United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Gun magazine maker who threatened to leave CO over magazine limits, now making smaller magazines
Source:
blogs.militarytimes.com
URL Source: http://blogs.militarytimes.com/gear ... m3-ms4-sling-and-mag-limiters/
Published: Apr 9, 2013
Author: n/a
Post Date: 2013-04-09 15:04:54 by Ferret Mike
Keywords: None
Views: 78604
Comments: 126
Magpul releases 10 round PMAG M3, MS4 sling and mag Limiters The PMAG 10 AR/M4 GEN M3 5.56×45 NATO magazine was designed to be your friend when working in the prone. Its shorter length means you can get lower and work fingertip mag changes instead of having to manhandle a larger mag under the gun. Incorporating new material technology and manufacturing processes for enhanced strength, durability, and reliability, the PMAG 10 provides next-generation performance for those needing lower profile magazines. $13.95 The PMAG Round Limiters install in 10, 20, or 30 round GEN M3 magazines, reducing the magazine capacity by 5 or 10 rounds. Designed for sporting and hunting applications, installation of the Limiter is simple, tool-less, and requires no permanent modification of the magazine body. Minus 5 PMAG Round Limiter and Minus 10 PMAG Round Limiter are both $13.95.
Poster Comment: I support universal background checks, the magasine limitation of ten rounds and strong restrictions on assault rifles. One can both support the second amendment and restrictions that help save the lives of people, especially those of children. There is no conflict in doing that.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
But it defeats the purpose. Which is unlimited firepower.
What is the opposite of panic? Bruce Schneier Schneier on Security A blog covering security and security technology.Schneier on Security A blog covering security and security technology. www.schneier.com/blog/arc.../2013/04/elite_panic.html "Elite Panic" It seems to be generally accepted now that the social progress that occurred in the 100 years or so up to, well, Thatcher, was caused by this fear in the elites of an uprising by the 99%. This fear obviously no longer exists, as demonstrated by the sheer gall of the ongoing program of additional taking successfully proposed by the politicians who work for 1% (e. g., Barry has no fear at all, and not even the slightest embarrassment, with his cat food idea). It has been a sort of social experiment - see what outrages they can get away with before the riots start. Since the riots never really started, the experiment continues, accelerating. 'Progressives' are professional cheerleaders for the experiment.
Of course you do as you hate the constitution. You cannot support both. A right is a right not to be taken away by the whim of the evil government. Mike you are a liar. You are Mike. Since you are on anti depressants you shouldn't have a gun right? Do you deny you take medication for your depression? Why you so depressed Mike?
A right is a right not to be taken away by the whim of the evil government. Madison, Federalist 46, re the Militia by nolu chan - - - - - 10 USC 311 - MILITIA, Composition and Classes by nolu chan - - - - - Militia Act of 8 May 1792, provide for national defence by nolu chan - - - - - FBI — Table 20, Murder, by State, Types of Weapons, 2010 by nolu chan - - - - -
Go beat off somewhere else, dickwad.
. The Constitution gives us free speech, and it works because we are accountable for how we use it. If you threaten certain officials, you can go to prison. If you yell fire in a crowded theater and people get hurt in the stampede to the door, you are also in trouble. There have long been restrictions on fully automatic weapons. And people cannot possess RPG rocket launchers and rounds. With the murder of young children at Sandy Hook and because of the many mass killings people have done using these tools I have changed my mind about, there should be further restrictions as I indicated. The bans are constitutional if passed, and does not damage the Second Amendment. As for the personal questions from info gleaned from Robin's Nest where you are a lurker from a family member's post: You are not my doctor, I don't answer to you about my medical needs or lack of them. You should ask yourself why you have a problem with limits that cause you to wander into tasteless behavior.
Which is unlimited firepower." As I indicated to Stone, we have responsibiltites to use free speech in a way that does not injure, endanger or harm others. The universal background check helps kep criminald and the mentally ill from possessing firearms and is supported by over ninty percent of the general public. The bans against high capacity magasines and further restrictions on assualt weapons makes mass killings much harder to do and make good sense. They are also supported by a vast majority of the general public.
Mike you are on depression medication. So you shouldn't have a gun correct?
Got ya. The TV programmed you. You used to believe in the second amendment (allegedly) but now you "have changed your mind".
I am. I just went to the Nest and reviewed the person's posts this past week and she said noting about me. Next time quote the material, and address the question to the person the post is about. I had a head injury that is well known because it involved an incident that was quite public. Many people have head injuries, and one of the common side affects of them is chronic depression and memory loss. Whether I too have these effects from my 43 foot fall to the pavement putting me in a coma for a time, what of it and why is it a business of yours'?
You show signs of being hyper-vigilant and overly paranoid. I could also contend that you should ask yourself if you are someone who should be handling firearms, not me. You are not a medical practitioner, and neither am I, so it is inappropriate to go to where you have led the discussion. If this is the best you have to offer in debate, I have nothing more to say on this thread.
I think Madison was incorrect here. So are you on Obama's side in this gun control thing they have going on?
You show signs of being a liar. A proven liar.
You are saying you "changed your mind" and no longer support the second amendment. Since you are on anti depressants (and some people on them have been known to wack out and kill people) Do you feel a duty to not have a firearm? Is that what changed your mind? Knowing that you shouldn't have any firearms since you take drugs for your depression.
Also. Since most in congress aren't medical practitioners. Do they have any business voting on this? Except Rand Paul since he has medical experience.
You are paranoid and I have no use for our whacked out, over the top and insulting way you comport yourself. I am very much in support of the Second Amendment, and I have no interest in discussing my medical record just because someone else discusses it in Robin's Nest. The Congress in all likelihood will give in to the political reality that most of the political races sponsored by the NRA the last election failed. They will recognize that over ninety percent of people support comprehensive background checks and will pass them into law. NRA sponsored laws in Louisiana have put convicted felons back on the street who were in possession of firearms. These same laws also passed in several other states are getting a hard look by lawmakers there who do not want felons in possession of firearms, and the NRA can expect the backlash to this recent development to grow. The ground has shifted away from them, and they are no longer just going to get their way in issues involving gun rights. Now, if you want to discuss the issues respectfully, you need to grow up and start doing so. I am a veteran of nine years in the U.S. Military, a gun owner, and I support vigorously the Second Amendment. If you can't accept that and be respectful in your approach to conversation in a thread, there is no foundation in place to talk to you on this issue.
