If more guns makes a country safer

[Markle]

Either that, or you have teeny tiny mushroom shaped peckers.

If they are not AFRAID, they are using the gun as the most obvious phallic symbol in the world.

OR, men who are obsessed with guns really do have abnormally small penises.

Hmmmmm...and you accuse others of having an abnormal fixation with penises?

Got it!

 

[fncceo]

Actually, it is possible to be too young to handle a gun. Some hands are too small to hold a gun and pull the trigger.

Tell that to Joseph Kony.

 

[Markle]

So you are not reading ANY of the opening statements from the witnesses? Because that is all kinds of evidence.

So you are not reading ANY of the questions and responses during the hearing. Got it!

 

[sealybobo]

Functionality an AR 15 is no different than any other semiautomatic rifle that has been used by civilians for over a century
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Used for what? Mass shootings?

Since 1982, 15 AR15s have been used in mass shootings to murder fewer than 7 people per year.
Somehow, you believe this justifies a ban on same.

Thousands Of Americans Are Gunned Down Each Year, But Few Die By Assault-Style Rifle

As I said:
Somehow, you believe this justifies a ban on the AR15.

If I owned a AR15 I’d be okay with not making them anymore just don’t take mine away

 

[sealybobo]

We’re interested in what makes us all safer. Background checks and maybe we don’t allow people to buy assault weapons and wmds

As you are well aware, you cannot demonstrate that any of these things makes anyone safer.

background checks make us safer because they will stop some nuts from getting their hands on guns.

And we all know limiting magazines to 10 rounds slows you shooters down. If it doesn't then why cry about not being allowed to have 20 round mags?

All background checks do is make it harder to get a weapon--not impossible. If somebody wants a gun bad enough, they will get one.

It takes about one second to drop a magazine and pop in another one. How many lives do you suppose that would save?

Stupid argument you’ve made. For most the law will make it impossible. Sure one or two might find one but most wont

That’s like saying laws to stop cocaine are dumb because people who want them bad enough will get them

That’s not true. Most wont get them.

If it only takes a second then you won’t mind us only allowing ten round mags.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We’re interested in what makes us all safer. Background checks and maybe we don’t allow people to buy assault weapons and wmds

As you are well aware, you cannot demonstrate that any of these things makes anyone safer.

background checks make us safer because they will stop some nuts from getting their hands on guns.

And we all know limiting magazines to 10 rounds slows you shooters down. If it doesn't then why cry about not being allowed to have 20 round mags?

All background checks do is make it harder to get a weapon--not impossible. If somebody wants a gun bad enough, they will get one.

It takes about one second to drop a magazine and pop in another one. How many lives do you suppose that would save?

Stupid argument you’ve made. For most the law will make it impossible. Sure one or two might find one but most wont

That’s like saying laws to stop cocaine are dumb because people who want them bad enough will get them

That’s not true. Most wont get them.

If it only takes a second then you won’t mind us only allowing ten round mags.

Sure I mind. When I go to the range, I like to keep shooting so I can focus without stopping to reload. Secondly, ten rounds may not be enough if attacked by several individuals instead of one. People have survived and even fought back after being shot several times. If they are armed, that means after you shot them, they still have the ability to shoot back. The idea of using deadly force is to cause death.

Depending on the distance, most people miss their targets quite often. This is especially true when your heart is beating out of your chest with the adrenaline flowing because your life is in extreme danger. It's one of the first things they teach you in class. Shooting at cardboard targets is not like shooting at another human being who is trying to kill you.

No, I don't want a restrictions on magazine size for the reasons I listed above. If an armed attacker(s) is chasing me and I'm only stopping one second here and there to shoot back, I may not hit any of them at all. I don't have the time to carefully aim like I do at the range. The best you can do is keep firing bullets towards your attackers.

 

[edward37]

America would be the safest country in the world When will Republicans learn the NRA is FOS ?

I know you're full of shit. Does that count?

And if you keep your BS up I'll get Coyote to ban you,,,,,

why coyote?...

A mod??

 

[NotYourBody]

So far, I've never needed one. I don't make a habit of carrying things I don't need.

Amusing!

Do you not carry a spare tire, jack, and lug wrench? I personally, I go a bit overboard. All my cars also have jumper cables, flares, a first aid kit, and a few other necessities.

You are kept safer because I, and the "Rays from Cleveland" DO have loaded guns in our houses and on our persons and the criminals don't know which is which.

