|
Children toting firepower...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated". In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the gun show loophole, which must be closed. |
Children toting firepower...
Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” |
Children toting firepower...
jps wrote:
Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing nincompoops is going to open fire or "have an accident" or get into a brawl with law enforcement. When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the president is going to appear, it increases the workload of the secret service and local police forces. |
Children toting firepower...
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:01:25 -0700, jps wrote:
Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” Suppose he said, "The possession of guns by American civilians should be outlawed, and all guns currently in such possession will be confiscated. Warantless searches should be authorized." Wouldn't you agree with him more then? -- John H "BEND OVER - The 'change' is coming!" |
Children toting firepower...
"H the K" wrote in message m... jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing nincompoops is going to open fire or "have an accident" or get into a brawl with law enforcement. When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the president is going to appear, it increases the workload of the secret service and local police forces. Some kind of federal law restricting weapons within a couple thousand feet of anywhere the President of member of congress may be is in order This is something you couldn't trust the individual states to pass/enforce. |
Children toting firepower...
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:21:09 -0400, Proprietario di Guzzi
wrote: On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:01:25 -0700, jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” Suppose he said, "The possession of guns by American civilians should be outlawed, and all guns currently in such possession will be confiscated. Warantless searches should be authorized." Wouldn't you agree with him more then? Nope. Shotguns and rifles for hunting and protection is fine by me. Assholes out in public openly toting handguns and AR15 are pussies who should be slapped upside the head and put in a cell. |
Children toting firepower...
Don White wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message m... jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing nincompoops is going to open fire or "have an accident" or get into a brawl with law enforcement. When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the president is going to appear, it increases the workload of the secret service and local police forces. Some kind of federal law restricting weapons within a couple thousand feet of anywhere the President of member of congress may be is in order This is something you couldn't trust the individual states to pass/enforce. I've been practicing so I can handle the impending invasion of the Loogy/JustHate Zombies... http://tinyurl.com/ma5znl First five shot group at 100 yards from the new ZombieKiller Rifle. I was plopped on a ground cloth and using the rifle's built-in sights. Took a couple of shots first to sight in for elevation...there wasn't any wind. Tomorrow I'm going to try some shots with the new scope I just attached. Once I get used to it, I should be able to put five between the eyes of your typical zombie at 100 yards. |
Children toting firepower...
"H the K" wrote in message m... Don White wrote: "H the K" wrote in message m... jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing nincompoops is going to open fire or "have an accident" or get into a brawl with law enforcement. When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the president is going to appear, it increases the workload of the secret service and local police forces. Some kind of federal law restricting weapons within a couple thousand feet of anywhere the President of member of congress may be is in order This is something you couldn't trust the individual states to pass/enforce. I've been practicing so I can handle the impending invasion of the Loogy/JustHate Zombies... http://tinyurl.com/ma5znl First five shot group at 100 yards from the new ZombieKiller Rifle. I was plopped on a ground cloth and using the rifle's built-in sights. Took a couple of shots first to sight in for elevation...there wasn't any wind. Tomorrow I'm going to try some shots with the new scope I just attached. Once I get used to it, I should be able to put five between the eyes of your typical zombie at 100 yards. I have an old semi-auto 22 cal rifle with a 6x scope that I haven't fired in 25 years or so. I should get it out and do some practice myself.... just in case those 'zombies' make it across the border. ;-) |
Children toting firepower...
Don White wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message m... Don White wrote: "H the K" wrote in message m... jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing nincompoops is going to open fire or "have an accident" or get into a brawl with law enforcement. When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the president is going to appear, it increases the workload of the secret service and local police forces. Some kind of federal law restricting weapons within a couple thousand feet of anywhere the President of member of congress may be is in order This is something you couldn't trust the individual states to pass/enforce. I've been practicing so I can handle the impending invasion of the Loogy/JustHate Zombies... http://tinyurl.com/ma5znl First five shot group at 100 yards from the new ZombieKiller Rifle. I was plopped on a ground cloth and using the rifle's built-in sights. Took a couple of shots first to sight in for elevation...there wasn't any wind. Tomorrow I'm going to try some shots with the new scope I just attached. Once I get used to it, I should be able to put five between the eyes of your typical zombie at 100 yards. I have an old semi-auto 22 cal rifle with a 6x scope that I haven't fired in 25 years or so. I should get it out and do some practice myself.... just in case those 'zombies' make it across the border. ;-) You also have the herring, D, flajim zombies after you. |
Children toting firepower...