Here is one of your many lies liar. Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 41. #9. To: hondo68 (#0) (Edited) "Author: Ferret Annica (Gay)" Actually, that poster is a woman. As far as i know, she ain't banned. http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=27123&Disp=41&Trace=on
You are a delusional liar Mike. Like I just said. Now go take some more drugs for your depression you addict.
2 posts ago I proved you are a liar. Now you lie again. You said you "changed your mind". You are no supporter of the second amendment. You are a lying satanist witch. Your home is the lake of fire. Well it will be if you keep going this way. I hope it isn't your home Mike. But we both know it will be.
Says the gracious web site owner...
That is where unrepentant liars end up Fred. That is what your church teaches. By the way you left off the part where I said I hope it isn't his home. Have a good day Fred.
Just so you know, I'll be taking a one month sabbatical beginning this weekend. I won't be online and will be on the high seas. I'll follow the news as best I can but getting away from it all will likely be therapeutic for me.
What kind of high seas? What are you going to do?
. Asian Cruise. I won't pay $30 an hour for 'net access.
Have a good trip Fred. Sounds fun.
A European Missionary to Imperial China would have better luck. ;}
Tuesday, April 09, 2013 Ten Years On... April 9, 2013 marks ten years since the fall of Baghdad. Ten years since the invasion. Since the lives of millions of Iraqis changed forever. It’s difficult to believe. It feels like only yesterday I was sharing day to day activities with the world. I feel obliged today to put my thoughts down on the blog once again, probably for the last time. In 2003, we were counting our lives in days and weeks. Would we make it to next month? Would we make it through the summer? Some of us did and many of us didn't. Back in 2003, one year seemed like a lifetime ahead. The idiots said, “Things will improve immediately.” The optimists were giving our occupiers a year, or two… The realists said, “Things won’t improve for at least five years.” And the pessimists? The pessimists said, “It will take ten years. It will take a decade.” Looking back at the last ten years, what have our occupiers and their Iraqi governments given us in ten years? What have our puppets achieved in this last decade? What have we learned? We learned a lot. We learned that while life is not fair, death is even less fair- it takes the good people. Even in death you can be unlucky. Lucky ones die a ‘normal’ death… A familiar death of cancer, or a heart-attack, or stroke. Unlucky ones have to be collected in bits and pieces. Their families trying to bury what can be salvaged and scraped off of streets that have seen so much blood, it is a wonder they are not red. We learned that you can be floating on a sea of oil, but your people can be destitute. Your city can be an open sewer; your women and children can be eating out of trash dumps and begging for money in foreign lands. We learned that justice does not prevail in this day and age. Innocent people are persecuted and executed daily. Some of them in courts, some of them in streets, and some of them in the private torture chambers. We are learning that corruption is the way to go. You want a passport issued? Pay someone. You want a document ratified? Pay someone. You want someone dead? Pay someone. We learned that it’s not that difficult to make billions disappear. We are learning that those amenities we took for granted before 2003, you know- the luxuries – electricity, clean water from faucets, walkable streets, safe schools – those are for deserving populations. Those are for people who don’t allow occupiers into their country. We’re learning that the biggest fans of the occupation (you know who you are, you traitors) eventually leave abroad. And where do they go? The USA, most likely, with the UK a close second. If I were an American, I’d be outraged. After spending so much money and so many lives, I’d expect the minor Chalabis and Malikis and Hashimis of Iraq to, well, stay in Iraq. Invest in their country. I’d stand in passport control and ask them, “Weren’t you happy when we invaded your country? Weren’t you happy we liberated you? Go back. Go back to the country you’re so happy with because now, you’re free!” As A K A and his ZioFundies think Iraq/the Afghans/the War of 9/11 was a Spectacular success, arguing for apologies for WMD will be futile.
Careful there, he might pull a Robin on you.
Careful there, he might pull a Robin on you. And like I said then: I've been kicked out of better bars than this......;}
War Academy in the Arkansas Derby? I'm sticking with Verrazano to win the big Derby...watch out for Normandy Invasion.
With a rude and delusional post like that, all you deserve is to be told to go fuck yourself.
His main problem is he fails to realize that to run a site, one has to let go of a megalomaniacs notion they are inherently always right. he has no respect for anyone but himself and is completely impossible to talk to. Small wonder there is more life on the surface of Mercury then on this ghost town of a forum. He will never learn to do anything other then living the insanity of trying the same thing over and over again in here expecting different results and not getting them.
Mike you are a proven liar. Mike you are against the second amendment. Mike you are an ignorant fool.
I see your baitful sentence, now what is your argument? All you know how to do is lay down a toothless taunt. I feel sorry for you.
Get a room, you two.
. I'll go with the expert....;} I bet the AR Derby Winner in the Triple Crown. IT usually wins at least one leg.....;}
I hope it isn't your home Mike. But we both know it will be. One of the Main reasons I hate your god. Such a Vicious bastard. And humans nothing but yeast. Easy Marks.....I know.... let's tell them they have FREE WILL......we can pop 'em like ants under a magnifying glass......;}
Such a Vicious bastard. That is why God is so great. The evil people get sent to the lake of fire. I think it heats Heaven. You're going to be my log heating my room. If you keep rejecting your creator. Like wise men have said. People choose hell. Don't make a stupid choice clown. Please wake up.
I dedicate this to you.
[Chorus:] Where do bad folks go when they die? They don't go to heaven where the angels fly They go down to the lake of fire and fry Won't see 'em again till the fourth of July I knew a lady who came from Duluth She got bit by a dog with a rabid tooth She went to her grave just a little too soon And she flew away howling on the yellow moon [Chorus] Now the people cry and the people moan And they look for a dry place to call their home And try to find some place to rest their bones While the angels and the devils Fight to claim them for their own
Instead of the religious pontification, how about sticking to the thread topic and give an argument or two? Are you totally incapible of backing up your claim that comprehensive background checks violates the Second Amendment? I am simply not interested in hearing how badly you hate any religion but your own.
