4 Guns Bills Fail in Senate; Democrats Trying to Blame Republicans

[M14 Shooter]

When you pass common sense gun legislation.

There's no sense of any kind to be found in any of the unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you want to lay on the law abiding.

But they aren't unnecessary and ineffective. They aren't unnecessary and ineffective. THey aren't!!!

Oh look - a tantrum!
Good to see you're in touch with your inner 4-yr old.

Shut the **** up dummy.

Or what- you'll cry?
Fact is, you know you cannot DEMONSTRATE the necessity and efficacy of the restrictions you seek to place on the law abiding

Can you demonstrate that you can do as much damage...

I don't see your demonstration of the the necessity and efficacy of the restrictions you seek to place on the law anywhere in your post.
Try again.
Hint: If you can demonstrate the necessity and efficacy, you don't have to ask me any questions.

 

[sealybobo]

Your cartoon misses the point you stupid ****** The caption should read, "you shot 26 children. We have got to do something about semi auto guns and magazines that carry more than 10 rounds.
The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people, including 20 children between six and seven years old, and six adult staff members.

If Adam Lanza had a pump-action shotgun that held just 4 rounds, he could and would have killed the same number of people.
Why do you support unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?

No he wouldn't. He wouldn't have even come close to 26 murders

Lanza killed 26 people over the course of 6 minutes.
What makes you think he could not have done the same with a pump-action shotgun that holds 4 rounds?

Because you have to reload. That would have given people time to get away or time to tackle him as he reloaded.

Woman Wrestled Fresh Ammo Clip From Tucson Shooter as He Tried to Reload

Patricia Maisch looks like a grandmother, but she is being hailed as a hero today for helping to stop alleged Tucson shooter Jared Loughner by wrestling away a fresh magazine of bullets as he tried to reload.

Maisch, 61, effectively disarmed the shooter as several men pounced on him and threw him to ground. As they struggled to hold him down, Maisch joined the scrum on the ground, clinging to the gunman's ankles.

Maisch and her fellow heroes -- identified as Bill Badger, Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio -- stopped the carnage after 20 people were shot, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Six people died.

Check mate *****.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your cartoon misses the point you stupid ****** The caption should read, "you shot 26 children. We have got to do something about semi auto guns and magazines that carry more than 10 rounds.
The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people, including 20 children between six and seven years old, and six adult staff members.

If Adam Lanza had a pump-action shotgun that held just 4 rounds, he could and would have killed the same number of people.
Why do you support unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?

No he wouldn't. He wouldn't have even come close to 26 murders

Lanza killed 26 people over the course of 6 minutes.
What makes you think he could not have done the same with a pump-action shotgun that holds 4 rounds?

Because you have to reload. That would have given people time to get away or time to tackle him as he reloaded.

Orlando, Pulse nightclub. One shooter. 300 people.
How did the shooter having to reload help them?

Sandyhook. One shooter 6 adults, 20 children.
How would having to reload hinder him?

So, again:
What makes you think he could not have done the same with a pump-action shotgun that holds 4 rounds?

 

[sealybobo]

When you pass common sense gun legislation.

There's no sense of any kind to be found in any of the unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you want to lay on the law abiding.

But they aren't unnecessary and ineffective. They aren't unnecessary and ineffective. THey aren't!!!

Oh look - a tantrum!
Good to see you're in touch with your inner 4-yr old.

Shut the **** up dummy.

Or what- you'll cry?
Fact is, you know you cannot DEMONSTRATE the necessity and efficacy of the restrictions you seek to place on the law abiding

Can you demonstrate that you can do as much damage...

I don't see your demonstration of the the necessity and efficacy of the restrictions you seek to place on the law anywhere in your post.
Try again.
Hint: If you can demonstrate the necessity and efficacy, you don't have to ask me any questions.

Here is what is happening right now.

The president said he's having "meaningful" talks with Democrats and wasn't ruling anything out but made clear that his conservative political base is skeptical of new regulations — so he is too.