If you do not believe that to be true, please print the sign below and put one on your front door and in the back window of your car. Let us know how that works for you.

Carrying a tool whose sole purpose for me is to kill someone else is not something I will ever do.

You are not keeping anyone safe. You just think you are because your pretend phallic symbol makes you think you're some kind of fierce bad suburban warrior.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What a dreamer you are. First off, Trump would never lead any of his supporters into a civil war. Secondly, most people on the right are law abiding people, and we take out our anger at the ballot box, not in the street and on police officers.

But you do bring up a good point, and that is the left is pushing us to the brink of war. When these anti-Americans do anything possible to remove a duely elected President, that means the commies have taken over, and my vote no longer counts. Because if they can do that to one Republican, they'll be able to do it to any Republican, and that is a call out for war.

This is why I've always been behind having two countries instead of one. Make a division line from north to south. On one side will be the Democrats, and on the other the Republicans. We will have a national vote to decide who gets which side.

If we don't do this soon, eventually the Democrats will do something to spark a civil war.

One real problem with what you are saying. The only side that even brings up a civil war is yours. And yours talks about stockpiling for WHEN it happens. Are you saying that if the Dems win heavily at the ballot box that you will see that as a reason to have a civil war? If that is the case, it's not the Dems that are the danger of causing a Civil War. It's your bunch.

And you need to quite giving Rump so many free rides. He's a friggin embarrassment. He goes from one embarrassment to another almost weekly. And the only reason he does this is because you won't call him on any of his BS. He's always been a spoiled little boy. Spoiled little boys will always push the envelope until they find the limits. So far, you haven't shown him the limits. So he just gets worse and worse. Now he's in serious trouble because the Dems have had enough and so have the Moderates. Your 33% isn't enough to pull him out of it this time. It's like a spoiled little brat that didn't get the spanking as a child finally getting in serious trouble with the authorities. Well, Congress is the Authorities this time. Now, in his own way (by demanding) he is begging you to cover for him once again. It's too late.

This is part of the commie revolution. The legislative branch does not have the power to control the executive branch. That's why we have separation of powers.

I never said if the commies win, we need to have a civil war. What I said is that when the commies remove a President unjustly, such as having secret clandestine inquiries, refusal to let the opponents even so much as see their transcript, and overturn an election, it is time for a civil war, because everything they do is unconstitutional.

The election is where citizens get to vote in or out a candidate for Prescient, not the legislative branch. This is particularly true when it's the opposing party that has been talking impeachment, and looking for a crime to match their punitive actions. That's not the way it works for real Americans.

Once a President is in office, he is bound to operate within the confines of the Office. If he doesn't then there is a system in place to deal with it. What you are seeing is that system in action. One of the jobs of the Congress is to oversee the executive branch. Rump has tried (and been very effective because of your free rides) in negating that. Well, the chickens have come to roost.

Same goes for gun regulations. At some point, society will demand some gun regulation. You and I may not fully agree on the level that Society settles for firearms regulation but it will happen. The only thing one side or the other can do is to dump hundreds of millions into the system to delay it. But in the end, Society will get what it wants. It could be from a ballot box, Executive Branch, Legislative or Judicial. But all of these, in the end, go back to the ballot box and the Constitution of the United States and the State Constitutions.

Meanwhile, you are going to scream that it's Unconstitutional and cry "Just wait until our next Savior comes, you'll see".

Our state was one of the late states to get CCW laws in place. Since then, classes have been backlogged and still are. Now, more females are getting their CCW licenses than men. When our CCW law came about, we had a liberal Democrat Governor at the time. Even he wasn't stupid enough to veto the bill, and the following bills making carrying a weapon more lawful than ever.

Bottom line is that the interest in gun ownership and self-defense grows every day in this country. At one time, we had one indoor firing rage in the Cleveland area. You walked in, and got a booth right away. You had your choice of stalls.

Men would bring their guns to the range, and the women would sit behind the glass either watching them, or reading a book or something. Today, it's at least an hour wait to get a booth at that same range. And the women are not sitting behind the glass watching their menfolk having fun. They are in front of the glass now with them.

That's besides the fact that several other ranges have opened up in the area, and while I've never been to the other ones, I've been told they too have an hour wait to get a booth.

Sounds to me like you need to open one up yourself. It's called Capitalism. You see a need and then you fill that need. You want to blame the Democrats because your Capitalists can't take advantage of a Capitalistic opportunity. Get t different 4x6 card from your handler.

Obviously that point flew right over your head.