Only since 1934,and that was and is un-Constitutional. The US Supreme Court admitted this itself in the Miller case in 1939 when they ruled that the 2nd Amendment only applied to weapons suitable for military use. In truth,they were even wrong about that since not a single one of the elitist leftist bastards had ever served a single day in uniform,and had no freaking idea what kinds of weapons are appropriate for military use and which aren't. The 2nd Amendment is PRIMARILY directed towards military-grade weapons,but as been proven in every conflict between tribes since the dawn of time,people can and will use pretty much anything to kill one another. For example,wine bottles filled with gasoline were pretty damn effective in taking out tanks in WW-2. Does that make you want to ban gasoline and empty wine bottles? And people cannot possess RPG rocket launchers and rounds. Sure they can,and do. Your ability to own them is only limited by your income. Shit,Steven Speilberg has TWO SS-20 Russian ICBM's,complete with the launch trucks. With the murder of young children at Sandy Hook and because of the many mass killings people have done using these tools I have changed my mind about, there should be further restrictions as I indicated. So what? The Bill of Rights aren't based on your emotions. The bans are constitutional if passed, and does not damage the Second Amendment. Yeah,and there really is a rabbit that hides chicken eggs on Easter.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
No,it doesn't. Never has,never will. It just makes it more inconvenient. and is supported by over ninty percent of the general public. Whoopee! 90 percent of the general public supported public hangings right after arrest in some cases,as well as slavery. I guess maybe you are now supporting public hangings and slavery because that's what the majority wanted,and chances are would approve of today if given the option? The bans against high capacity magasines and further restrictions on assualt weapons makes mass killings much harder to do and make good sense. They are also supported by a vast majority of the general public. Ahhhh,yes! Once again you are falling back on the tyranny of the majority and confusing it with reason. You DO understand that democracy is mob rule,right?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
No,you are NOT. What you support is a watered-down PC version of the 2nd Amendment. and I have no interest in discussing my medical record just because someone else discusses it in Robin's Nest. Gee,I wonder if that is because your personal medical record would make YOU one of the persecuted? Not only because of the medicine you are taking,but on top of that you have a record of being prepared to use violence and weapons to harm or kill others. The federal government already has all the evidence they need to justify sending you off to a labor camp in some remote area to protect the public from attack. It would be "for the chil-runs',of course. They have a right to be protected from attack by violent monsters like you. Don't try to deny it,the Department of the Army has the proof. They will recognize that over ninety percent of people support comprehensive background checks and will pass them into law. If 90 percent of the people polled by CNN and the Huffington Post supported making all real property collectively-owned (a real possibility) ,I guess you think that should be passed into law,too? NRA sponsored laws in Louisiana have put convicted felons back on the street who were in possession of firearms. EXCELLENT NEWS! This means the Bill of Rights are still working,and unpopular people as well as popular people still have some protections from a over-reaching and power-mad oppressive government. It was perfectly legal for convicted felons who had served their time to own any weapon or weapons they wanted to own and could afford to have from the day our country was founded until the Gun Control Act of 1968 was signed into "law". For almost 200 years,this wasn't a problem. Suddenly it was,and the government has been illegally putting citizens in prison ever since. The ground has shifted away from them, and they are no longer just going to get their way in issues involving gun rights. Hey,Mike! You love that majority rule stuff so much how about we put it to the vote that minorities not receive ANY special treatment or considerations,and be treated exactly like white citizens both in terms of rights and responsibilities? How about we put it to majority vote that anybody seen crossing the border anywhere but at official crossings can be considered to be a illegal alien invader,and shot on sight? I am a veteran of nine years in the U.S. Military, a gun owner, and I support vigorously the Second Amendment. According to your own writings your door should be kicked in,your gun seized,and you should be imprisoned in a mental institution for having it. After all,isn't that the way a majority of the voting public think someone with such a violent history and record of being prepared to do violence with deadly weapons should be dealt with? And you can't even claim you were just doing your duty,either. You volunteered for the airborne infantry,and you volunteered for Special Forces. Man up and turn yourself in! After all,it's what 90 percent of the people polled by the Huffington Post,The NYT,CNN,and the DNC are demanding. Not to mention the old CPUSA,whatever the Progressive Party are calling themselves today,whatever the Democratic Socialists of America are calling themselves today,etc,etc,etc.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Says the gracious web site owner... LOL! You couldn't cut irony that thick with a chainsaw!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You are going on a 1 week Carnival Cruise? Make sure you take a porta potty. I don't think those big fancy boats like to see people just "hanging it over the side.". Does bad things to the paint.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The one requirement needed to both run a site and act as a poster and moderator there at the same time is a split-personality. No normal person can wear both of those hats at the same time.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Gods have always been vicious bastards. A God that doesn't scare people isn't going to be respected and obeyed.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
One month. Princess. See ya next month petey.
I'll get you a refrigerator magnet souvenir from Vietnam if you want one. I've got a weight limit on baggage and such.
Thanks,but I don't need any more souvenirs from VN. VN is a beautiful place,but I'd still rather vacation in eastern Europe.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Amazon can track your next book purchase and you must show ID to buy some allergy medicine, but James Holmes spent months stockpiling thousands of bullets and head-to-toe ballistic gear without raising any red flags with authorities. This idiot acquired some of the tools of modern warfare as if he was buying a new wardrobe. We're different than other cultures as we do allow Americans to possess the same accoutrements that our military generally uses, but someone like this man should never have been given the access he had to such equipment and materials. But even some involved in the trade are troubled by how easily Holmes stocked up for his alleged rampage even while celebrating this largely unchecked freedom. We need to come up with a better system with our instant background checks so that we have the ability to make sure that people like this guy who have emotional problems or people who have felony records cannot get access to these kinds of weapons and equipment. And if this inconveniences the legitimate customers of this equipment to a certain degree, the saving in lives and increase in public safety is worth the extra hassle. I don't see such measures as affecting police officers looking to add to and upgrade their equipment, members of the military who don't want to wait on permission from the bureaucracy for new combat gear, and hobbyists like survivalists and paint ballers. Once vetted and checked, these folks should have just the same access to much if the same equipment they have always gotten. I do not see anything wrong with limiting the sales to some folks of some things with purely a military use. And checking more thoroughly just exactly who is buying what to put an end to this epidemic of mass shootings. The First Amendment as I mentioned restricts free speech when harm is done, and works because it makes people responsible for their speech. Making sure people are responsible with what munitions and war equipment they buy by restricting some from this trade who are too shaky and have no real legitimate use is just mandating the same sort of responsibility for people enjoying Second Amendment freedoms as exists for speech. And I see not a thing wrong with this.
Stone thinks I am another poster on another site where I am a member in good standing but have not posted on in a good long while. So he was playing Detective Columbo and trying to flush me out from a place I am not at. None of any medication I am taking currently would keep me from owning the guns and ammunition I now currently own.