"A lot of the people that put me where I am, are strong believers in the Second Amendment, and I am also. And we have to be very careful about that. You know, they call it the slippery slope. All of a sudden everything gets taken away," Trump told reporters. "We're not going to let that happen."

So, Trump and Republicans are hoping this issue isn't going to cost them next year. They know that passing gun regulations will cost them so I get it. He doesn't want to piss off his base.

But get this: 90% of people who are polled say they are in favor of better background checks. So, I'm hoping that those 90% will vote against the GOP next year.

But I have a feeling this is low on most people's list of priorities. Not you gun nuts I mean people like me who want more regulations. This is like #15 on my list of what's important. Until someone I know is murdered, **** it.

 

[sealybobo]

Your cartoon misses the point you stupid ****** The caption should read, "you shot 26 children. We have got to do something about semi auto guns and magazines that carry more than 10 rounds.
The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people, including 20 children between six and seven years old, and six adult staff members.

If Adam Lanza had a pump-action shotgun that held just 4 rounds, he could and would have killed the same number of people.
Why do you support unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?

No he wouldn't. He wouldn't have even come close to 26 murders

Lanza killed 26 people over the course of 6 minutes.
What makes you think he could not have done the same with a pump-action shotgun that holds 4 rounds?

Because you have to reload. That would have given people time to get away or time to tackle him as he reloaded.

Orlando, Pulse nightclub. One shooter. 300 people.
How did the shooter having to reload help them?

Sandyhook. One shooter 6 adults, 20 children.
How would having to reload hinder him?

So, again:
What makes you think he could not have done the same with a pump-action shotgun that holds 4 rounds?

He couldn't have. That's why he didn't choose a pump action that only holds 4.

When's the last time a mass shooter used a pump action that holds 4? How many did he kill? I bet not 26.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There's no sense of any kind to be found in any of the unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you want to lay on the law abiding.

But they aren't unnecessary and ineffective. They aren't unnecessary and ineffective. THey aren't!!!

Oh look - a tantrum!
Good to see you're in touch with your inner 4-yr old.

Shut the **** up dummy.

Or what- you'll cry?
Fact is, you know you cannot DEMONSTRATE the necessity and efficacy of the restrictions you seek to place on the law abiding

Can you demonstrate that you can do as much damage...

I don't see your demonstration of the the necessity and efficacy of the restrictions you seek to place on the law anywhere in your post.
Try again.
Hint: If you can demonstrate the necessity and efficacy, you don't have to ask me any questions.

Here is what is happening right now.

Nowhere in this nonsense is your demonstration of the the necessity and efficacy of the restrictions you seek to place on the law anywhere in your post.
C'mon, ***** - put up or shut up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If Adam Lanza had a pump-action shotgun that held just 4 rounds, he could and would have killed the same number of people.
Why do you support unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?

No he wouldn't. He wouldn't have even come close to 26 murders

Lanza killed 26 people over the course of 6 minutes.
What makes you think he could not have done the same with a pump-action shotgun that holds 4 rounds?

Because you have to reload. That would have given people time to get away or time to tackle him as he reloaded.

Orlando, Pulse nightclub. One shooter. 300 people.
How did the shooter having to reload help them?
Sandyhook. One shooter 6 adults, 20 children.
How would having to reload hinder him?
So, again:
What makes you think he could not have done the same with a pump-action shotgun that holds 4 rounds?

He couldn't have.

You cannot demonstrate -any- rational basis for this, at all.
In fact, you speak only from ignorance, or dishonesty, or both.
Checkmate, *****..

 

[miketx]

That the RNC (known as the Republicans Nowadays Cave) had to schedule the vote is a major victory for gun control. Within the first 90 days of Clinton II, you’ll see something passed.

Yes indeed, more disarming of victims.

No one wants to disarm victims. We want to make sure crazies don't get guns. We are too loosy goosy with guns. They need to be more regulated. Relax, you victims can keep your guns. You just can't own a gun with a 20 magazine clip. Why? Because if/when you go nuts, we don't want you taking out everyone on your block.