I didn't make that comment in regards to capitalism, I made it to demonstrate the point that no, people are not becoming less gun friendly, they are becoming more gun friendly. Here's the problem for you. Years ago, many never shot a gun in their lives. We have some of those people here on USMB. Sure, they will say they're gun owners or experienced in firearms just so they don't appear ignorant. But you can tell by their comments who is telling the truth and who is not.

As time passes, more and more people get curious about guns and actually go out shooting. It's only then they realize the power of a gun, and the practice it would take to become a really good shooter. In the process, they lose their fear of guns because they then understand them much, much better.

 

[NotYourBody]

Either that, or you have teeny tiny mushroom shaped peckers.

If they are not AFRAID, they are using the gun as the most obvious phallic symbol in the world.

OR, men who are obsessed with guns really do have abnormally small penises.

Hmmmmm...and you accuse others of having an abnormal fixation with penises?

Got it!

A gun is the worlds most obvious phallic symbol. That's not my fault.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

One real problem with what you are saying. The only side that even brings up a civil war is yours. And yours talks about stockpiling for WHEN it happens. Are you saying that if the Dems win heavily at the ballot box that you will see that as a reason to have a civil war? If that is the case, it's not the Dems that are the danger of causing a Civil War. It's your bunch.

And you need to quite giving Rump so many free rides. He's a friggin embarrassment. He goes from one embarrassment to another almost weekly. And the only reason he does this is because you won't call him on any of his BS. He's always been a spoiled little boy. Spoiled little boys will always push the envelope until they find the limits. So far, you haven't shown him the limits. So he just gets worse and worse. Now he's in serious trouble because the Dems have had enough and so have the Moderates. Your 33% isn't enough to pull him out of it this time. It's like a spoiled little brat that didn't get the spanking as a child finally getting in serious trouble with the authorities. Well, Congress is the Authorities this time. Now, in his own way (by demanding) he is begging you to cover for him once again. It's too late.

This is part of the commie revolution. The legislative branch does not have the power to control the executive branch. That's why we have separation of powers.

I never said if the commies win, we need to have a civil war. What I said is that when the commies remove a President unjustly, such as having secret clandestine inquiries, refusal to let the opponents even so much as see their transcript, and overturn an election, it is time for a civil war, because everything they do is unconstitutional.

The election is where citizens get to vote in or out a candidate for Prescient, not the legislative branch. This is particularly true when it's the opposing party that has been talking impeachment, and looking for a crime to match their punitive actions. That's not the way it works for real Americans.

Once a President is in office, he is bound to operate within the confines of the Office. If he doesn't then there is a system in place to deal with it. What you are seeing is that system in action. One of the jobs of the Congress is to oversee the executive branch. Rump has tried (and been very effective because of your free rides) in negating that. Well, the chickens have come to roost.

Same goes for gun regulations. At some point, society will demand some gun regulation. You and I may not fully agree on the level that Society settles for firearms regulation but it will happen. The only thing one side or the other can do is to dump hundreds of millions into the system to delay it. But in the end, Society will get what it wants. It could be from a ballot box, Executive Branch, Legislative or Judicial. But all of these, in the end, go back to the ballot box and the Constitution of the United States and the State Constitutions.

Meanwhile, you are going to scream that it's Unconstitutional and cry "Just wait until our next Savior comes, you'll see".

Our state was one of the late states to get CCW laws in place. Since then, classes have been backlogged and still are. Now, more females are getting their CCW licenses than men. When our CCW law came about, we had a liberal Democrat Governor at the time. Even he wasn't stupid enough to veto the bill, and the following bills making carrying a weapon more lawful than ever.

Bottom line is that the interest in gun ownership and self-defense grows every day in this country. At one time, we had one indoor firing rage in the Cleveland area. You walked in, and got a booth right away. You had your choice of stalls.

Men would bring their guns to the range, and the women would sit behind the glass either watching them, or reading a book or something. Today, it's at least an hour wait to get a booth at that same range. And the women are not sitting behind the glass watching their menfolk having fun. They are in front of the glass now with them.

That's besides the fact that several other ranges have opened up in the area, and while I've never been to the other ones, I've been told they too have an hour wait to get a booth.

Sounds to me like you need to open one up yourself. It's called Capitalism. You see a need and then you fill that need. You want to blame the Democrats because your Capitalists can't take advantage of a Capitalistic opportunity. Get t different 4x6 card from your handler.

Obviously that point flew right over your head.