Mike you have emotional problems. You take drugs to treat it. Would you agree that you have no business being anywhere near a gun? I mean you take drugs for depression.
Mike you are a liar. Lets give you a chance to tell the truth for once. How old are you? You already said before so this isn't information you haven't already posted here. Lets see if you can keep your story straight.
Your post is off topic.
Do you even know what this means? Probably not. 1.) You go to a gun store and buy a gun. You get background checked (current law). You give the gun to your son for his 13th birthday. Should you have to somehow figure out how to background check him??? 2.) I got a gun when I was 13. I traded it to a friend for a set of speakers when I was 15. Should I have gone to jail? These are the kind of questions that need to be answered. Just stating that you believe in "universal" background checks doesn't mean shit. It's just another in a long-line of meaningless, feel good phrases foisted on us by the unthinking, emotional left.
I checked and my Ferret Mike account is still in good standing at Robin's place. Robin does not give out two accounts to people so go ahead and notify her you think 'annica' and my new posts at her place are the same person. I have no problems with you embarrassing yourself this way. By the way, I was born in 1954.
The proposed law does not regulate private firearm exchanges. If it passes, what you give your thirteen year old will not be affected. As a parent, you are still responsible for your child's behavior. So what a kid does to learn how to use say a 22 cal rifle is your rresponsibility.
I also have mentioned Reagan was shot on my birthday. Now you know the day too. That plain enough for ya? Fucking idiot that you are.
WTF are you talking about?
Attacking my response to your personal attack? How disingenuous of you. Read the header of the thread, that's the topic. Not whether someone in another forum is talking about depression medications as you are obsessed with.
The discussion is guns. You want to ban them. You want to own them for yourself though. But you are hooked on prescription drugs. I'm not talking about someone on another forum. I don't know why you bring that up. Since you are hooked on prescription drugs you shouldn't own a gun correct? Or are you a hypocrite like ALL liberal dumbasses!
I definately do not want to ban them. I don't even want the assault rifles banned. I prefer to see the same kind of controls on them that fully automatic weapons have currently. I don't want the Second Amendment gutted. I just want to see reasonable measures taken that make it much harder to add to the too killing of so many people that has become an epidemic in this country.
Since you are hooked on prescription drugs you shouldn't own a gun correct?" And who says what prescriptions I have in my medicine cabinet? You seem to think you are a psychic.
Good luck with that one, that's a can of worm that does not need to be opened... Because if they pass that then "who" is going to make the determination as to what is or isn't a mental problem??? (They can't seem to figure out what to make of gays and pedophiles other than they're votes for their side)... You currently have people out running the streets that shouldn't be because of the "privacy" legislation that was passed years ago... It basically makes it impossible for some people to get the help they need, and doesn't stop them from being like Adam Lanza... And $5 says guys like him still won't get the help they need because the powers that be (the real loony toons) will zero in on political beliefs/affiliation to make their determinations as to who has "mental problems"... Hello Nazi Germany, USSR, etc...etc... goodbye USA....
"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."
Good! Why should the Office of Reich Security and it's various relatives be the only ones able to protect themselves? We're different than other cultures as we do allow Americans to possess the same accoutrements that our military generally uses,... ALLOW? HAVE YOU LOST YOUR FREAKING MIND,COMRADE? THIS is what is wrong with the leftist mindset. The PEOPLE in America ALLOW the GOVERNMENT to buy and equip their employees/minions with this gear using OUR money. You and your fellow leftists have it backwards,and even the proof of over 40 million serfs in various leftist countries being murdered BY their governments in the 20th Century can't open your eyes to how dangerous your political opinions are. but someone like this man should never have been given the access he had to such equipment and materials. How is anyone supposed to know this in advance? OOOPS! That's right,in the COLLECTIVE EVERYBODY is punished for what SOME people MIGHT do. Providing none of those people wear government uniforms,that is. But even some involved in the trade are troubled by how easily Holmes stocked up for his alleged rampage even while celebrating this largely unchecked freedom. Yup,deys jist too much ob dat "freedom stuff" going around,ain't it? We MUST stomp it out! Then again,anybody that places safety over freedom doesn't have a reason to bitch when somebody in the government wants to put a bullet in the back of their necks because the Security of the State will always trump the security of the individual in all cases,right,comrade? And if this inconveniences the legitimate customers of this equipment to a certain degree, the saving in lives and increase in public safety is worth the extra hassle. There ya go! What software program are you using to convert the bleeping of sheep into English? I don't see such measures as affecting police officers looking to add to and upgrade their equipment, members of the military who don't want to wait on permission from the bureaucracy for new combat gear, and hobbyists like survivalists and paint ballers. Oh,it won't inhibit agents of the state from getting what they need to keep the serfs in line. Don't worry about that one. As for the others,you clearly don't think they have any rights other than the right to obey their masters,so don't pretend to be concerned about them. Once vetted and checked, these folks should have just the same access to much if the same equipment they have always gotten. Yup. In Big Rock Candy Mountain Land .... ...in the REAL world where the authorities have to grant PERMISSIONS,that doesn't happen,though. The First Amendment as I mentioned restricts free speech when harm is done, and works because it makes people responsible for their speech. People who misuse their firearms aren't held responsible for their actions? Since when?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Makes no difference. As a former soldier in the 82nd ABN Division and in Special Forces,you have exhibited a willingness to voluntarily kill others.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Get off your High Horse,stone. EVERYBODY but sociopaths have emotional problems. It's part of being human.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Which means you want them restricted to only the middle-class and wealthy being ALLOWED to own them after paying the proper fees. How does such a class system that ignores the FACT that the poor are more at risk of attack than the wealthy square with your leftist belief system? I don't want the Second Amendment gutted. I just want to see reasonable measures taken that make it much harder to add to the too killing of so many people that has become an epidemic in this country. EPIDEMIC? How do you define that word in a country with over 350 million people and fewer than 100 a year die because of your allegations?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The Toomey / Manchin law doesn't require this, but other proposals did.
And if I ever wake up in the middle of the night I find strange people have broken in, I'll use a firearm to change their world. I don't see that as something they would try to grab my guns over. What makes you think they think I bought what I own to use to decorate a rock garden with?
The Toomey/Manchin law is reasonable, proposals that go that far to ban gift giving and exchanges between family and friends are not. Nobody would give a gift of a gun to the whackos who have done mass shootings, and that is my focus only; to see an end to this cycle of violent mass killings.