"H the K" wrote in message m... jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing nincompoops is going to open fire or "have an accident" or get into a brawl with law enforcement. When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the president is going to appear, it increases the workload of the secret service and local police forces. But the charges will be dropped. The precedent is already established with the New Black Panthers and the voter intimidation judgement. |
Children toting firepower...
"jps" wrote in message ... On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:21:09 -0400, Proprietario di Guzzi wrote: On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:01:25 -0700, jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey's home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. "It is attempted intimidation," he wrote. "It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop." Bookman continues: "It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn't listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There's a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun." Suppose he said, "The possession of guns by American civilians should be outlawed, and all guns currently in such possession will be confiscated. Warantless searches should be authorized." Wouldn't you agree with him more then? Nope. Shotguns and rifles for hunting and protection is fine by me. Assholes out in public openly toting handguns and AR15 are pussies who should be slapped upside the head and put in a cell. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-she...-panthers-2000 http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/P...2_schaefer.htm Your own Seattle and gun. http://afroamhistory.about.com/od/bl...panthers_2.htm the party advocated carrying guns for self-defense. At the time, under California law it was legal to carry guns if not concealed. The Panthers also took on various responsibilities in the community. Wearing black leather jackets, blue shirts, black pants, and black berets, they patrolled the neighborhoods carrying weapons |
Children toting firepower...
jps wrote:
Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” I suspect that the president is much safer with people who are legally carrying guns than with anyone else. In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated". |
Children toting firepower...
H the K wrote:
Don White wrote: "H the K" wrote in message m... jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing nincompoops is going to open fire or "have an accident" or get into a brawl with law enforcement. When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the president is going to appear, it increases the workload of the secret service and local police forces. Some kind of federal law restricting weapons within a couple thousand feet of anywhere the President of member of congress may be is in order This is something you couldn't trust the individual states to pass/enforce. I've been practicing so I can handle the impending invasion of the Loogy/JustHate Zombies... http://tinyurl.com/ma5znl Did you bother to read the target "100 Yard Sight-In" in the upper right hand corner of the target? You use that target to get your weapon zeroed so that you can move to the 300 and 500 yard targets. First five shot group at 100 yards from the new ZombieKiller Rifle. I was plopped on a ground cloth and using the rifle's built-in sights. Took a couple of shots first to sight in for elevation...there wasn't any wind. They are called iron sights. And you should be able to walk the group, 1.5 inches, to the center in no more than four three shot groups. Tomorrow I'm going to try some shots with the new scope I just attached. Once I get used to it, I should be able to put five between the eyes of your typical zombie at 100 yards. Scope? Scopes are for pussies. You should be able to put 10 in the black at 500 yards in the prone position using iron sites. Freaking scopes, are you pretending to be a sniper shooting a paper targets at 100 yards? |
Children toting firepower...
H the K wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote: In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated". In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the gun show loophole, which must be closed. Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background check? |
Children toting firepower...
