any other technology advances. Then in the other breath they say the constitution was designed to cover technological advances such as telephone conversations, Emails, internet communications and such when it comes to eaves dropping. Liberals are the most inconsitent group when it comes to logic.

You're both fucked up individuals, you know that.. right? When have I ever said anything about banning anything or imposing restrictions on people's right to privacy. That was your boy Bush's baby with the Patriot Act. In fact, when it came up for renewal.. there was a thread on this very message board talking about Rand Paul trying to get rid of it... IN WHICH I APPLAUDED HIS EFFORTS.

The ONLY thing I said was that Military Grade weapons should have stricter policies associated with them. One of those policies that I would be extremely cool with is a Ballistics database. Let's suppose you have an AK. Someone breaks into your house, finds the combination to your gun safe that you had written on a piece of paper somewhere, steals your arsenal, grinds the serial number off of it and commits a violent crime with that weapon. You did your duty and reported this weapon stolen... Now there's an avenue for you to retrieve your property, the ballistics database would also prove beyond any doubt that the projectile that ended the life of another came from that weapon.

It would be a protection for the gun owner(provided that he/she's not the criminal) and would also be a huge tool for law enforcement.

So yeah.. I think you guys are being the typical paranoid idiots that I see every day here in Central PA.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why on Earth would anyone give up a right? Not only that but one memorialised in at least two Supreme Court decisions that say military rifles are the specific weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment? You don't want compromise. Just admit it.

I know. These jackasses argue in one breath that when the constitution was written it only cover single shot, muzzle loaders and was never meant to cover automatic weapons or any other technology advances. Then in the other breath they say the constitution was designed to cover technological advances such as telephone conversations, Emails, internet communications and such when it comes to eaves dropping. Liberals are the most inconsitent group when it comes to logic.

You're both fucked up individuals, you know that.. right? When have I ever said anything about banning anything or imposing restrictions on people's right to privacy. That was your boy Bush's baby with the Patriot Act. In fact, when it came up for renewal.. there was a thread on this very message board talking about Rand Paul trying to get rid of it... IN WHICH I APPLAUDED HIS EFFORTS.

The ONLY thing I said was that Military Grade weapons should have stricter policies associated with them. One of those policies that I would be extremely cool with is a Ballistics database. Let's suppose you have an AK. Someone breaks into your house, finds the combination to your gun safe that you had written on a piece of paper somewhere, steals your arsenal, grinds the serial number off of it and commits a violent crime with that weapon. You did your duty and reported this weapon stolen... Now there's an avenue for you to retrieve your property, the ballistics database would also prove beyond any doubt that the projectile that ended the life of another came from that weapon.

It would be a protection for the gun owner(provided that he/she's not the criminal) and would also be a huge tool for law enforcement.

So yeah.. I think you guys are being the typical paranoid idiots that I see every day here in Central PA.

Let's suppose you have an AK. Someone breaks into your house

Fuck it someone breaks into my house I'll turn it into the insurence company and buy more. That bullshit if someone steals it don't break my heart at all. it's liberal bullshit.

What if someone breaks into your car and steals itrobs a bank break's into a person home rapes all the females in it how will you live with the fact your car was used to kill and rape people?

 

[westwall]

Why on Earth would anyone give up a right? Not only that but one memorialised in at least two Supreme Court decisions that say military rifles are the specific weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment? You don't want compromise. Just admit it.

I know. These jackasses argue in one breath that when the constitution was written it only cover single shot, muzzle loaders and was never meant to cover automatic weapons or any other technology advances. Then in the other breath they say the constitution was designed to cover technological advances such as telephone conversations, Emails, internet communications and such when it comes to eaves dropping. Liberals are the most inconsitent group when it comes to logic.

You're both fucked up individuals, you know that.. right? When have I ever said anything about banning anything or imposing restrictions on people's right to privacy. That was your boy Bush's baby with the Patriot Act. In fact, when it came up for renewal.. there was a thread on this very message board talking about Rand Paul trying to get rid of it... IN WHICH I APPLAUDED HIS EFFORTS.

The ONLY thing I said was that Military Grade weapons should have stricter policies associated with them. One of those policies that I would be extremely cool with is a Ballistics database. Let's suppose you have an AK. Someone breaks into your house, finds the combination to your gun safe that you had written on a piece of paper somewhere, steals your arsenal, grinds the serial number off of it and commits a violent crime with that weapon. You did your duty and reported this weapon stolen... Now there's an avenue for you to retrieve your property, the ballistics database would also prove beyond any doubt that the projectile that ended the life of another came from that weapon.

It would be a protection for the gun owner(provided that he/she's not the criminal) and would also be a huge tool for law enforcement.

So yeah.. I think you guys are being the typical paranoid idiots that I see every day here in Central PA.

A ballistics database is unworkable for a whole host of reasons. It would however be a wet dream for you as it would raise the cost of ammunition so high only the rich and criminals could afford it. If a weapon is stolen you tell the law enforcement organisation the serial number of the weapon involved and when it shows up you're good to go. Yes junior grinding the serial number off of it doesn't remove it. There are processes where you can lift the number up anyway. Oh, it's a felony to do that and most criminals don't waste their time sanitizing weapons, that's usually a government thing to do.