BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

iBoaterer[_2_]

In article ,
says...

On 1/26/2013 4:16 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Saturday, January 26, 2013 3:21:56 PM UTC-5, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On 1/26/2013 3:03 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 1/26/2013 1:17 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 1/26/2013 11:12 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article df39c9b7-6bc7-462e-b0f8- , says... On Jan 25, 8:28 am, Boating
All Out wrote: In article 23964fc7-fc2d-4d59-ba67- , says... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/24...gal-gun-sales-... "They will be sentenced April 15." Not soon enough! No, contrary to some beliefs in here, the NRA does NOT support criminal gun trade. And looks
like
Fox doesn't either. NRA won't agree to gun registration and personal responsibility. It would hurt sales. Simple as that. Deny it all you want. Come up with all your paranoid bull**** excuses about why you don't want gun ownership traceable. Fact is the NRA is even fighting unlicensed sellers doing background checks right now. That's where the felon husband in this story got his guns. The FFL
licensed
wife didn't keep good records. NRA always fights to to reduce FFL record keeping. So it's clear the NRA always fights to keep guns available to criminals. It's just good business practice from their viewpoint. They want high gun sales. Making gun ownership traceable will hurt gun sales. If Fox supports the NRA, they are also fighting to keep guns available to criminals. And if they don't, they don't.
Reporting a news story means nothing. That's the primary function of a news organization. This is all plain common sense. None of the above. about 90% of guns used in crimes were stolen from a lawful owner. No problem.... idiot!!! http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.html http://www.commongunsense.com/2012/0...e-problem.html http://extranosalley.com/?
p=
10368 http://abcnews.go.com/US/hot-guns-fu...tudy/story?id= 18318610 I will stipulate to the above, even though I doubt they are even related to the conversation... now see below. snerk Simply, if there were fewer guns to be stolen there would be fewer crimes committed by guns. Cite? You stupid little idiot!!!!! ALL of those websites ARE the "cite"..... Holy ****, it's put right dead in front of your
nose
and you are still too stupid to understand what you read...... incredible. As for the comment about fewer guns, there would be fewer gun crimes, it's truly amazing to me that you are too stupid to understand a simple thing like that. Cite? Try this. Lets say, to keep it very simple for you and other people as stupid as you, although that highly unlikely, that all of a sudden there were no guns to be stolen. Strawman, that will never happen unless you are
going to change the constitution.. so, back to this non-cite, cite?? Now you tell me, how the **** could a crime be committed with a stolen gun if there were no guns to be stolen???? My God you're stupid. I can't believe you need this explained to you. All based on a fairy tale, there will always be guns, at least as long as there is a USofA... Now how about that cite?

They always run from these types of facts:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/28/will-banning-guns-stop-homicides-stats-from-england-and-australia-show/

If there were no guns, how would there be gun crimes?

If there was a tooth fairy....

then, what, idiot?