I don't see these as 'trap' laws that are designed to do this. The fees I have seen are more then reasonable for most people to buy what they need for personal and family defense; or hunting and target shooting. In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. Murders involving the use of handguns in the US that same year totaled 6,009, with another 1,939 murders with the firearm type unreported.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States You are greatly understating this Pete, and I feel the mass murders are an epidemic that precipitate the idea for others to do the same thing. We need this cycle of violence to be broken, and I feel restrictions on assault rifles, magazine size restrictions and a tighter background check are reasonable measures, and would not hurt our Second Amendment rights in any appreciable way.
Me either,but what do the people who keep pushing gun control think about this issue? Don't forget,THEY are the ones getting these laws passed,not you or I. What THEY think is nobody but the police should be ALLOWED to own guns. Period.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
We grant them prerogatives when they hold office to enforce rules for the greater good. And if we decide they overstep those boundaries we can remove them from office or vote to chang ethe rules they are operating under. You vastly overstate their powers and underestimate our powers as the people to fire those in power or work to chang ethe system for the better. The U.S. Constitution works because we are still responsible to use rights given us in it such as the Second Amendment in an accountable manner. And when people don't do this, it is incumbent on us to restrict unaccountable behavior; such as people using assault rifles and large magazines to lay down heavy fire with the intention of killing as many people in as fast a manner as possible in a way that is hard to interrupt. If the idiot who did Sandy Hook had had to change his magazines more frequently, more kids could of escaped then the five who did during a magazine change did. The man who shot Gabby Gifford and many others was stopped during a magazine change. I see these restrictions as having no real effect on most of the activities people use guns for. And I see them as being deterrents to the continuation of the cycle of mass killings we now see in this country. A cycle that must be broken.
Really? The fee is $300 per weapon,and that doesn't include the weapon or any mental health certificate required by state or local authorities. How many poor people living in cities,the very people who need them the most,can afford to pay 300 bucks just to exercise one of their RIGHTS as an American citizen? AND...,don't overlook how expensive Class 3 weapons are now,which is the class semi-auto weapons would be put into if your wishes came true. While we are at it,lets not overlook the FACT that no new weapons are even ALLOWED to be put on the Class 3 list since that bastard Poppy Bush closed the Class 3 register. Last time I checked,a simple M3 greasegun that cost $3 to manufacture during WW-2 went from 500 dollars to over 6000 dollars thanks to the list being closed. Poppy even banned the import to the US of foreign military weapons INCLUDING US military arm given to foreign nations,and ordered the current US inventory of these weapons in reserve be destroyed. No problem for wealthy people that want to collect and shoot them,but impossible for working class people. And you see these as "reasonable expenses"? "EPIDEMIC? How do you define that word in a country with over 350 million people and fewer than 100 a year die because of your allegations?" In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. Murders involving the use of handguns in the US that same year totaled 6,009, with another 1,939 murders with the firearm type unreported.[4] The current law is about banning so-called "Assault Rifles",not generic rifles,and there is no mention SO FAR of banning handguns. Of course,we all know the whole assault rifle thing is just the camels nose under the tent,and other rifles and handguns will be added later. You are greatly understating this Pete, and I feel the mass murders are an epidemic that precipitate the idea for others to do the same thing. What you or anyone else "Feels" is not a basis to pass a law contrary to the Bill of Rights,and the percentage of mass murders is negligible when you compare the numbers against the population numbers.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Last time I checked,it was already illegal to murder people,regardless of the tools used. Banning tools isn't going to stop murders.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The process of passing these laws is a give and take one that keeps the worst in off the wall gun grabbers from ever getting their way. Remember, there are people too who would love to see murder legalized, and they will never get their way. I see the legislative process and it's checks and balances as one that will keep the measures passed as reasonable and moderate enough to not hurt Second Amendment prerogatives to own and use firearms. What THEY think is nobody but the police should be ALLOWED to own guns. Period." Such laws were they passed in the worst case scenario would be invalidated by the SCOTUS as being unconstitutional The only way they could do something like this is if the Constitution was changed or suspended.
Last time I checked, the worst of the gun grabbers wanting all firearms seized were few in number and the people willing to vigorously stand and oppose them were quite large in number and not in any mood to put up with such nonsense. I sure don't want my firearms taken away and cops to be the only one with guns. And most people supporting the moderate measures proposed in the wake of Sandy Hook feel much the same way. And it was Sandy Hook that change my mind on this issue in a big way. I don't want this slaughter of innocent children to ever pe repeated in this country.
Everyone doesn't have emotional problems that lead them to take prescription drugs to deal with it. Mike what drugs do you take. Are they the ones that Holmes took?
You just want to disarm the blacks. You're racist.
Really? Who? I see the legislative process and it's checks and balances as one that will keep the measures passed as reasonable and moderate enough to not hurt Second Amendment prerogatives to own and use firearms. That's because you are a leftist,and we are now a One Party leftist nation. There are just two branches of the ruling party. The left and the hard left. Such laws were they passed in the worst case scenario would be invalidated by the SCOTUS as being unconstitutional HorseHillary! If that were true,the whole Civil Wrongs Act of 1964 would have never been signed into law/
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Really? Who? Ferret Mike would be one example that is on the record for legalized murder.
Wrong.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Wrong. Those who have an opinion of right or wrong prior to hearing the argument are crazy. Or willingly ignorant. Mike says abortion is murder. That is his claimed belief. He says there should be exceptions for rape and incest. So Mike is for legalizing murder in certain instances. Fact.
Kiss my ass.
You act like someone with severe emotional problems. You are trying to browbeat in a very irrational way. I am quite in the pink; no need for alcohol, drugs or thugs. You do the drug of alcohol, why do you need that? Why do you need to be a thug? You try to dish it out, but you can't take it yourself. I don't need to tell you whether I take prescriptions or not. You are not my Mama, homey. Get a clue and grow some respect.
Pete, there is no discussing this issue in here with the child called Stone ignoring the dialog on the issue and trying the baiting game. Thanks for sharing your views and hopefully we will someday be in a forum together run by an adult. Cheers.
You celebrate violence against women. Fact.
Kiss my ass. I'd be ashamed to admit it too. You need to surrender your firearms. You have a head problem. You need to be evaluated. But instead you tell me to kiss your ass. That makes you a hypocrite as you subscribe the idea that brain dead people subscribe to. Background checks.
