Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well I am justifying my weapons, because I am a responsible gun owner, and I love hunting with them, and I love target shooting with them.. Now if the libs would get back out of the way, and let real men run this nation again, we wouldn't be having these sorts of problems today. Libs soft stance on crime has led to all that we see now in this nation, and now they want to fix it by taking away peoples rights and their privileges.I'm not justifying assault weapons because i "fear" the government. I'm not justifying assault weapons because i "fear' criminal actions. I'm not justifying assault weapons because i "fear" attack by wild animals. Yet all those 'justifications' have been made by those who fail to recognize the slaughter assault weapons visit on the innocent American citizens.Here is the deal with people like you, where as because you fear, you want the rest of us to fear as you do also, and because you are an advocate or victim of your own idiotic thinking and/or solutions in life, then the rest of us should just shut up and give in as according to you, and just follow your advice also ? Not going to happen, and so you better think again before you think we are going to capitulate and become a nation scared of it's own shadow in the wake of all of this ? You think because you are scared of your own shadow, then you think that we should be also ? We didn't become scared of our own shadow after 9-11 the many of us didn't, and we sure as hec ain't going to become scared of it now. I know this will make you sad, but your agenda can go jump in a lake, because we aren't buying what you are selling and that's that.While Tim McVeigh did not use an assault weapon, he is firmly in the corner, politically speaking, of the pro gun violence nuts who believe that they can play Army and resist the federal government. There is no denying this. The "Water the tree of freedom with blood" T-shirt and grunting Michigan Militia mindset puts Timmy and Terry in the pocket of those who see no threat from assault weapons. He certainly isn't my political ally.
Then there are those who say that the gun is an inanimate object and poses no threat whatsoever. Perhaps that's true. But consider this: there were no "mass shootings" before the advent of the assault weapon. Gun violence was something dreadful, but never the less understandable before the death toll of such violence reached alarming proportions. Thus the argument that mass shootings must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rings of stupidity. What tool is used in mass shootings? Why the assault weapon, of course. So, does it make sense to ban assault weapons? "No," says the gun nut "That's agenda driven!"
Damn right it's agenda driven! The agenda is to rid society of the plague of mass shootings. And the common thread in all mass shootings? Why it's the assault weapon!
Some think that there is a real chance for the reincarnation of George III and they want to re-enact the American Revolution, or what I call 'play Army'. Some point to the fact that foreign leaders kill hundreds of thousands of their own subjects as a justification for Americans keeping the tools that kill tens of thousands of their fellow Americans. What warped immature mind can make such an argument and make it proudly?
Some say that the American government can become as tyrannical as the governments in China or Iran or North Korea and thus the American people must have assault weapons. Well, our government is not tyrannical, but the bodies of the victims of assault weapons pile up at a staggering rate. Is the perceived fear of American tyranny worth the body count? Is that body count a worse fate than the perceptions of the paranoid and politically insulated?
Some say that an assault weapon is necessary for hunting. Was there no game taken before the ability to fire five shots per second was invented? Is there anything left of the animal slain by such a rapid and sustained rate of fire? Senator Joe Manchin sees the fallacy of this under-thought argument.
Some think that there is a foreign power poised to invade the United States and they want to be prepared just like in the movie Red Dawn. As if the United States has no Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines or National Guard. Does the desire to play Army justify the rivers of tears and blood left after an assault weapon is turned upon innocent Americans?
Now this nation as is found in parts of it now, and because of people like you, became to over protecting of everything that moved (which is exactly what Bin Laden wanted as a result of his actions), and thus it worked because people like you live like scared little rats in your world, and in your views of the world as you know it anymore.
What I fear is the inaction by those who do justify the 'need' for assault weapons based on their own irrational fears. I fear the rivers of tears and blood left after an assault weapon is turned on innocent victims and the ill conceived rationalization that such massacres must be taken on a case-by-case basis, ignoring the common thread of sorrow: the assault weapon.
I don't want to disarm American citizens. I justr cannot see the justification. the virtue of a weapon capable of creating such mass slaughter in a very short period of time.
Ever heard the quote "spare the rod and spoil the child" ? Check your Bible lately ? Oh, that's right libs have no God, and therefore they feel comfortable in the company of killers who also have no God or refuse to live a Godly life..Oh so your mentally messed up from being beaten by an abusive father, and so you think you can speak from that position to tell me what rights I get to have in America now ? My question is how many are actually out there like you, and should we take heed that you all are getting the power to control this nation from a standpoint of bias due to your own personal experience's in life ?No, we didnt have this many instances when "pop was allowed to take the punk behind the woodshed and paddle his everloving ass" but we created a culture of abusive husbands and fathers. My Dad used to hit us, till I got old enough to hit him back, because I know the difference between what is right and wrong.. If you honestly think that domestic violence is answer to a problem then youre a fucking moron.. It's funny to me that all of these people with their well "Kids are pussies, lets just beat it out of them" mentality are usually from the south or midwest, areas sticken by poverty, domestic abuse and crimes all created by the culture that I can see so blatantly written across all of these boards.
