|
And to think, FOX reported it!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/24...t-beauty-shop/
"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. |
And to think, FOX reported it!
On 1/25/2013 9:28 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article 23964fc7-fc2d-4d59-ba67- , says... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/24...t-beauty-shop/ "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. When you start your rant with a political strawman/troll like that... it only dismisses any responsibility of anyone else to read your rant, thus making your opinion irrelevant. If you are not mature enough to discuss such a serious problem like an adult, you should really go play on facebook or something.. Either way, nobody believes the dems want anything but total registration and control.... |
And to think, FOX reported it!
On 1/25/13 11:24 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
Either way, nobody believes the dems want anything but total registration and control.... A paper trail that follows all firearms from their manufacture through their various purchasers is the way to go. No more paperless sales, no more straw sales. |
And to think, FOX reported it!
On 1/25/2013 11:34 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 1/25/13 11:24 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: Either way, nobody believes the dems want anything but total registration and control.... A paper trail that follows all firearms from their manufacture through their various purchasers is the way to go. No more paperless sales, no more straw sales. Yes, so when they do get enough votes in the house and senate, confiscate... |
And to think, FOX reported it!
In article ,
says... On 1/25/2013 9:28 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article 23964fc7-fc2d-4d59-ba67- , says... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/24...t-beauty-shop/ "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. When you start your rant with a political strawman/troll like that... it only dismisses any responsibility of anyone else to read your rant, thus making your opinion irrelevant. If you are not mature enough to discuss such a serious problem like an adult, you should really go play on facebook or something.. Either way, nobody believes the dems want anything but total registration and control.... You stupid fool, you start every one of your rants with a politics. |
And to think, FOX reported it!
|
And to think, FOX reported it!
On 1/25/2013 12:17 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On 1/25/2013 11:34 AM, ESAD wrote: On 1/25/13 11:24 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: Either way, nobody believes the dems want anything but total registration and control.... A paper trail that follows all firearms from their manufacture through their various purchasers is the way to go. No more paperless sales, no more straw sales. Yes, so when they do get enough votes in the house and senate, confiscate... What a paranoid, delusional, insane, unemployed little brained **** you are. And still, I have never had to file bankruptcy or run from a state/take all of my fake possessions out of my name, etc... |
And to think, FOX reported it!
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:28:17 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:
In article 23964fc7-fc2d-4d59-ba67- , says... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/24...t-beauty-shop/ "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. Actually, I have no problem with a paper trail for guns, as long as they develop a paper trail for voters. Every voter should have an ID to vote, just as he has one to buy beer, drive a car, or collect welfare. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument! |
And to think, FOX reported it!
On 1/25/13 11:49 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 1/25/2013 11:34 AM, ESAD wrote: On 1/25/13 11:24 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: Either way, nobody believes the dems want anything but total registration and control.... A paper trail that follows all firearms from their manufacture through their various purchasers is the way to go. No more paperless sales, no more straw sales. Yes, so when they do get enough votes in the house and senate, confiscate... Who put that moronic idea in your head? |
And to think, FOX reported it!
In article ,
says... On 1/25/2013 12:17 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 1/25/2013 11:34 AM, ESAD wrote: On 1/25/13 11:24 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: Either way, nobody believes the dems want anything but total registration and control.... A paper trail that follows all firearms from their manufacture through their various purchasers is the way to go. No more paperless sales, no more straw sales. Yes, so when they do get enough votes in the house and senate, confiscate... What a paranoid, delusional, insane, unemployed little brained **** you are. And still, I have never had to file bankruptcy or run from a state/take all of my fake possessions out of my name, etc... And neither have I. But you have lied. Especially that whopper about your highly educated daughter with the great job in D.C. You know, the one who actually works in a medical supply store? Mensa qualified.... Yeah.... |
And to think, FOX reported it!
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. |
And to think, FOX reported it!
On 1/25/2013 8:24 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
Either way, nobody believes the dems want anything but total registration and control.... Isn't your car registered. Isn't your boat registered... oh, nevermind. |
And to think, FOX reported it!
|
And to think, FOX reported it!
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. Simply, if there were fewer guns to be stolen there would be fewer crimes committed by guns. |
And to think, FOX reported it!
In article ,
says... In article , lid says... On 1/25/2013 8:24 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: Either way, nobody believes the dems want anything but total registration and control.... Isn't your car registered. Isn't your boat registered... oh, nevermind. They're coming for your car! They're coming for your car! Hope these deep thinkers didn't register their marriages. They're coming for your wife! They're coming for your wife! Where's that chastity belt!? Where's that chsstity belt!? I'm going to bet that the resident crazy Scotty will ignore this.... |
And to think, FOX reported it!
|
And to think, FOX reported it!
In article ,
says... On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:28:17 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: In article 23964fc7-fc2d-4d59-ba67- , says... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/24...t-beauty-shop/ "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. Actually, I have no problem with a paper trail for guns, as long as they develop a paper trail for voters. Every voter should have an ID to vote, just as he has one to buy beer, drive a car, or collect welfare. I agree. |
And to think, FOX reported it!