You already admitted you take medication for depression. You are a depressed individual. You have no true joy.
Translation. I'm making Mike really depressed. He is going to deal with it by going and taking one of his prescription pills. You know the ones he says should lead to others having their guns taken away. But no not this hypocrite.
Bullshit.
I figured it was only a matter of time before some retard brought abortion to the gun argument. It's sad that it would be a site owner.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Ferret Mike brought it up. You quoted him on it. I put it together for you's.
And THAT is EXACTLY why we're living on....Wait For it..... The Planet of the Demons from Dumbass. Only here would your bullsshit about gods fly.
And I got got your dedication hangin', Dude.....;} Had a good time Smokin, Drinkin, and Cussin' last night. ;}
And so we're yeast/virus.....as a result. Your God takes time out from her blissful existence to create the virus/yeast, give it free will, watch it fuck up, and then Sentence the yeast/virus to eternal lack of flour/water/host...... THE END Some god. Wait til she meets someone her own size.....;}
Why are you so offended? I didn't even mention your God Stalin by name.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Then like a little boy denying to Mom he was in the cookie jar despite the crumbs on hs face he looks silly and protests his innocence, congratulating himself on his straight face as he does so he tries to blame someone else for his behavior. He's never as smart as he would like to imagine he is. In any event, he is happy the topic has turned to issues about him, and how he demonstrates self loathing by attacking others. In that abortion of a rapist's obscene defilement of a woman's body example he tries to ejaculate the fruit of shock value into my face. I can well imagine him to be at a crime in progress with a gun prompting a rapist to hurry up and spluge into his wife or daughter to get the impregnation out of the way so he can protect the unborn baby with his very life. He doesn't care about the feelings of the woman and doesn't see rape as an act of violence, and he expresses this by giving shit to anyone else who knows it is, and cares that a woman has a right not to be defiled this way.
You don't try to show me proof I said I was on anti-depressants because there is no proof of this. Where it it Stone? You claim it exists, so where is it?
You went on the internet and said you were on anti depressants. Do you deny that?
Mike you are fucked in the head. Mike what I don't care about is you. I don't care about or respect your ideas. You are trash Mike.
Why do you want me to repeat myself?
Then show me your alleged mental horsepower and refute them. You can't, can you?
And all we hear are.... Crickets, as Stone tucks tail and scampers off.
You've been proven a foe of the second amendment. Here is more proof. Did Zimmerman have a right to defend himself with a firearm?
I am of the mind to let the court decide that one. I am more interested in seeing your arguments regarding things brought up as issues in this thread before getting sidetracked about things like that particular case.
Explain how this is so and why you believe this please.
Because you don't support the second amendment. You want restrictions on it. Restrictions that will grow and grow. You are turning a right into a privilege. You are also a liar.
That is lawyer speak. Notice no denial.
There are restrictions on many things, take the First Amendment for example; you can be sued for libel if you slander someone causing them harm. This restricts free speech. If you cause a stampede in a large crowd that can injure or kill people, you will be prosecuted for doing this; that is a restriction on free speech. Free speech works because one is responsible for what they say and how they use it. In recent years we have witnessed a great many mass killings which were aided by high capacity magazines and particular types of firearms. To reduce the risk, laws restricting the size and type of weapons with the thought of reducing the risk of these mass killings have been proposed and would be constitutional for the same reasons restrictions on free speech are. High capacity magazines and rapid fire weapons that use them don't have applications other then war making or to use to kill many civilians in a way one cannot easily be interrupted. Restrictions like these do not interfere with people's rights to own and use firearms to hunt, target shoot or many other applications that are law biding. I don't see there being any risk of these minor measures or comprehensive background checks that are supported by over ninety percent of the public of creating the sort of slippery slope to more restrictions. I feel there has been enough problems in recent years, we are well advised to take these measures and to then weigh how well they have worked to prevent further mass killings. Then and only then should further measures be studied if the killings continue. Such a measured approach does not endanger Second Amendment rights.
So what? What medications I take are my business, not yours'. Nosy.
If you cause a stampede in a large crowd that can injure or kill people, you will be prosecuted for doing this; that is a restriction on free speech. Free speech works because one is responsible for what they say and how they use it. In recent years we have witnessed a great many mass killings which were aided by high capacity magazines and particular types of firearms. To reduce the risk, laws restricting the size and type of weapons with the thought of reducing the risk of these mass killings have been proposed and would be constitutional for the same reasons restrictions on free speech are. High capacity magazines and rapid fire weapons that use them don't have applications other then war making or to use to kill many civilians in a way one cannot easily be interrupted. Restrictions like these do not interfere with people's rights to own and use firearms to hunt, target shoot or many other applications that are law biding. I don't see there being any risk of these minor measures or comprehensive background checks that are supported by over ninety percent of the public of creating the sort of slippery slope to more restrictions. I feel there has been enough problems in recent years, we are well advised to take these measures and to then weigh how well they have worked to prevent further mass killings. Then and only then should further measures be studied if the killings continue. Such a measured approach does not endanger Second Amendment rights. Take your shallow words and stick them up your ass. You are a liar who is hooked on prescription medication. You should have no right to have a gun per your own words. You are a supporter of pre crime just like in minority report. You don't believe in innocent until proven guilty. You are a scrawny little hypocrite. Go take a bath you stink.
Naturally I not only do not support this petition, I know this is just to generate outrage and will never get any momentum behind it to become a real proposal with a chance of passing. Besides, banning a political class of people from owning guns because of their beliefs is highly unconstitutional. It would be too discriminatory to become law.
I'll let the fact I argued in good faith and you sound like a throwback to how middle schoolers argue speak for itself. You make yourself look badly here. That is something that hardly bothers me in the least.
So you don't support freedom of or from religion. What else is new?