Haha my mentality is just fine. My point was that beating children is not a response to a problem. If youd like to argue that, be my guest. There is no doubt in any reasonable persons mind that beating the wuss out of a kid is a truly idiotic and barbaric practice, only still accepted in poor uneducated places like the south and midwest
Ever heard the quote "spare the rod and spoil the child" ? Check your Bible lately ? Oh, that's right libs have no God, and therefore they feel comfortable in the company of killers who also have no God or refuse to live a Godly life..Oh so your mentally messed up from being beaten by an abusive father, and so you think you can speak from that position to tell me what rights I get to have in America now ? My question is how many are actually out there like you, and should we take heed that you all are getting the power to control this nation from a standpoint of bias due to your own personal experience's in life ?
Haha my mentality is just fine. My point was that beating children is not a response to a problem. If youd like to argue that, be my guest. There is no doubt in any reasonable persons mind that beating the wuss out of a kid is a truly idiotic and barbaric practice, only still accepted in poor uneducated places like the south and midwest
But my young fellow you are intolerant of homosexuals, those deviant bastards.
While Tim McVeigh did not use an assault weapon, he is firmly in the corner, politically speaking, of the pro gun violence nuts who believe that they can play Army and resist the federal government. There is no denying this. The "Water the tree of freedom with blood" T-shirt and grunting Michigan Militia mindset puts Timmy and Terry in the pocket of those who see no threat from assault weapons. He certainly isn't my political ally.
Then there are those who say that the gun is an inanimate object and poses no threat whatsoever. Perhaps that's true. But consider this: there were no "mass shootings" before the advent of the assault weapon. Gun violence was something dreadful, but never the less understandable before the death toll of such violence reached alarming proportions. Thus the argument that mass shootings must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rings of stupidity. What tool is used in mass shootings? Why the assault weapon, of course. So, does it make sense to ban assault weapons? "No," says the gun nut "That's agenda driven!"
Damn right it's agenda driven! The agenda is to rid society of the plague of mass shootings.
And the common thread in all mass shootings? Why it's the assault weapon!
Some think that there is a real chance for the reincarnation of George III and they want to re-enact the American Revolution, or what I call 'play Army'. Some point to the fact that foreign leaders kill hundreds of thousands of their own subjects as a justification for Americans keeping the tools that kill tens of thousands of their fellow Americans. What warped immature mind can make such an argument and make it proudly?
Some say that the American government can become as tyrannical as the governments in China or Iran or North Korea and thus the American people must have assault weapons. Well, our government is not tyrannical, but the bodies of the victims of assault weapons pile up at a staggering rate.
Is the perceived fear of American tyranny worth the body count? Is that body count a worse fate than the perceptions of the paranoid and politically insulated?
Some say that an assault weapon is necessary for hunting. Was there no game taken before the ability to fire five shots per second was invented? Is there anything left of the animal slain by such a rapid and sustained rate of fire? Senator Joe Manchin sees the fallacy of this under-thought argument.
Some think that there is a foreign power poised to invade the United States and they want to be prepared just like in the movie Red Dawn.
As if the United States has no Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines or National Guard.
Does the desire to play Army justify the rivers of tears and blood left after an assault weapon is turned upon innocent Americans?
While Tim McVeigh did not use an assault weapon, he is firmly in the corner, politically speaking, of the pro gun violence nuts who believe that they can play Army and resist the federal government. There is no denying this. The "Water the tree of freedom with blood" T-shirt and grunting Michigan Militia mindset puts Timmy and Terry in the pocket of those who see no threat from assault weapons. He certainly isn't my political ally.
Then there are those who say that the gun is an inanimate object and poses no threat whatsoever. Perhaps that's true. But consider this: there were no "mass shootings" before the advent of the assault weapon. Gun violence was something dreadful, but never the less understandable before the death toll of such violence reached alarming proportions. Thus the argument that mass shootings must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rings of stupidity. What tool is used in mass shootings? Why the assault weapon, of course. So, does it make sense to ban assault weapons? "No," says the gun nut "That's agenda driven!"
Damn right it's agenda driven! The agenda is to rid society of the plague of mass shootings. And the common thread in all mass shootings? Why it's the assault weapon!