Too many of you nuts take out everyone on your block. So your right to own a gun is infringing on our right to happiness. Ya dig?

You people talk out of both sides of your mouth but never ONCE do you show how any of these laws will stop killers from getting guns. The ONLY thing that will work is severe punishment, and stop letting them go free! Like the Philly shooter that was a multiple convicted felon and yet he got guns. No law stopped him, but you people never want to address that. Why is that? No, all you want to do is make the law-abiding less safe and continue releasing violent criminals. As tired as I have become of hearing about defenseless helpless people gunned down, and I'm sure you are too, it should dawn on you puppets sooner or later that making more and more people defenseless is not the answer. Gun-free zones is another stupid idea that only breeds victims.

They'll get guns. Guns that don't hold 20 bullets dummy.

Oh I see. Now your delusion is saying guns that hold less than 20 bullets can't be reloaded.

 

[miketx]

They'll get guns. Guns that don't hold 20 bullets dummy.

Hey, dummy....
What guns hold 20 rounds?

I didn't say that sillybobo did.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They'll get guns. Guns that don't hold 20 bullets dummy.

Hey, dummy....
What guns hold 20 rounds?

I didn't say that sillybobo did.

I know. I quoted poorly.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They'll get guns. Guns that don't hold 20 bullets dummy.

Hey, dummy....
What guns hold 20 rounds?

 

[sealybobo]

That the RNC (known as the Republicans Nowadays Cave) had to schedule the vote is a major victory for gun control. Within the first 90 days of Clinton II, you’ll see something passed.

Yes indeed, more disarming of victims.

No one wants to disarm victims. We want to make sure crazies don't get guns. We are too loosy goosy with guns. They need to be more regulated. Relax, you victims can keep your guns. You just can't own a gun with a 20 magazine clip. Why? Because if/when you go nuts, we don't want you taking out everyone on your block.

Too many of you nuts take out everyone on your block. So your right to own a gun is infringing on our right to happiness. Ya dig?

You people talk out of both sides of your mouth but never ONCE do you show how any of these laws will stop killers from getting guns. The ONLY thing that will work is severe punishment, and stop letting them go free! Like the Philly shooter that was a multiple convicted felon and yet he got guns. No law stopped him, but you people never want to address that. Why is that? No, all you want to do is make the law-abiding less safe and continue releasing violent criminals. As tired as I have become of hearing about defenseless helpless people gunned down, and I'm sure you are too, it should dawn on you puppets sooner or later that making more and more people defenseless is not the answer. Gun-free zones is another stupid idea that only breeds victims.

They'll get guns. Guns that don't hold 20 bullets dummy.

Oh I see. Now your delusion is saying guns that hold less than 20 bullets can't be reloaded.

No one said that. I said in the time it takes you to reload, a few people get away or tackle you.

I have a 1911 Ruger 45 looks exactly like this one

I have 2 magazines that hold a few more rounds than the normal mag. I say those should not be allowed. The time it takes to reload saves lives.

I showed you the AZ shooter was stopped when he was trying to reload. Did you not see that or are you ignoring it?

 

[sealybobo]

They'll get guns. Guns that don't hold 20 bullets dummy.

Hey, dummy....
What guns hold 20 rounds?

Stop asking stupid questions dummy

You cannot demonstrate -any- rational basis for these questions, at all.
In fact, you speak only from ignorance, or dishonesty, or both.
Checkmate, *****..

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one said that. I said in the time it takes you to reload, a few people get away or tackle you.

Pulse, Olando. 300 people, 49 dead, one shooter.
How many people tackled the shooter?

 

[M14 Shooter]

They'll get guns. Guns that don't hold 20 bullets dummy.

Hey, dummy....
What guns hold 20 rounds?

Stop asking stupid questions dummy

Ah. You know you do no have a meaningful answer.
You also know you cannot demonstrate the necessity and the efficacy for the restrictions you seek.
That is, you know you have nothing.