To be fair,none of us are if were were to be forced to tell the truth. I try to steer clear of the abortion argument as much as possible because everybody is right,and everybody is wrong. There will never been a consensus on that issue,so arguing about it is a waste of time. State your position and move on.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
There are restrictions on many things, take the First Amendment for example; you can be sued for libel if you slander someone causing them harm. This restricts free speech. Ok,you just proved you are opposed to the 2nd amendment right there when you started making excuses for violating it. I didn't even bother to read the rest because I know it is nothing but justification for your emotional decisions.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Only here would your bullsshit about gods fly. No Offense taken.....8D A FEISTY raccoon has bitten off a pervert’s PENIS as he was trying to rape the animal. Alexander Kirilov, 44, was on a drunken weekend with pals when he leapt on the terrified – but toothy – fur ball. “When I saw the raccoon I thought I’d have some fun,” he told stunned casualty surgeons in Moscow. Now Russian plastic surgeons are trying to restore his mangled manhood. “He’s been told they can get things working again but they can’t sew back on what the raccoon bit off," said a pal. “That’s gone forever so there isn’t going to be much for them to work with." Read more: www.thesun.co.uk/sol/home...-penis.html#ixzz2QXEegzqB
DAYUM! How freaking drunk AND stupid do you have to be to even grab a racdoon,never mind try to hump one? A 20 lb raccoon can have a 100 lb dog screaming for mercy. There is nowhere you can grab him that he can't bite and/or claw you. Grab him from behind,and he can turn in his skin and flat eat you alive. Then again, if this guys equipment was small enough to rape a raccoon,he didn't have much to lose.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#2. To: All (#1)
(Edited)
#3. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
One can both support the second amendment and restrictions
#4. To: A K A Stone, Ferret Mike (#3)
You cannot support both.
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
10 USC 311 - § 311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States wo are members of the National Guard.
Militia Act of 8 May 1792. ...each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia....
#5. To: nolu chan (#4)
Say hi to your mom for me.
#6. To: A K A Stone (#3)
(Edited)
#7. To: mcgowanjm (#1)
"But it defeats the purpose.
#8. To: Ferret Mike (#6)
#9. To: Ferret Mike (#6)
I have changed my mind about,
#10. To: A K A Stone (#3)
(Edited)
"You are Mike."
#11. To: A K A Stone (#9)
(Edited)
"(allegedly)"
#12. To: nolu chan (#4)
Let a regular army, fully equal to theresources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at thedevotion of the federal government; still it would not be going toofar to say, that the State governments, with the people on theirside, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number towhich, according to the best computation, a standing army can becarried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of thewhole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the numberable to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the UnitedStates, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half amillion of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by menchosen from among themselves, fighting for their commonliberties, and united and conducted by governments possessingtheir affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether amilitia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such aproportion of regular troops.
#13. To: Ferret Mike (#11)
You show signs of being hyper-vigilant and overly paranoid.
#14. To: Ferret Mike (#11)
You are not a medical practitioner, and neither am I, so it is inappropriate to go to where you have led the discussion.
#15. To: Ferret Mike (#11)
You are not a medical practitioner, and neither am I, so it is inappropriate to go to where you have led the discussion.
#16. To: A K A Stone (#13)
"You show signs of being a liar. A proven liar."
#17. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
#18. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
You are paranoid and I have no use for our whacked out, over the top and insulting way you comport yourself.
#19. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
I am very much in support of the Second Amendment,
#20. To: A K A Stone (#19)
You are a lying satanist witch. Your home is the lake of fire.
#21. To: Fred Mertz (#20)
#22. To: A K A Stone (#21)
#23. To: Fred Mertz (#22)
Say hi to your mom for me.
#24. To: Biff Tannen (#23)
#25. To: Fred Mertz (#22)
#26. To: Ferret Mike (#7)
#27. To: Ferret Mike (#11)
#28. To: mcgowanjm (#27)
As A K A and his ZioFundies think Iraq/the Afghans/the War of 9/11 was a Spectacular success...
#29. To: Fred Mertz (#28)
As A K A and his ZioFundies think Iraq/the Afghans/the War of 9/11 was a Spectacular success...
#30. To: mcgowanjm, war (#29)
#31. To: A K A Stone (#19)
#32. To: Fred Mertz (#20)
"Says the gracious web site owner..."
#33. To: Ferret Mike (#32)
#34. To: Ferret Mike (#31)
With a rude and delusional post like that, all you deserve is to be told to go fuck yourself.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#34)
"Mike you are against the second amendment."
#36. To: Ferret Mike, A K A Stone (#35)
Say hi to your mom for me.
#37. To: Fred Mertz (#30)
#38. To: A K A Stone, Freet Mike, All (#19)
You are a lying satanist witch. Your home is the lake of fire. Well it will be if you keep going this way.
#39. To: mcgowanjm (#38)
One of the Main reasons I hate your god.
#40. To: mcgowanjm, Ferret Mike (#38)
#41. To: sneakypete, mcgowinjm, ferret mike, Jethro Tull (#40)
#42. To: Ferret Mike (#35)
#43. To: A K A Stone (#41)
#44. To: Ferret Mike (#6)
There have long been restrictions on fully automatic weapons. And people cannot possess RPG rocket launchers and rounds.
#45. To: Ferret Mike (#7)
The universal background check helps kep criminald and the mentally ill from possessing firearms
#46. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
(Edited)
I am very much in support of the Second Amendment,
#47. To: Fred Mertz, A K A Stone (#20)
You are a lying satanist witch. Your home is the lake of fire.
#48. To: Fred Mertz (#22)
I'll be taking a one month sabbatical beginning this weekend. I won't be online and will be on the high seas.
#49. To: Ferret Mike (#32)
His main problem is he fails to realize that to run a site, one has to let go of a megalomaniacs notion they are inherently always right.
#50. To: mcgowanjm (#38)
Such a Vicious bastard.
#51. To: sneakypete (#48)
You are going on a 1 week Carnival Cruise?
#52. To: sneakypete (#48)
#53. To: Fred Mertz (#52)
I'll get you a refrigerator magnet souvenir from Vietnam if you want one.
#54. To: sneakypete (#44)
#55. To: sneakypete (#46)
"Gee,I wonder if that is because your personal medical record would make YOU one of the persecuted? Not only because of the medicine you are taking,but on top of that you have a record of being prepared to use violence and weapons to harm or kill others."
#56. To: Ferret Mike (#54)
who have emotional problems or
#57. To: Ferret Mike (#55)
#58. To: A K A Stone (#57)
#59. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
I support universal background checks
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom
#60. To: A K A Stone (#57)
#61. To: jwpegler (#59)
"You go to a gun store and buy a gun. You get background checked (current law). You give the gun to your son for his 13th birthday. Should you have to somehow figure out how to background check him???"
#62. To: A K A Stone (#57)
#63. To: Ferret Mike (#60)
I checked and my Ferret Mike account is still in good standing at Robin's place. Robin does not give out two accounts to people so go ahead and notify her you think 'annica' and my new posts at her place are the same person.