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote: Don White wrote: "H the K" wrote in message m... jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing nincompoops is going to open fire or "have an accident" or get into a brawl with law enforcement. When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the president is going to appear, it increases the workload of the secret service and local police forces. Some kind of federal law restricting weapons within a couple thousand feet of anywhere the President of member of congress may be is in order This is something you couldn't trust the individual states to pass/enforce. I've been practicing so I can handle the impending invasion of the Loogy/JustHate Zombies... http://tinyurl.com/ma5znl Did you bother to read the target "100 Yard Sight-In" in the upper right hand corner of the target? You use that target to get your weapon zeroed so that you can move to the 300 and 500 yard targets. First five shot group at 100 yards from the new ZombieKiller Rifle. I was plopped on a ground cloth and using the rifle's built-in sights. Took a couple of shots first to sight in for elevation...there wasn't any wind. They are called iron sights. And you should be able to walk the group, 1.5 inches, to the center in no more than four three shot groups. Tomorrow I'm going to try some shots with the new scope I just attached. Once I get used to it, I should be able to put five between the eyes of your typical zombie at 100 yards. Scope? Scopes are for pussies. You should be able to put 10 in the black at 500 yards in the prone position using iron sites. Freaking scopes, are you pretending to be a sniper shooting a paper targets at 100 yards? 1. Please. I used the target I used because I have a package them, not because I need to "zero in" a rifle. Bought a big batch of these targets at a gun show. 2. Oh, and the factory sights on this rifle are fiber optics. Both of them. 3. 300 and 500 yard targets? Sorry...100 yards is all I have access to, and...of course, this is a .22LR rifle...300 and 500 yard targets would be...absurd. 4. I wasn't trying to walk the group. I was trying to put five into a relatively small target with a new rifle at 100 yards. 5. 10 in the black at 500 yards with iron sights from a .22LR rifle? Speaking of pussies, what sort of pussy were you during your brief stint in the marines? You never got an overseas assignment. Some warrior you were. :) |
Children toting firepower...
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote: Keith Nuttle wrote: In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated". In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the gun show loophole, which must be closed. Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background check? Moron. |
Children toting firepower...
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote: H the K wrote: Keith Nuttle wrote: In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated". In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the gun show loophole, which must be closed. Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background check? Moron. Is there a background check for those who house soldiers under the 3rd amendment? The forth amendment puts the onus on the government to prove that it has probable cause for the search or seizure. The fifth amendment doesn't say you have to have a background check to "plead the fifth." The sixth amendment doesn't say you have to have a background check to be tried in jurisdiction of your crime. The seventh amendment doesn't say you have to have a background check to be tried by a jury. The eight amendment doesn't say your bail, fine or punishment is dependent upon a background check. The ninth amendment doesn't say that you need a background check for your rights. The tenth amendment doesn't say you need a background check either. |
Children toting firepower...
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote: H the K wrote: Don White wrote: "H the K" wrote in message m... jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing nincompoops is going to open fire or "have an accident" or get into a brawl with law enforcement. When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the president is going to appear, it increases the workload of the secret service and local police forces. Some kind of federal law restricting weapons within a couple thousand feet of anywhere the President of member of congress may be is in order This is something you couldn't trust the individual states to pass/enforce. I've been practicing so I can handle the impending invasion of the Loogy/JustHate Zombies... http://tinyurl.com/ma5znl Did you bother to read the target "100 Yard Sight-In" in the upper right hand corner of the target? You use that target to get your weapon zeroed so that you can move to the 300 and 500 yard targets. First five shot group at 100 yards from the new ZombieKiller Rifle. I was plopped on a ground cloth and using the rifle's built-in sights. Took a couple of shots first to sight in for elevation...there wasn't any wind. They are called iron sights. And you should be able to walk the group, 1.5 inches, to the center in no more than four three shot groups. Tomorrow I'm going to try some shots with the new scope I just attached. Once I get used to it, I should be able to put five between the eyes of your typical zombie at 100 yards. Scope? Scopes are for pussies. You should be able to put 10 in the black at 500 yards in the prone position using iron sites. Freaking scopes, are you pretending to be a sniper shooting a paper targets at 100 yards? 1. Please. I used the target I used because I have a package them, not because I need to "zero in" a rifle. Bought a big batch of these targets at a gun show. You were shooting in your backyard at 25 yards? Nice groups he says very sarcastically. 2. Oh, and the factory sights on this rifle are fiber optics. Both of them. Fiber optic sights, right. They are still iron sights. just paint dots on your iron sights and you can call them what ever you want. Or, you can over pay for your "fiber optic" sights. 3. 300 and 500 yard targets? Sorry...100 yards is all I have access to, and...of course, this is a .22LR rifle...300 and 500 yard targets would be...absurd. That's what I thought you are not a serious shooter. You just play at it. 4. I wasn't trying to walk the group. I was trying to put five into a relatively small target with a new rifle at 100 yards. If you were a real shooter you could take a rifle off the rack and zero the sights and then walk the group into the center. 5. 10 in the black at 500 yards with iron sights from a .22LR rifle? 5.56mm is close to .22 cal. Speaking of pussies, what sort of pussy were you during your brief stint in the marines? You never got an overseas assignment. Some warrior you were. :) WW III never happened. |
Children toting firepower...