Some think that there is a real chance for the reincarnation of George III and they want to re-enact the American Revolution, or what I call 'play Army'. Some point to the fact that foreign leaders kill hundreds of thousands of their own subjects as a justification for Americans keeping the tools that kill tens of thousands of their fellow Americans. What warped immature mind can make such an argument and make it proudly?
Some say that the American government can become as tyrannical as the governments in China or Iran or North Korea and thus the American people must have assault weapons. Well, our government is not tyrannical, but the bodies of the victims of assault weapons pile up at a staggering rate. Is the perceived fear of American tyranny worth the body count? Is that body count a worse fate than the perceptions of the paranoid and politically insulated?
Some say that an assault weapon is necessary for hunting. Was there no game taken before the ability to fire five shots per second was invented? Is there anything left of the animal slain by such a rapid and sustained rate of fire? Senator Joe Manchin sees the fallacy of this under-thought argument.
Some think that there is a foreign power poised to invade the United States and they want to be prepared just like in the movie Red Dawn. As if the United States has no Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines or National Guard. Does the desire to play Army justify the rivers of tears and blood left after an assault weapon is turned upon innocent Americans?
I'm not justifying assault weapons because i "fear" the government. I'm not justifying assault weapons because i "fear' criminal actions. I'm not justifying assault weapons because i "fear" attack by wild animals. Yet all those 'justifications' have been made by those who fail to recognize the slaughter assault weapons visit on the innocent American citizens.Here is the deal with people like you, where as because you fear, you want the rest of us to fear as you do also, and because you are an advocate or victim of your own idiotic thinking and/or solutions in life, then the rest of us should just shut up and give in as according to you, and just follow your advice also ? Not going to happen, and so you better think again before you think we are going to capitulate and become a nation scared of it's own shadow in the wake of all of this ? You think because you are scared of your own shadow, then you think that we should be also ? We didn't become scared of our own shadow after 9-11 the many of us didn't, and we sure as hec ain't going to become scared of it now. I know this will make you sad, but your agenda can go jump in a lake, because we aren't buying what you are selling and that's that.While Tim McVeigh did not use an assault weapon, he is firmly in the corner, politically speaking, of the pro gun violence nuts who believe that they can play Army and resist the federal government. There is no denying this. The "Water the tree of freedom with blood" T-shirt and grunting Michigan Militia mindset puts Timmy and Terry in the pocket of those who see no threat from assault weapons. He certainly isn't my political ally.
Then there are those who say that the gun is an inanimate object and poses no threat whatsoever. Perhaps that's true. But consider this: there were no "mass shootings" before the advent of the assault weapon. Gun violence was something dreadful, but never the less understandable before the death toll of such violence reached alarming proportions. Thus the argument that mass shootings must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rings of stupidity. What tool is used in mass shootings? Why the assault weapon, of course. So, does it make sense to ban assault weapons? "No," says the gun nut "That's agenda driven!"
Damn right it's agenda driven! The agenda is to rid society of the plague of mass shootings. And the common thread in all mass shootings? Why it's the assault weapon!
Some think that there is a real chance for the reincarnation of George III and they want to re-enact the American Revolution, or what I call 'play Army'. Some point to the fact that foreign leaders kill hundreds of thousands of their own subjects as a justification for Americans keeping the tools that kill tens of thousands of their fellow Americans. What warped immature mind can make such an argument and make it proudly?
Some say that the American government can become as tyrannical as the governments in China or Iran or North Korea and thus the American people must have assault weapons. Well, our government is not tyrannical, but the bodies of the victims of assault weapons pile up at a staggering rate. Is the perceived fear of American tyranny worth the body count? Is that body count a worse fate than the perceptions of the paranoid and politically insulated?
Some say that an assault weapon is necessary for hunting. Was there no game taken before the ability to fire five shots per second was invented? Is there anything left of the animal slain by such a rapid and sustained rate of fire? Senator Joe Manchin sees the fallacy of this under-thought argument.
Some think that there is a foreign power poised to invade the United States and they want to be prepared just like in the movie Red Dawn. As if the United States has no Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines or National Guard. Does the desire to play Army justify the rivers of tears and blood left after an assault weapon is turned upon innocent Americans?
Now this nation as is found in parts of it now, and because of people like you, became to over protecting of everything that moved (which is exactly what Bin Laden wanted as a result of his actions), and thus it worked because people like you live like scared little rats in your world, and in your views of the world as you know it anymore.