I didn't make that comment in regards to capitalism, I made it to demonstrate the point that no, people are not becoming less gun friendly, they are becoming more gun friendly. Here's the problem for you. Years ago, many never shot a gun in their lives. We have some of those people here on USMB. Sure, they will say they're gun owners or experienced in firearms just so they don't appear ignorant. But you can tell by their comments who is telling the truth and who is not.

As time passes, more and more people get curious about guns and actually go out shooting. It's only then they realize the power of a gun, and the practice it would take to become a really good shooter. In the process, they lose their fear of guns because they then understand them much, much better.

Actually, the same people have always owned the guns. There hasn't been an increase in the number of people at all that own guns. It's been running about 42% for a number of years. What's changed is the number of guns in those households that already own guns. Some are just buying different ones while others are buying them "Before they are Banned" scare and others are just stocking up for other reasons. You are using the waiting lines as false data.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We’re interested in what makes us all safer. Background checks and maybe we don’t allow people to buy assault weapons and wmds

As you are well aware, you cannot demonstrate that any of these things makes anyone safer.

background checks make us safer because they will stop some nuts from getting their hands on guns.

And we all know limiting magazines to 10 rounds slows you shooters down. If it doesn't then why cry about not being allowed to have 20 round mags?

All background checks do is make it harder to get a weapon--not impossible. If somebody wants a gun bad enough, they will get one.

It takes about one second to drop a magazine and pop in another one. How many lives do you suppose that would save?

Stupid argument you’ve made. For most the law will make it impossible. Sure one or two might find one but most wont

That’s like saying laws to stop cocaine are dumb because people who want them bad enough will get them

That’s not true. Most wont get them.

If it only takes a second then you won’t mind us only allowing ten round mags.

Sure I mind. When I go to the range, I like to keep shooting so I can focus without stopping to reload. Secondly, ten rounds may not be enough if attacked by several individuals instead of one. People have survived and even fought back after being shot several times. If they are armed, that means after you shot them, they still have the ability to shoot back. The idea of using deadly force is to cause death.

Depending on the distance, most people miss their targets quite often. This is especially true when your heart is beating out of your chest with the adrenaline flowing because your life is in extreme danger. It's one of the first things they teach you in class. Shooting at cardboard targets is not like shooting at another human being who is trying to kill you.

No, I don't want a restrictions on magazine size for the reasons I listed above. If an armed attacker(s) is chasing me and I'm only stopping one second here and there to shoot back, I may not hit any of them at all. I don't have the time to carefully aim like I do at the range. The best you can do is keep firing bullets towards your attackers.

Rule of thumb. If you are living in a Neighborhood that you have to worry about this type of thing, don't you think you should move? I know I would. Beruit isn't my idea of a great place to live any day.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What a dreamer you are. First off, Trump would never lead any of his supporters into a civil war. Secondly, most people on the right are law abiding people, and we take out our anger at the ballot box, not in the street and on police officers.

But you do bring up a good point, and that is the left is pushing us to the brink of war. When these anti-Americans do anything possible to remove a duely elected President, that means the commies have taken over, and my vote no longer counts. Because if they can do that to one Republican, they'll be able to do it to any Republican, and that is a call out for war.

This is why I've always been behind having two countries instead of one. Make a division line from north to south. On one side will be the Democrats, and on the other the Republicans. We will have a national vote to decide who gets which side.

If we don't do this soon, eventually the Democrats will do something to spark a civil war.

One real problem with what you are saying. The only side that even brings up a civil war is yours. And yours talks about stockpiling for WHEN it happens. Are you saying that if the Dems win heavily at the ballot box that you will see that as a reason to have a civil war? If that is the case, it's not the Dems that are the danger of causing a Civil War. It's your bunch.

And you need to quite giving Rump so many free rides. He's a friggin embarrassment. He goes from one embarrassment to another almost weekly. And the only reason he does this is because you won't call him on any of his BS. He's always been a spoiled little boy. Spoiled little boys will always push the envelope until they find the limits. So far, you haven't shown him the limits. So he just gets worse and worse. Now he's in serious trouble because the Dems have had enough and so have the Moderates. Your 33% isn't enough to pull him out of it this time. It's like a spoiled little brat that didn't get the spanking as a child finally getting in serious trouble with the authorities. Well, Congress is the Authorities this time. Now, in his own way (by demanding) he is begging you to cover for him once again. It's too late.

This is part of the commie revolution. The legislative branch does not have the power to control the executive branch. That's why we have separation of powers.

