|
What guns would be banned:
On 2/3/13 9:02 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/3/2013 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... ... but democrats are famous for "doing something" even if it is wrong. All this bill is going to do is endanger "blue" seats in congress. NRA bull****. Cracker and gun nut numbers are already established. None of fluster over guns will make a difference in Mississippi, or San Francisco. Or Pennsylvania. Stricter gun control will only increase the D vote, because that's where Americans are. Only thing that will keep the R's alive nationally now is if they use their state legislatures to jerry rig the electoral college. Then they'll get thrown out of state power too. Face it, old white men with 19th century ideas are a soon to be dead species as far as wielding political power. And that's a good thing for everybody else. This is called a shotgun post. Throw as many offensive, stupid accusations into one post as possible That's pretty much all you do here, little ****. |
What guns would be banned:
On 2/3/2013 9:15 PM, ESAD wrote:
On 2/3/13 9:02 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 2/3/2013 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... ... but democrats are famous for "doing something" even if it is wrong. All this bill is going to do is endanger "blue" seats in congress. NRA bull****. Cracker and gun nut numbers are already established. None of fluster over guns will make a difference in Mississippi, or San Francisco. Or Pennsylvania. Stricter gun control will only increase the D vote, because that's where Americans are. Only thing that will keep the R's alive nationally now is if they use their state legislatures to jerry rig the electoral college. Then they'll get thrown out of state power too. Face it, old white men with 19th century ideas are a soon to be dead species as far as wielding political power. And that's a good thing for everybody else. This is called a shotgun post. Throw as many offensive, stupid accusations into one post as possible That's pretty much all you do here, little ****. Wow, I'm hurt.. |
What guns would be banned:
On 2/3/13 9:16 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/3/2013 9:15 PM, ESAD wrote: On 2/3/13 9:02 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 2/3/2013 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... ... but democrats are famous for "doing something" even if it is wrong. All this bill is going to do is endanger "blue" seats in congress. NRA bull****. Cracker and gun nut numbers are already established. None of fluster over guns will make a difference in Mississippi, or San Francisco. Or Pennsylvania. Stricter gun control will only increase the D vote, because that's where Americans are. Only thing that will keep the R's alive nationally now is if they use their state legislatures to jerry rig the electoral college. Then they'll get thrown out of state power too. Face it, old white men with 19th century ideas are a soon to be dead species as far as wielding political power. And that's a good thing for everybody else. This is called a shotgun post. Throw as many offensive, stupid accusations into one post as possible That's pretty much all you do here, little ****. Wow, I'm hurt.. Doubtful your peanut brain works well enough to feel pain. |
What guns would be banned:
On Feb 3, 7:04*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:19:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: This is meaningless feel good legislation to prove they are "doing something". The manufactures have "post ban" designs ready to go as soon as they see which of these rules survive the vote. The Bushmaster that everyone is vilifying is a 94 ban compliant gun designed to that rule. Yeah, we should do nothing and let the NRA decide..... If you are thinking about firearm manufacturers, this will not affect them much either way. The "ban" is meaningless to them, more than simply fine tuning the cosmetics of the line. This is as silly as banning cars with racing stripes to cut down on speeding. ... but democrats are famous for "doing something" even if it is wrong. All this bill is going to do is endanger "blue" seats in congress. Dick Durbin says- "Background checks will stop criminals from buying weapons in the first place." Is that like allowing illegals to have drivers licenses so they can buy car insurance? |
What guns would be banned:
On 2/3/2013 11:09 PM, Tim wrote:
On Feb 3, 7:04 pm, wrote: On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:19:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: This is meaningless feel good legislation to prove they are "doing something". The manufactures have "post ban" designs ready to go as soon as they see which of these rules survive the vote. The Bushmaster that everyone is vilifying is a 94 ban compliant gun designed to that rule. Yeah, we should do nothing and let the NRA decide..... If you are thinking about firearm manufacturers, this will not affect them much either way. The "ban" is meaningless to them, more than simply fine tuning the cosmetics of the line. This is as silly as banning cars with racing stripes to cut down on speeding. ... but democrats are famous for "doing something" even if it is wrong. All this bill is going to do is endanger "blue" seats in congress. Dick Durbin says- "Background checks will stop criminals from buying weapons in the first place." Is that like allowing illegals to have drivers licenses so they can buy car insurance? It's all about the slippery slope to dems, all a compromise means is we are gonna' reload and come for the rest... |
What guns would be banned:
On 2/3/2013 11:09 PM, Tim wrote:
On Feb 3, 7:04 pm, wrote: On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:19:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: This is meaningless feel good legislation to prove they are "doing something". The manufactures have "post ban" designs ready to go as soon as they see which of these rules survive the vote. The Bushmaster that everyone is vilifying is a 94 ban compliant gun designed to that rule. Yeah, we should do nothing and let the NRA decide..... If you are thinking about firearm manufacturers, this will not affect them much either way. The "ban" is meaningless to them, more than simply fine tuning the cosmetics of the line. This is as silly as banning cars with racing stripes to cut down on speeding. ... but democrats are famous for "doing something" even if it is wrong. All this bill is going to do is endanger "blue" seats in congress. Dick Durbin says- "Background checks will stop criminals from buying weapons in the first place." Is that like allowing illegals to have drivers licenses so they can buy car insurance? I guess they'll have to resort to stealing them instead. |
What guns would be banned:
On 2/4/2013 12:10 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/3/2013 11:09 PM, Tim wrote: On Feb 3, 7:04 pm, wrote: On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:19:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: This is meaningless feel good legislation to prove they are "doing something". The manufactures have "post ban" designs ready to go as soon as they see which of these rules survive the vote. The Bushmaster that everyone is vilifying is a 94 ban compliant gun designed to that rule. Yeah, we should do nothing and let the NRA decide..... If you are thinking about firearm manufacturers, this will not affect them much either way. The "ban" is meaningless to them, more than simply fine tuning the cosmetics of the line. This is as silly as banning cars with racing stripes to cut down on speeding. ... but democrats are famous for "doing something" even if it is wrong. All this bill is going to do is endanger "blue" seats in congress. Dick Durbin says- "Background checks will stop criminals from buying weapons in the first place." Is that like allowing illegals to have drivers licenses so they can buy car insurance? It's all about the slippery slope to dems, all a compromise means is we are gonna' reload and come for the rest... Insurance? No habla engles senor. |
What guns would be banned:
In article 15dacf33-ad36-406e-90ce-
, says... On Feb 3, 7:04*pm, wrote: On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:19:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: This is meaningless feel good legislation to prove they are "doing something". The manufactures have "post ban" designs ready to go as soon as they see which of these rules survive the vote. The Bushmaster that everyone is vilifying is a 94 ban compliant gun designed to that rule. Yeah, we should do nothing and let the NRA decide..... If you are thinking about firearm manufacturers, this will not affect them much either way. The "ban" is meaningless to them, more than simply fine tuning the cosmetics of the line. This is as silly as banning cars with racing stripes to cut down on speeding. ... but democrats are famous for "doing something" even if it is wrong. All this bill is going to do is endanger "blue" seats in congress. Dick Durbin says- "Background checks will stop criminals from buying weapons in the first place." Dick Durbin is an idiot. Is that like allowing illegals to have drivers licenses so they can buy car insurance? |
What guns would be banned:
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com