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote: BAR wrote: H the K wrote: Don White wrote: "H the K" wrote in message m... jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing nincompoops is going to open fire or "have an accident" or get into a brawl with law enforcement. When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the president is going to appear, it increases the workload of the secret service and local police forces. Some kind of federal law restricting weapons within a couple thousand feet of anywhere the President of member of congress may be is in order This is something you couldn't trust the individual states to pass/enforce. I've been practicing so I can handle the impending invasion of the Loogy/JustHate Zombies... http://tinyurl.com/ma5znl Did you bother to read the target "100 Yard Sight-In" in the upper right hand corner of the target? You use that target to get your weapon zeroed so that you can move to the 300 and 500 yard targets. First five shot group at 100 yards from the new ZombieKiller Rifle. I was plopped on a ground cloth and using the rifle's built-in sights. Took a couple of shots first to sight in for elevation...there wasn't any wind. They are called iron sights. And you should be able to walk the group, 1.5 inches, to the center in no more than four three shot groups. Tomorrow I'm going to try some shots with the new scope I just attached. Once I get used to it, I should be able to put five between the eyes of your typical zombie at 100 yards. Scope? Scopes are for pussies. You should be able to put 10 in the black at 500 yards in the prone position using iron sites. Freaking scopes, are you pretending to be a sniper shooting a paper targets at 100 yards? 1. Please. I used the target I used because I have a package them, not because I need to "zero in" a rifle. Bought a big batch of these targets at a gun show. You were shooting in your backyard at 25 yards? Nice groups he says very sarcastically. 2. Oh, and the factory sights on this rifle are fiber optics. Both of them. Fiber optic sights, right. They are still iron sights. just paint dots on your iron sights and you can call them what ever you want. Or, you can over pay for your "fiber optic" sights. 3. 300 and 500 yard targets? Sorry...100 yards is all I have access to, and...of course, this is a .22LR rifle...300 and 500 yard targets would be...absurd. That's what I thought you are not a serious shooter. You just play at it. 4. I wasn't trying to walk the group. I was trying to put five into a relatively small target with a new rifle at 100 yards. If you were a real shooter you could take a rifle off the rack and zero the sights and then walk the group into the center. 5. 10 in the black at 500 yards with iron sights from a .22LR rifle? 5.56mm is close to .22 cal. Speaking of pussies, what sort of pussy were you during your brief stint in the marines? You never got an overseas assignment. Some warrior you were. :) WW III never happened. 1. No, I was shooting in a nearby pasture at 100 yards. Didn't you see the line "...First five shot group at 100 yards..." If I had been shooting at 25 yards, the grouping would have been under 1/2". 2. The fiber optic sights are standard on this model. Got the rifle at a very good price, certainly did not overpay. 3. I never said or implied I was a "serious shooter." I shoot targets and empty cans for fun, though I do a bit of competitive shooting, but just for fun. 4. A real shooter? Why would I want to be a "real shooter"? I told you, I do this for simple fun. 5. You're comparing the NATO round to a .22LR round? You obviously don't shoot much, if at all. The NATO bullet may be about the same diameter as a .22LR round, but...the .22LR cartridges I shoot have a 36 gr bullet, compared to what, a 55-70 gr bullet for the NATO round. And of course the bullets are shaped completely differently and there's a hell of a lot more powder charge in the NATO round. The NATO rounds are typically good for what, 400 yards? The drop of a hot .22lr round at 400 yards is about 20 feet. Stick to playing golf badly, and stay off the firing range. |
Children toting firepower...
|
Children toting firepower...
|
Children toting firepower...
On Aug 18, 9:33*pm, Keith Nuttle wrote:
jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” I suspect that the president is much safer with people who are legally carrying guns than with anyone else. *In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".- Hide quoted text - the biggest gun mass killer, the guy at VA tech...owned his guns legally 33 dead people as a result. thanks to the NRA |
Children toting firepower...