I never said if the commies win, we need to have a civil war. What I said is that when the commies remove a President unjustly, such as having secret clandestine inquiries, refusal to let the opponents even so much as see their transcript, and overturn an election, it is time for a civil war, because everything they do is unconstitutional.

The election is where citizens get to vote in or out a candidate for Prescient, not the legislative branch. This is particularly true when it's the opposing party that has been talking impeachment, and looking for a crime to match their punitive actions. That's not the way it works for real Americans.

But that won’t happen. You’ll see all the evidence. And if he’s removed republicans will have gone along.

8 Times trump put pressure on taylor to get Ukraine to announce they are looking into Biden.

Trump is guilty af. So nothing unjust if he’s removed. Sorry

That's the problem: we're not seeing any evidence because the Democrats are hiding the fact they have none. Now they announced a possible delay until after the holiday. Why? Because like the phony story by the Balls broad, they continue to find something.....anything they can get Trump on.

Every other evil scheme your side has tried failed miserably. When are you going to learn this is the trend?

Right now, the House is equiv to a Grand Jury. And yes, it has some Republicans represented on it. It's closed doors just like every other Grand Jury EVER. The only job they have is to determine if there is enough evidence to bring charges and what those charges are. Once that is done, it goes to pre senate House hearings. At that time, Rumps lawyers gets to see all the evidence and argue their case to the constitutionality of those charges. Once that is done, the House Votes for Impeachment or not. If impeachment is voted positive then it's give over to the Senate for the Trial for either aquital or removal of office. Right now, the only ones that get to speak are the Grand Jury members or the House Committee Members and Special Prosecutor. And those are also the only ones allowed in the room outside of the people they are questioning.

So how about getting a better 4x6 card from your handlers. The one you are reading from makes you look like a complete hack.

No, it is not like a grand jury because in a grand jury, the accused is there for the entire trial. He or she is not hidden away somewhere so they can't hear what's going on. Also in a grand jury, witnesses to the event testify either pro or con.

This idiocy going on is more like a fishing expedition. They have the penalty ready to go, but can't find a crime to use it on. So they are dragging in all these people hoping somebody....anybody can give them something to go on. It's never been done before in our history.

But now that it has, I hope the next Republican House remembers that with the next Democrat President when they are in the majority. Just keep harassing the guy day in and day out until you can find a half-way reason to impeach them, or attempt to make him quit.

Democrats are stupid people. Until this day, they still don't understand how their stunts come back to haunt them one day.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What a dreamer you are. First off, Trump would never lead any of his supporters into a civil war. Secondly, most people on the right are law abiding people, and we take out our anger at the ballot box, not in the street and on police officers.

But you do bring up a good point, and that is the left is pushing us to the brink of war. When these anti-Americans do anything possible to remove a duely elected President, that means the commies have taken over, and my vote no longer counts. Because if they can do that to one Republican, they'll be able to do it to any Republican, and that is a call out for war.

This is why I've always been behind having two countries instead of one. Make a division line from north to south. On one side will be the Democrats, and on the other the Republicans. We will have a national vote to decide who gets which side.

If we don't do this soon, eventually the Democrats will do something to spark a civil war.

One real problem with what you are saying. The only side that even brings up a civil war is yours. And yours talks about stockpiling for WHEN it happens. Are you saying that if the Dems win heavily at the ballot box that you will see that as a reason to have a civil war? If that is the case, it's not the Dems that are the danger of causing a Civil War. It's your bunch.

And you need to quite giving Rump so many free rides. He's a friggin embarrassment. He goes from one embarrassment to another almost weekly. And the only reason he does this is because you won't call him on any of his BS. He's always been a spoiled little boy. Spoiled little boys will always push the envelope until they find the limits. So far, you haven't shown him the limits. So he just gets worse and worse. Now he's in serious trouble because the Dems have had enough and so have the Moderates. Your 33% isn't enough to pull him out of it this time. It's like a spoiled little brat that didn't get the spanking as a child finally getting in serious trouble with the authorities. Well, Congress is the Authorities this time. Now, in his own way (by demanding) he is begging you to cover for him once again. It's too late.

This is part of the commie revolution. The legislative branch does not have the power to control the executive branch. That's why we have separation of powers.

I never said if the commies win, we need to have a civil war. What I said is that when the commies remove a President unjustly, such as having secret clandestine inquiries, refusal to let the opponents even so much as see their transcript, and overturn an election, it is time for a civil war, because everything they do is unconstitutional.