 

[miketx]

Yes indeed, more disarming of victims.

No one wants to disarm victims. We want to make sure crazies don't get guns. We are too loosy goosy with guns. They need to be more regulated. Relax, you victims can keep your guns. You just can't own a gun with a 20 magazine clip. Why? Because if/when you go nuts, we don't want you taking out everyone on your block.

Too many of you nuts take out everyone on your block. So your right to own a gun is infringing on our right to happiness. Ya dig?

You people talk out of both sides of your mouth but never ONCE do you show how any of these laws will stop killers from getting guns. The ONLY thing that will work is severe punishment, and stop letting them go free! Like the Philly shooter that was a multiple convicted felon and yet he got guns. No law stopped him, but you people never want to address that. Why is that? No, all you want to do is make the law-abiding less safe and continue releasing violent criminals. As tired as I have become of hearing about defenseless helpless people gunned down, and I'm sure you are too, it should dawn on you puppets sooner or later that making more and more people defenseless is not the answer. Gun-free zones is another stupid idea that only breeds victims.

They'll get guns. Guns that don't hold 20 bullets dummy.

Oh I see. Now your delusion is saying guns that hold less than 20 bullets can't be reloaded.

No one said that. I said in the time it takes you to reload, a few people get away or tackle you.

I have a 1911 Ruger 45 looks exactly like this one

I have 2 magazines that hold a few more rounds than the normal mag. I say those should not be allowed. The time it takes to reload saves lives.

I showed you the AZ shooter was stopped when he was trying to reload. Did you not see that or are you ignoring it?

You said nothing of the sort, liar. You said "They'll get guns. Guns that don't hold 20 bullets dummy."

It does not take but a few seconds to change a magazine out. There have been many demonstrations proving that magazine capacity is irrelevant. But we are still waiting on how this will stop killers? Notice you never say a word about keeping violent criminals locked up. Why is that?

 

[sealybobo]

No one wants to disarm victims. We want to make sure crazies don't get guns. We are too loosy goosy with guns. They need to be more regulated. Relax, you victims can keep your guns. You just can't own a gun with a 20 magazine clip. Why? Because if/when you go nuts, we don't want you taking out everyone on your block.

Too many of you nuts take out everyone on your block. So your right to own a gun is infringing on our right to happiness. Ya dig?

You people talk out of both sides of your mouth but never ONCE do you show how any of these laws will stop killers from getting guns. The ONLY thing that will work is severe punishment, and stop letting them go free! Like the Philly shooter that was a multiple convicted felon and yet he got guns. No law stopped him, but you people never want to address that. Why is that? No, all you want to do is make the law-abiding less safe and continue releasing violent criminals. As tired as I have become of hearing about defenseless helpless people gunned down, and I'm sure you are too, it should dawn on you puppets sooner or later that making more and more people defenseless is not the answer. Gun-free zones is another stupid idea that only breeds victims.

They'll get guns. Guns that don't hold 20 bullets dummy.

Oh I see. Now your delusion is saying guns that hold less than 20 bullets can't be reloaded.

No one said that. I said in the time it takes you to reload, a few people get away or tackle you.

I have a 1911 Ruger 45 looks exactly like this one

I have 2 magazines that hold a few more rounds than the normal mag. I say those should not be allowed. The time it takes to reload saves lives.

I showed you the AZ shooter was stopped when he was trying to reload. Did you not see that or are you ignoring it?

You said nothing of the sort, liar. You said "They'll get guns. Guns that don't hold 20 bullets dummy."

It does not take but a few seconds to change a magazine out. There have been many demonstrations proving that magazine capacity is irrelevant. But we are still waiting on how this will stop killers? Notice you never say a word about keeping violent criminals locked up. Why is that?

Keep em locked up!

And it may or may not take a couple seconds to change magazines. Yes I've seen Keenu Reeves change them real fast but most of these shooters are not that good.

If size of the magazine doesn't matter you won't mind us limiting you to 10 then. Thanks for compromise.