On Aug 19, 6:27*am, wf3h wrote:
On Aug 18, 9:33*pm, Keith Nuttle wrote: jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong.. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” I suspect that the president is much safer with people who are legally carrying guns than with anyone else. *In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".- Hide quoted text - the biggest gun mass killer, the guy at VA tech...owned his guns legally 33 dead people as a result. thanks to the NRA You mean, we told him to pull the trigger???? thanks tot he NRA? |
Children toting firepower...
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote: Keith Nuttle wrote: In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated". In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the gun show loophole, which must be closed. Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background check? The validation process isn't stringent enough if card carrying loonies like Krause can get themselves validated. But sadly, closing the gun show loophole won't prevent professional murderers and other armed crime doers from obtaining the tools of their trade. |
Children toting firepower...
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote: Don White wrote: "H the K" wrote in message m... jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing nincompoops is going to open fire or "have an accident" or get into a brawl with law enforcement. When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the president is going to appear, it increases the workload of the secret service and local police forces. Some kind of federal law restricting weapons within a couple thousand feet of anywhere the President of member of congress may be is in order This is something you couldn't trust the individual states to pass/enforce. I've been practicing so I can handle the impending invasion of the Loogy/JustHate Zombies... http://tinyurl.com/ma5znl Did you bother to read the target "100 Yard Sight-In" in the upper right hand corner of the target? You use that target to get your weapon zeroed so that you can move to the 300 and 500 yard targets. First five shot group at 100 yards from the new ZombieKiller Rifle. I was plopped on a ground cloth and using the rifle's built-in sights. Took a couple of shots first to sight in for elevation...there wasn't any wind. They are called iron sights. And you should be able to walk the group, 1.5 inches, to the center in no more than four three shot groups. Tomorrow I'm going to try some shots with the new scope I just attached. Once I get used to it, I should be able to put five between the eyes of your typical zombie at 100 yards. Scope? Scopes are for pussies. You should be able to put 10 in the black at 500 yards in the prone position using iron sites. Freaking scopes, are you pretending to be a sniper shooting a paper targets at 100 yards? Harry pretends to be a lot of things. :-) |
Children toting firepower...
On Aug 19, 9:04*am, Tim wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:27*am, wf3h wrote: On Aug 18, 9:33*pm, Keith Nuttle wrote: jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” I suspect that the president is much safer with people who are legally carrying guns than with anyone else. *In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".- Hide quoted text - the biggest gun mass killer, the guy at VA tech...owned his guns legally 33 dead people as a result. thanks to the NRA You mean, we told him to pull the trigger???? thanks tot he NRA?- the NRA has always been in favor of psychopaths owning guns. |
Children toting firepower...
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 19, 9:04 am, Tim wrote: On Aug 19, 6:27 am, wf3h wrote: On Aug 18, 9:33 pm, Keith Nuttle wrote: jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” I suspect that the president is much safer with people who are legally carrying guns than with anyone else. In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".- Hide quoted text - the biggest gun mass killer, the guy at VA tech...owned his guns legally 33 dead people as a result. thanks to the NRA You mean, we told him to pull the trigger???? thanks tot he NRA?- the NRA has always been in favor of psychopaths owning guns. And hiring psychopaths as the leaders... |
Children toting firepower...
J i m wrote:
BAR wrote: H the K wrote: Keith Nuttle wrote: In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated". In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the gun show loophole, which must be closed. Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background check? The validation process isn't stringent enough if card carrying loonies like Krause can get themselves validated. But sadly, closing the gun show loophole won't prevent professional murderers and other armed crime doers from obtaining the tools of their trade. If we stopped law abiding citizens from owning guns then it will just be the criminals and government with guns. |
Children toting firepower...
On Aug 19, 10:04*am, H the K wrote:
wf3h wrote: On Aug 19, 9:04 am, Tim wrote: On Aug 19, 6:27 am, wf3h wrote: On Aug 18, 9:33 pm, Keith Nuttle wrote: jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” I suspect that the president is much safer with people who are legally carrying guns than with anyone else. *In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".- Hide quoted text - the biggest gun mass killer, the guy at VA tech...owned his guns legally 33 dead people as a result. thanks to the NRA You mean, we told him to pull the trigger???? thanks tot he NRA?- the NRA has always been in favor of psychopaths owning guns. And hiring psychopaths as the leaders the crazier the better. it's impossible to be too right wing in america. |
Children toting firepower...