The election is where citizens get to vote in or out a candidate for Prescient, not the legislative branch. This is particularly true when it's the opposing party that has been talking impeachment, and looking for a crime to match their punitive actions. That's not the way it works for real Americans.

But that won’t happen. You’ll see all the evidence. And if he’s removed republicans will have gone along.

8 Times trump put pressure on taylor to get Ukraine to announce they are looking into Biden.

Trump is guilty af. So nothing unjust if he’s removed. Sorry

That's the problem: we're not seeing any evidence because the Democrats are hiding the fact they have none. Now they announced a possible delay until after the holiday. Why? Because like the phony story by the Balls broad, they continue to find something.....anything they can get Trump on.

Every other evil scheme your side has tried failed miserably. When are you going to learn this is the trend?

So you are not reading ANY of the opening statements from the witnesses? Because that is all kinds of evidence.

Obviously not, because if they had anything, it wouldn't be a secret inquiry. They'd want the public to hear what they had. But because they have nothing, they are keeping it swept under the rug as far as they can.

 

[sealybobo]

We’re interested in what makes us all safer. Background checks and maybe we don’t allow people to buy assault weapons and wmds

As you are well aware, you cannot demonstrate that any of these things makes anyone safer.

background checks make us safer because they will stop some nuts from getting their hands on guns.

And we all know limiting magazines to 10 rounds slows you shooters down. If it doesn't then why cry about not being allowed to have 20 round mags?

All background checks do is make it harder to get a weapon--not impossible. If somebody wants a gun bad enough, they will get one.

It takes about one second to drop a magazine and pop in another one. How many lives do you suppose that would save?

Stupid argument you’ve made. For most the law will make it impossible. Sure one or two might find one but most wont

That’s like saying laws to stop cocaine are dumb because people who want them bad enough will get them

That’s not true. Most wont get them.

If it only takes a second then you won’t mind us only allowing ten round mags.

Sure I mind. When I go to the range, I like to keep shooting so I can focus without stopping to reload. Secondly, ten rounds may not be enough if attacked by several individuals instead of one. People have survived and even fought back after being shot several times. If they are armed, that means after you shot them, they still have the ability to shoot back. The idea of using deadly force is to cause death.

Depending on the distance, most people miss their targets quite often. This is especially true when your heart is beating out of your chest with the adrenaline flowing because your life is in extreme danger. It's one of the first things they teach you in class. Shooting at cardboard targets is not like shooting at another human being who is trying to kill you.

No, I don't want a restrictions on magazine size for the reasons I listed above. If an armed attacker(s) is chasing me and I'm only stopping one second here and there to shoot back, I may not hit any of them at all. I don't have the time to carefully aim like I do at the range. The best you can do is keep firing bullets towards your attackers.

Bad arguments. You’re shooting wild and you’re gonna hit innocent people.

Sounds like you admit 20 round magazines are much more deadly than ten.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You conclude by proving even you know your post is foolish by devolving into a childish personal attack. Do you think that makes you a big man?

No, that's not the way the game is played.

You see, if somebody says you have a small package because you want to carry a gun, you're reaction is supposed to be "Please, don't tell people that! I swear, I'll get rid of my gun, I swear, but please don't tell people I have a small package!"

Of course it never works out that way except in their minds. You're around my age, so you remember when they called it Reverse Psychology. I don't know what the new term for that strategy is today, but the left feel they are pulling it off without notice.

OR, men who are obsessed with guns really do have abnormally small penises.

That's as idiotic of a statement as saying women who are obsessed with makeup are small breasted women.

Sorry, your reverse psychology doesn't work on me, nor most intelligent people.

"Friends, when your adversary starts making a fool out of themselves, the best thing you can do is stand back and watch."
Rush Limbaugh

 

[sealybobo]

We’re interested in what makes us all safer. Background checks and maybe we don’t allow people to buy assault weapons and wmds

As you are well aware, you cannot demonstrate that any of these things makes anyone safer.

background checks make us safer because they will stop some nuts from getting their hands on guns.

And we all know limiting magazines to 10 rounds slows you shooters down. If it doesn't then why cry about not being allowed to have 20 round mags?

All background checks do is make it harder to get a weapon--not impossible. If somebody wants a gun bad enough, they will get one.

It takes about one second to drop a magazine and pop in another one. How many lives do you suppose that would save?