 

[sealybobo]

No one wants to disarm victims. We want to make sure crazies don't get guns. We are too loosy goosy with guns. They need to be more regulated. Relax, you victims can keep your guns. You just can't own a gun with a 20 magazine clip. Why? Because if/when you go nuts, we don't want you taking out everyone on your block.

Too many of you nuts take out everyone on your block. So your right to own a gun is infringing on our right to happiness. Ya dig?

You people talk out of both sides of your mouth but never ONCE do you show how any of these laws will stop killers from getting guns. The ONLY thing that will work is severe punishment, and stop letting them go free! Like the Philly shooter that was a multiple convicted felon and yet he got guns. No law stopped him, but you people never want to address that. Why is that? No, all you want to do is make the law-abiding less safe and continue releasing violent criminals. As tired as I have become of hearing about defenseless helpless people gunned down, and I'm sure you are too, it should dawn on you puppets sooner or later that making more and more people defenseless is not the answer. Gun-free zones is another stupid idea that only breeds victims.

They'll get guns. Guns that don't hold 20 bullets dummy.

Oh I see. Now your delusion is saying guns that hold less than 20 bullets can't be reloaded.

No one said that. I said in the time it takes you to reload, a few people get away or tackle you.

I have a 1911 Ruger 45 looks exactly like this one

I have 2 magazines that hold a few more rounds than the normal mag. I say those should not be allowed. The time it takes to reload saves lives.

I showed you the AZ shooter was stopped when he was trying to reload. Did you not see that or are you ignoring it?

You said nothing of the sort, liar. You said "They'll get guns. Guns that don't hold 20 bullets dummy."

It does not take but a few seconds to change a magazine out. There have been many demonstrations proving that magazine capacity is irrelevant. But we are still waiting on how this will stop killers? Notice you never say a word about keeping violent criminals locked up. Why is that?

Woman Wrestled Fresh Ammo Clip From Tucson Shooter as He Tried to Reload

Patricia Maisch looks like a grandmother, but she is being hailed as a hero today for helping to stop alleged Tucson shooter Jared Loughner by wrestling away a fresh magazine of bullets as he tried to reload.


Stop being a stupid ***** Mike. Of course me having to unload and reload magazines costs me time. I have shot my gun before. It holds 10. So I go bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang. If I had 2 five round magazines I'd go bang bang bang bang bang. The slide would go back. I'd have to push that button to release the magazine, while I'm nervous and people are running at me and away from me. My adrenaline would be through the roof. I reach in my pocket to grab the second magazine. I'm shaking. I have the magazine faced the wrong way. I go to turn it around and just as I go to put it in granny grabs it and stops me from reloading.

It may only take a few seconds but it may also take 10 seconds. How far can you run in 10 seconds? I'll tell you. You can run for cover. That handgun isn't as accurate from the distance you are now from the shooter.

Ah whatever. I guess we will settle this and abortion at the ballot box next year.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Woman Wrestled Fresh Ammo Clip From Tucson Shooter as He Tried to Reload

Pulse, Olando. 300 people, 49 dead, one shooter.
How many people tackled the shooter?

 

[sealybobo]

They'll get guns. Guns that don't hold 20 bullets dummy.

Hey, dummy....
What guns hold 20 rounds?

Stop asking stupid questions dummy

Ah. You know you do no have a meaningful answer.
You also know you cannot demonstrate the necessity and the efficacy for the restrictions you seek.
That is, you know you have nothing.

No matter what Democrats say, Republicans aren't listening. So I guess we will have to let voters decide.

Trump was smart to give in to the gun nuts. He won't win if he pisses them off. So I have to hope the 90% who say they want more gun regulations show up next year to vote Republicans out of office.

Then we will demonstrate to you but even then you'll disagree so don't hold your breath waiting for me to try to convince you when you are unreasonable.

You think any laws, even good ones, are a slippery slope to banning all guns. So no matter how right I am, and I am, you will continue to play the ignorant ****** you are playing now.