BAR wrote:
J i m wrote: BAR wrote: H the K wrote: Keith Nuttle wrote: In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated". In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the gun show loophole, which must be closed. Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background check? The validation process isn't stringent enough if card carrying loonies like Krause can get themselves validated. But sadly, closing the gun show loophole won't prevent professional murderers and other armed crime doers from obtaining the tools of their trade. If we stopped law abiding citizens from owning guns then it will just be the criminals and government with guns. It was the gun show loophole being discussed, moron. |
Children toting firepower...
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote: J i m wrote: BAR wrote: H the K wrote: Keith Nuttle wrote: In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated". In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the gun show loophole, which must be closed. Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background check? The validation process isn't stringent enough if card carrying loonies like Krause can get themselves validated. But sadly, closing the gun show loophole won't prevent professional murderers and other armed crime doers from obtaining the tools of their trade. If we stopped law abiding citizens from owning guns then it will just be the criminals and government with guns. It was the gun show loophole being discussed, moron. Show me where in the 2nd amendment it states that you are required to have a background check? In fact which of the first 10 amendments, the bill of rights, requires that a person have a background check? I am waiting for you to put forth the well regulated militia argument. Because if you do you will have to turn in all of your firearms. |
Children toting firepower...
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote: BAR wrote: J i m wrote: BAR wrote: H the K wrote: Keith Nuttle wrote: In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated". In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the gun show loophole, which must be closed. Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background check? The validation process isn't stringent enough if card carrying loonies like Krause can get themselves validated. But sadly, closing the gun show loophole won't prevent professional murderers and other armed crime doers from obtaining the tools of their trade. If we stopped law abiding citizens from owning guns then it will just be the criminals and government with guns. It was the gun show loophole being discussed, moron. Show me where in the 2nd amendment it states that you are required to have a background check? In fact which of the first 10 amendments, the bill of rights, requires that a person have a background check? I am waiting for you to put forth the well regulated militia argument. Because if you do you will have to turn in all of your firearms. We have by law background checks. If you think the federal and state laws on that matter are non-Constitutional, well, go fight them. I accept them as necessary. Whenever I buy a firearm, I go through the instant federal check for a long gun, and the additional state check if it is a pistol. The "gun show loophole" only facilitates gun trafficking by criminals. |
Children toting firepower...
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Aug 18, 9:33 pm, Keith Nuttle wrote: jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” I suspect that the president is much safer with people who are legally carrying guns than with anyone else. In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".- Hide quoted text - the biggest gun mass killer, the guy at VA tech...owned his guns legally 33 dead people as a result. thanks to the NRA reply: yeah, the NRA sent the *******. It's a conspiracy, I tell ya. And the NRA also secretly holds stock in EVERY knife company in the world, and is complicit in every homicide using a knife. Same thing with baseball bats. Uh oh. I gotta run to the basement. The invisible black helicopters are here again ............. bye ..................... Steve |
Children toting firepower...
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Aug 19, 10:04 am, H the K wrote: wf3h wrote: On Aug 19, 9:04 am, Tim wrote: On Aug 19, 6:27 am, wf3h wrote: On Aug 18, 9:33 pm, Keith Nuttle wrote: jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” I suspect that the president is much safer with people who are legally carrying guns than with anyone else. In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".- Hide quoted text - the biggest gun mass killer, the guy at VA tech...owned his guns legally 33 dead people as a result. thanks to the NRA You mean, we told him to pull the trigger???? thanks tot he NRA?- the NRA has always been in favor of psychopaths owning guns. And hiring psychopaths as the leaders the crazier the better. it's impossible to be too right wing in america. reply: ****ing a right on dead center. They want right wing loony psychopaths so that it will intimidate the left who would have all handguns melted and turned into statues of Barack Obama. Steve |
Children toting firepower...