Stupid argument you’ve made. For most the law will make it impossible. Sure one or two might find one but most wont

That’s like saying laws to stop cocaine are dumb because people who want them bad enough will get them

That’s not true. Most wont get them.

If it only takes a second then you won’t mind us only allowing ten round mags.

Sure I mind. When I go to the range, I like to keep shooting so I can focus without stopping to reload. Secondly, ten rounds may not be enough if attacked by several individuals instead of one. People have survived and even fought back after being shot several times. If they are armed, that means after you shot them, they still have the ability to shoot back. The idea of using deadly force is to cause death.

Depending on the distance, most people miss their targets quite often. This is especially true when your heart is beating out of your chest with the adrenaline flowing because your life is in extreme danger. It's one of the first things they teach you in class. Shooting at cardboard targets is not like shooting at another human being who is trying to kill you.

No, I don't want a restrictions on magazine size for the reasons I listed above. If an armed attacker(s) is chasing me and I'm only stopping one second here and there to shoot back, I may not hit any of them at all. I don't have the time to carefully aim like I do at the range. The best you can do is keep firing bullets towards your attackers.

So we should allow wmds because you don’t like reloading at a shooting range? Pathetic arguments say what?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

As you are well aware, you cannot demonstrate that any of these things makes anyone safer.

background checks make us safer because they will stop some nuts from getting their hands on guns.

And we all know limiting magazines to 10 rounds slows you shooters down. If it doesn't then why cry about not being allowed to have 20 round mags?

All background checks do is make it harder to get a weapon--not impossible. If somebody wants a gun bad enough, they will get one.

It takes about one second to drop a magazine and pop in another one. How many lives do you suppose that would save?

Stupid argument you’ve made. For most the law will make it impossible. Sure one or two might find one but most wont

That’s like saying laws to stop cocaine are dumb because people who want them bad enough will get them

That’s not true. Most wont get them.

If it only takes a second then you won’t mind us only allowing ten round mags.

Sure I mind. When I go to the range, I like to keep shooting so I can focus without stopping to reload. Secondly, ten rounds may not be enough if attacked by several individuals instead of one. People have survived and even fought back after being shot several times. If they are armed, that means after you shot them, they still have the ability to shoot back. The idea of using deadly force is to cause death.

Depending on the distance, most people miss their targets quite often. This is especially true when your heart is beating out of your chest with the adrenaline flowing because your life is in extreme danger. It's one of the first things they teach you in class. Shooting at cardboard targets is not like shooting at another human being who is trying to kill you.

No, I don't want a restrictions on magazine size for the reasons I listed above. If an armed attacker(s) is chasing me and I'm only stopping one second here and there to shoot back, I may not hit any of them at all. I don't have the time to carefully aim like I do at the range. The best you can do is keep firing bullets towards your attackers.

So we should allow wmds because you don’t like reloading at a shooting range? Pathetic arguments say what?

What's pathetic is going to extremes to try and make your point. You leftists do that all the time. If we try to cut down on welfare, Republicans want to see people dying in the street. If we want to see a halt to affirmative action, Republicans want to bring back slavery.........

You can't defend yourself in a surprise attack using a WMD.

 

[sealybobo]

One real problem with what you are saying. The only side that even brings up a civil war is yours. And yours talks about stockpiling for WHEN it happens. Are you saying that if the Dems win heavily at the ballot box that you will see that as a reason to have a civil war? If that is the case, it's not the Dems that are the danger of causing a Civil War. It's your bunch.

And you need to quite giving Rump so many free rides. He's a friggin embarrassment. He goes from one embarrassment to another almost weekly. And the only reason he does this is because you won't call him on any of his BS. He's always been a spoiled little boy. Spoiled little boys will always push the envelope until they find the limits. So far, you haven't shown him the limits. So he just gets worse and worse. Now he's in serious trouble because the Dems have had enough and so have the Moderates. Your 33% isn't enough to pull him out of it this time. It's like a spoiled little brat that didn't get the spanking as a child finally getting in serious trouble with the authorities. Well, Congress is the Authorities this time. Now, in his own way (by demanding) he is begging you to cover for him once again. It's too late.

This is part of the commie revolution. The legislative branch does not have the power to control the executive branch. That's why we have separation of powers.

I never said if the commies win, we need to have a civil war. What I said is that when the commies remove a President unjustly, such as having secret clandestine inquiries, refusal to let the opponents even so much as see their transcript, and overturn an election, it is time for a civil war, because everything they do is unconstitutional.