In article ,
says... In article , lid says... On 1/25/2013 8:24 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: Either way, nobody believes the dems want anything but total registration and control.... Isn't your car registered. Isn't your boat registered... oh, nevermind. I didn't know there was a car amendment. whooooosh...... |
And to think, FOX reported it!
On 1/26/2013 11:13 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... In article , lid says... On 1/25/2013 8:24 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: Either way, nobody believes the dems want anything but total registration and control.... Isn't your car registered. Isn't your boat registered... oh, nevermind. They're coming for your car! They're coming for your car! Hope these deep thinkers didn't register their marriages. They're coming for your wife! They're coming for your wife! Where's that chastity belt!? Where's that chsstity belt!? I'm going to bet that the resident crazy Scotty will ignore this.... you win...:) |
And to think, FOX reported it!
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. Simply, if there were fewer guns to be stolen there would be fewer crimes committed by guns. Cite? |
And to think, FOX reported it!
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. Simply, if there were fewer guns to be stolen there would be fewer crimes committed by guns. Cite? 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 |
And to think, FOX reported it!
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? |
And to think, FOX reported it!
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 09:28:02 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , lid says... On 1/25/2013 8:24 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: Either way, nobody believes the dems want anything but total registration and control.... Isn't your car registered. Isn't your boat registered... oh, nevermind. They're coming for your car! They're coming for your car! Hope these deep thinkers didn't register their marriages. They're coming for your wife! They're coming for your wife! Where's that chastity belt!? Where's that chsstity belt!? Well, if you live in a property tax county, like Fairfax County, they might well do that. Once you register your car or trailer, the county is notified and comes at you for the property tax thereon. If the car or trailer is registered out of state, then all is well, until you get caught. Many folks keep their RV's in Prince William county just so Fairfax won't 'come get them'! Check the history of gun ownership in Britain. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument! |
And to think, FOX reported it!
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. 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. 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. |
And to think, FOX reported it!
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? |
And to think, FOX reported it!
In article ,
says... 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? A fairy tale???? You friggin' dope!!!!!! If there were no guns, how the **** would there be gun crimes??? I've never tried to explain anything to anyone as dumb as you!!! I gave you several, you were too stupid to read them apparently. |
And to think, FOX reported it!
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/2013/01/2...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/ |
And to think, FOX reported it!
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? |
And to think, FOX reported it!
On 1/26/13 4:11 PM, wrote:
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 agre e 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, i t'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/ Facts and The Blaze? Are you on LSD? The Blaze is an online rag put out by one of the Breitbart ejaculates. Facts and The Blaze...hehehehe,. |
And to think, FOX reported it!
On Saturday, January 26, 2013 4:19:07 PM UTC-5, ESAD wrote:
On 1/26/13 4:11 PM, wrote: Facts and The Blaze? Are you on LSD? The Blaze is an online rag put out by one of the Breitbart ejaculates. Facts and The Blaze...hehehehe,. Dispute those facts, deadbeat. The Blaze is more reputable than the sites you link, you non-taxpaying POS. hehehe... your business acumen let you down, bankrupt man. I suppose that's why you hate successful business now, right? |
And to think, FOX reported it!
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.... |
And to think, FOX reported it!
In article ,
says... On Saturday, January 26, 2013 4:19:07 PM UTC-5, ESAD wrote: On 1/26/13 4:11 PM, wrote: Facts and The Blaze? Are you on LSD? The Blaze is an online rag put out by one of the Breitbart ejaculates. Facts and The Blaze...hehehehe,. Dispute those facts, deadbeat. The Blaze is more reputable than the sites you link, you non-taxpaying POS. hehehe... your business acumen let you down, bankrupt man. I suppose that's why you hate successful business now, right? Haahaaahaa!! He's following your exact playbook!!! If a site given doesn't agree with your stance, then you instantly negate the site, but don't ever dispute the facts in the site. |
And to think, FOX reported it!
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? |
And to think, FOX reported it!
On Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:16:59 AM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Saturday, January 26, 2013 4:19:07 PM UTC-5, ESAD wrote: On 1/26/13 4:11 PM, wrote: Facts and The Blaze? Are you on LSD? The Blaze is an online rag put out by one of the Breitbart ejaculates. Facts and The Blaze...hehehehe,. Dispute those facts, deadbeat. The Blaze is more reputable than the sites you link, you non-taxpaying POS. hehehe... your business acumen let you down, bankrupt man. I suppose that's why you hate successful business now, right? Haahaaahaa!! He's following your exact playbook!!! If a site given doesn't agree with your stance, then you instantly negate the site, but don't ever dispute the facts in the site. You just ignore the links that prove you wrong. Is that better? |
And to think, FOX reported it!
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:14:58 -0500, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
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: e, 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.... Reminds me of a song about war, guns, fighting, children, and 'if'.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNX5FR8hRwg Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument! |
And to think, FOX reported it!
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 09:17:20 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:
If there was a tooth fairy.... then, what, idiot? ....just for you... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNX5FR8hRwg Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument! |
And to think, FOX reported it!
On 1/27/13 12:38 PM, Salmonbait wrote:
Reminds me of a song about war, guns, fighting, children, and 'if'.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNX5FR8hRwg Salmonbait Is that what you whistled while you shot and blew up villages, women and children in Vietnam? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com