"BAR" wrote in message ... J i m wrote: BAR wrote: H the K wrote: Keith Nuttle wrote: In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated". In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the gun show loophole, which must be closed. Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background check? The validation process isn't stringent enough if card carrying loonies like Krause can get themselves validated. But sadly, closing the gun show loophole won't prevent professional murderers and other armed crime doers from obtaining the tools of their trade. If we stopped law abiding citizens from owning guns then it will just be the criminals and government with guns. We'd have a fighting chance against the criminals, but not the government. ACORN people retrained to be snitch police, and with guns. Now that's lunacy. Steve |
Children toting firepower...
Scope? Scopes are for pussies. You should be able to put 10 in the black at 500 yards in the prone position using iron sites. Freaking scopes, are you pretending to be a sniper shooting a paper targets at 100 yards? Scopes and lasers are for people who can't shoot. Steve |
Children toting firepower...
On Aug 19, 10:49*am, "SteveB" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Aug 19, 10:04 am, H the K wrote: wf3h wrote: On Aug 19, 9:04 am, Tim wrote: On Aug 19, 6:27 am, wf3h wrote: On Aug 18, 9:33 pm, Keith Nuttle wrote: jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” I suspect that the president is much safer with people who are legally carrying guns than with anyone else. In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".- Hide quoted text - the biggest gun mass killer, the guy at VA tech...owned his guns legally 33 dead people as a result. thanks to the NRA You mean, we told him to pull the trigger???? thanks tot he NRA?- the NRA has always been in favor of psychopaths owning guns. And hiring psychopaths as the leaders the crazier the better. it's impossible to be too right wing in america. reply: *****ing a right on dead center. *They want right wing loony psychopaths so that it will intimidate the left who would have all handguns melted and turned into statues of Barack Obama. dontcha love the tin foil hat mentality? bush arrested american citizens and tortured them, spied on them and tried to suspend habeas corpus... but obama's the enemy because...well just because he's not a brownshirt... |
Children toting firepower...
On Aug 19, 10:48*am, "SteveB" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Aug 18, 9:33 pm, Keith Nuttle wrote: jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong.. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” I suspect that the president is much safer with people who are legally carrying guns than with anyone else. In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".- Hide quoted text - the biggest gun mass killer, the guy at VA tech...owned his guns legally 33 dead people as a result. thanks to the NRA reply: *yeah, the NRA sent the *******. they enabled the *******. they're a bunch of amoral, pot bellied beer swilling misanthropes who think the constitution should be limited to the 2nd amendment * |
Children toting firepower...
BAR wrote:
J i m wrote: BAR wrote: H the K wrote: Keith Nuttle wrote: In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated". In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the gun show loophole, which must be closed. Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background check? The validation process isn't stringent enough if card carrying loonies like Krause can get themselves validated. But sadly, closing the gun show loophole won't prevent professional murderers and other armed crime doers from obtaining the tools of their trade. If we stopped law abiding citizens from owning guns then it will just be the criminals and government with guns. Ya but I don't want every Tom Dick and "Harry" running around waving guns. I didn't say we should prevent sane, responsible people from owning guns. |
Children toting firepower...
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:01:59 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote: On Aug 19, 10:49*am, "SteveB" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Aug 19, 10:04 am, H the K wrote: wf3h wrote: On Aug 19, 9:04 am, Tim wrote: On Aug 19, 6:27 am, wf3h wrote: On Aug 18, 9:33 pm, Keith Nuttle wrote: jps wrote: Couldn't agree with this writer more... At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.” Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.” I suspect that the president is much safer with people who are legally carrying guns than with anyone else. In most states those who have guns have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".- Hide quoted text - the biggest gun mass killer, the guy at VA tech...owned his guns legally 33 dead people as a result. thanks to the NRA You mean, we told him to pull the trigger???? thanks tot he NRA?- the NRA has always been in favor of psychopaths owning guns. And hiring psychopaths as the leaders the crazier the better. it's impossible to be too right wing in america. reply: *****ing a right on dead center. *They want right wing loony psychopaths so that it will intimidate the left who would have all handguns melted and turned into statues of Barack Obama. dontcha love the tin foil hat mentality? bush arrested american citizens and tortured them, spied on them and tried to suspend habeas corpus... but obama's the enemy because...well just because he's not a brownshirt... Well said! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com