The election is where citizens get to vote in or out a candidate for Prescient, not the legislative branch. This is particularly true when it's the opposing party that has been talking impeachment, and looking for a crime to match their punitive actions. That's not the way it works for real Americans.

But that won’t happen. You’ll see all the evidence. And if he’s removed republicans will have gone along.

8 Times trump put pressure on taylor to get Ukraine to announce they are looking into Biden.

Trump is guilty af. So nothing unjust if he’s removed. Sorry

That's the problem: we're not seeing any evidence because the Democrats are hiding the fact they have none. Now they announced a possible delay until after the holiday. Why? Because like the phony story by the Balls broad, they continue to find something.....anything they can get Trump on.

Every other evil scheme your side has tried failed miserably. When are you going to learn this is the trend?

Right now, the House is equiv to a Grand Jury. And yes, it has some Republicans represented on it. It's closed doors just like every other Grand Jury EVER. The only job they have is to determine if there is enough evidence to bring charges and what those charges are. Once that is done, it goes to pre senate House hearings. At that time, Rumps lawyers gets to see all the evidence and argue their case to the constitutionality of those charges. Once that is done, the House Votes for Impeachment or not. If impeachment is voted positive then it's give over to the Senate for the Trial for either aquital or removal of office. Right now, the only ones that get to speak are the Grand Jury members or the House Committee Members and Special Prosecutor. And those are also the only ones allowed in the room outside of the people they are questioning.

So how about getting a better 4x6 card from your handlers. The one you are reading from makes you look like a complete hack.

No, it is not like a grand jury because in a grand jury, the accused is there for the entire trial. He or she is not hidden away somewhere so they can't hear what's going on. Also in a grand jury, witnesses to the event testify either pro or con.

This idiocy going on is more like a fishing expedition. They have the penalty ready to go, but can't find a crime to use it on. So they are dragging in all these people hoping somebody....anybody can give them something to go on. It's never been done before in our history.

But now that it has, I hope the next Republican House remembers that with the next Democrat President when they are in the majority. Just keep harassing the guy day in and day out until you can find a half-way reason to impeach them, or attempt to make him quit.

Democrats are stupid people. Until this day, they still don't understand how their stunts come back to haunt them one day.

Do you remember the next democrat president is going to abuse his or her power like trump is?

And I hope the next president is kept in check like corrupt trump is being kept. Glad to see the president is not a king.

Triumph broke laws. Remove and impeach him. Don’t you agree? Why not?

 

[sealybobo]

background checks make us safer because they will stop some nuts from getting their hands on guns.

And we all know limiting magazines to 10 rounds slows you shooters down. If it doesn't then why cry about not being allowed to have 20 round mags?

All background checks do is make it harder to get a weapon--not impossible. If somebody wants a gun bad enough, they will get one.

It takes about one second to drop a magazine and pop in another one. How many lives do you suppose that would save?

Stupid argument you’ve made. For most the law will make it impossible. Sure one or two might find one but most wont

That’s like saying laws to stop cocaine are dumb because people who want them bad enough will get them

That’s not true. Most wont get them.

If it only takes a second then you won’t mind us only allowing ten round mags.

Sure I mind. When I go to the range, I like to keep shooting so I can focus without stopping to reload. Secondly, ten rounds may not be enough if attacked by several individuals instead of one. People have survived and even fought back after being shot several times. If they are armed, that means after you shot them, they still have the ability to shoot back. The idea of using deadly force is to cause death.

Depending on the distance, most people miss their targets quite often. This is especially true when your heart is beating out of your chest with the adrenaline flowing because your life is in extreme danger. It's one of the first things they teach you in class. Shooting at cardboard targets is not like shooting at another human being who is trying to kill you.

No, I don't want a restrictions on magazine size for the reasons I listed above. If an armed attacker(s) is chasing me and I'm only stopping one second here and there to shoot back, I may not hit any of them at all. I don't have the time to carefully aim like I do at the range. The best you can do is keep firing bullets towards your attackers.

So we should allow wmds because you don’t like reloading at a shooting range? Pathetic arguments say what?

What's pathetic is going to extremes to try and make your point. You leftists do that all the time. If we try to cut down on welfare, Republicans want to see people dying in the street. If we want to see a halt to affirmative action, Republicans want to bring back slavery.........

You can't defend yourself in a surprise attack using a WMD.

Well don’t worry about a patriotic American abusing the system. Imagine an al queda American doing it. Then you’d see not every American should be able to own any weapon he or she wants