What I fear is the inaction by those who do justify the 'need' for assault weapons based on their own irrational fears. I fear the rivers of tears and blood left after an assault weapon is turned on innocent victims and the ill conceived rationalization that such massacres must be taken on a case-by-case basis, ignoring the common thread of sorrow: the assault weapon.
I don't want to disarm American citizens.
I justr cannot see the justification. the virtue of a weapon capable of creating such mass slaughter in a very short period of time.
Cosmetics were banned, not the assault weapons themselves. Did it make a bit of difference that detachable stocks or flash suppressors were banned and not high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems?We need effective laws, no laws watered down by the NRA. the last time we tried to address assault weapons, the gun lobby focused on cosmetics; detachable stocks, grips, bayonet mounts, flash suppressors. Not the guns and the rate of sustained fire they produce. Ten or eleven such meaningless laws will continue to demonstrate the futility of legislating with a powerful interest group who fails to recognize that the reason we have "mass shootings" is the guns that are capable of making "mass" part of the equation.
Actually the last time "assault rifles" were banned we had Columbine. Remind me how those bans on pot, crack, meth, and child porn are doing?
We get what we get when gun makers and their lackeys in the NRA write legislation.
Oh so your mentally messed up from being beaten by an abusive father, and so you think you can speak from that position to tell me what rights I get to have in America now ? My question is how many are actually out there like you, and should we take heed that you all are getting the power to control this nation from a standpoint of bias due to your own personal experience's in life ?No, we didnt have this many instances when "pop was allowed to take the punk behind the woodshed and paddle his everloving ass" but we created a culture of abusive husbands and fathers. My Dad used to hit us, till I got old enough to hit him back, because I know the difference between what is right and wrong.. If you honestly think that domestic violence is answer to a problem then youre a fucking moron.. It's funny to me that all of these people with their well "Kids are pussies, lets just beat it out of them" mentality are usually from the south or midwest, areas sticken by poverty, domestic abuse and crimes all created by the culture that I can see so blatantly written across all of these boards.
Haha my mentality is just fine. My point was that beating children is not a response to a problem. If youd like to argue that, be my guest. There is no doubt in any reasonable persons mind that beating the wuss out of a kid is a truly idiotic and barbaric practice, only still accepted in poor uneducated places like the south and midwest
Oh so your mentally messed up from being beaten by an abusive father, and so you think you can speak from that position to tell me what rights I get to have in America now ? My question is how many are actually out there like you, and should we take heed that you all are getting the power to control this nation from a standpoint of bias due to your own personal experience's in life ?
Haha my mentality is just fine. My point was that beating children is not a response to a problem. If youd like to argue that, be my guest. There is no doubt in any reasonable persons mind that beating the wuss out of a kid is a truly idiotic and barbaric practice, only still accepted in poor uneducated places like the south and midwest
Define "beating". Never said "beating", as I would define "beating", is a response to a problem. I said paddle his everloving ass. If you define that as a "beating" then, you're a pussified bawl baby who would resort to, at best, a "time out" as punishment for a child and, you're part of the problem. And, who said anything about "beating the wuss out of a kid"? You're making shit up.
Oh, well, if academia says paddling a kid is child abuse, we must all accept it. Cuz they're so reasonable and smart and all.
Articles: Professor Calls for Death Penalty for Climate Change 'Deniers'
Oh I can find a lot of examples of the idiocy of academia. First and foremost how they fell over themselves during the sexual revolution to legitimize *studies* done by a psychopath, that *normalized* childhood sexual activity. Academia is not the go-to authority when it comes to child welfare.
Earlier, you described a rolled up sock as an assault weapon.Cosmetics were banned, not the assault weapons themselves. Did it make a bit of difference that detachable stocks or flash suppressors were banned and not high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems?Actually the last time "assault rifles" were banned we had Columbine. Remind me how those bans on pot, crack, meth, and child porn are doing?
We get what we get when gun makers and their lackeys in the NRA write legislation.
That's how an "assault weapon" is defined you flippant freakin' retard.
Haha my mentality is just fine. My point was that beating children is not a response to a problem. If youd like to argue that, be my guest. There is no doubt in any reasonable persons mind that beating the wuss out of a kid is a truly idiotic and barbaric practice, only still accepted in poor uneducated places like the south and midwest
Define "beating". Never said "beating", as I would define "beating", is a response to a problem. I said paddle his everloving ass. If you define that as a "beating" then, you're a pussified bawl baby who would resort to, at best, a "time out" as punishment for a child and, you're part of the problem. And, who said anything about "beating the wuss out of a kid"? You're making shit up.
Im saying that the abuse of children, leads to children becoming parents who abuse their children, which leads to ultra violent children. Its simple sociology that all acadmeics agree on.