#64. To: A K A Stone (#63)
#65. To: Ferret Mike (#64)
Read the header of the thread, that's the topic
#66. To: A K A Stone (#65)
#67. To: A K A Stone (#65)
"I'm not talking about someone on another forum. I don't know why you bring that up.
#68. To: Ferret Mike, AKA Stone, jwpegler, sneakypete (#54)
We need to come up with a better system with our instant background checks so that we have the ability to make sure that people like this guy who have emotional problems or people who have felony records cannot get access to these kinds of weapons and equipment.
#69. To: Ferret Mike (#54)
James Holmes spent months stockpiling thousands of bullets and head-to-toe ballistic gear without raising any red flags with authorities.
#70. To: Ferret Mike (#55)
None of any medication I am taking currently would keep me from owning the guns and ammunition I now currently own.
#71. To: A K A Stone (#56)
Mike you have emotional problems.
#72. To: Ferret Mike (#66)
I definately do not want to ban them. I don't even want the assault rifles banned. I prefer to see the same kind of controls on them that fully automatic weapons have currently.
#73. To: Ferret Mike (#61)
The proposed law does not regulate private firearm exchanges. If it passes, what you give your thirteen year old will not be affected.
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom
#74. To: sneakypete (#70)
"Makes no difference. As a former soldier in the 82nd ABN Division and in Special Forces,you have exhibited a willingness to voluntarily kill others."
#75. To: jwpegler (#73)
"The Toomey / Manchin law doesn't require this, but other proposals did."
#76. To: sneakypete (#72)
"Which means you want them restricted to only the middle-class and wealthy being ALLOWED to own them after paying the proper fees."
"EPIDEMIC? How do you define that word in a country with over 350 million people and fewer than 100 a year die because of your allegations?"
#77. To: Ferret Mike (#74)
I don't see that as something they would try to grab my guns over.
#78. To: sneakypete (#69)
"THIS is what is wrong with the leftist mindset. The PEOPLE in America ALLOW the GOVERNMENT to buy and equip their employees/minions with this gear using OUR money. You and your fellow leftists have it backwards,and even the proof of over 40 million serfs in various leftist countries being murdered BY their governments in the 20th Century can't open your eyes to how dangerous your political opinions are."
"Yup,deys jist too much ob dat "freedom stuff" going around,ain't it? We MUST stomp it out!
#79. To: Ferret Mike (#76)
The fees I have seen are more then reasonable for most people to buy what they need for personal and family defense; or hunting and target shooting.
#80. To: Ferret Mike (#78)
The U.S. Constitution works because we are still responsible to use rights given us in it such as the Second Amendment in an accountable manner. And when people don't do this, it is incumbent on us to restrict unaccountable behavior; such as people using assault rifles and large magazines to lay down heavy fire with the intention of killing as many people in as fast a manner as possible in a way that is hard to interrupt.
#81. To: sneakypete (#77)
"Me either,but what do the people who keep pushing gun control think about this issue? Don't forget,THEY are the ones getting these laws passed,not you or I."
" Me either,but what do the people who keep pushing gun control think about this issue? Don't forget,THEY are the ones getting these laws passed,not you or I.
#82. To: sneakypete (#80)
"Last time I checked,it was already illegal to murder people,regardless of the tools used. Banning tools isn't going to stop murders."
#83. To: sneakypete, ferret mike (#71)
Get off your High Horse,stone. EVERYBODY but sociopaths have emotional problems. It's part of being human.
#84. To: Ferret Mike (#82)
#85. To: Ferret Mike (#81)
Remember, there are people too who would love to see murder legalized, and they will never get their way.
#86. To: sneakypete (#85)
Remember, there are people too who would love to see murder legalized, and they will never get their way.
#87. To: A K A Stone (#86)
Ferret Mike would be one example that is on the record for legalized murder.
#88. To: sneakypete (#87)
Ferret Mike would be one example that is on the record for legalized murder.
#89. To: A K A Stone (#83)
"what drugs do you take."
#90. To: A K A Stone (#83)
"Everyone doesn't have emotional problems that lead them to take prescription drugs to deal with it."
#91. To: sneakypete (#85)
#92. To: A K A Stone (#88)
"So Mike is for legalizing murder in certain instances. Fact."
#93. To: Ferret Mike (#89)
"what drugs do you take."
#94. To: Ferret Mike (#90)
I don't need to tell you whether I take prescriptions or not
#95. To: Ferret Mike (#91)
Pete, there is no discussing this issue in here with the child called Stone ignoring the dialog on the issue and trying the baiting game.
#96. To: A K A Stone (#94)
"You already admitted you take medication for depression."
#97. To: A K A Stone (#88)
Ferret Mike would be one example that is on the record for legalized murder.
#98. To: sneakypete (#97)
#99. To: sneakypete (#50)
Gods have always been vicious bastards. A God that doesn't scare people isn't going to be respected and obeyed.
#100. To: A K A Stone (#40)
#101. To: A K A Stone (#39)
That is why God is so great.
#102. To: mcgowanjm (#99)
Only here would your bullsshit about gods fly.
#103. To: sneakypete, A K A Stone (#97)
(Edited)
"I figured it was only a matter of time before some retard brought abortion to the gun argument."
#104. To: A K A Stone (#98)
"Ferret Mike brought it up. You quoted him on it. I put it together for you's."
#105. To: Ferret Mike (#104)
#106. To: Ferret Mike (#103)
He doesn't care about the feelings of the woman and doesn't see rape as an act of violence, and he expresses this by giving shit to anyone else who knows it is, and cares that a woman has a right not to be defiled this way.
#107. To: A K A Stone (#105)
"You went on the internet and said you were on anti depressants. Do you deny that?"
#108. To: A K A Stone (#106)
(Edited)
"I don't care about or respect your ideas."
#109. To: A K A Stone (#106)
#110. To: Ferret Mike (#109)
#111. To: A K A Stone (#110)
#112. To: A K A Stone (#110)
"You've been proven a foe of the second amendment."
#113. To: Ferret Mike (#112)
Explain how this is so and why you believe this please.
#114. To: Ferret Mike (#104)
You don't try to show me proof I said I was on anti-depressants because there is no proof of this.
#115. To: A K A Stone (#113)
"You want restrictions on it. Restrictions that will grow and grow."
#116. To: A K A Stone (#114)
(Edited)
"That is lawyer speak. Notice no denial."
#117. To: Ferret Mike (#116)
#118. To: Ferret Mike (#115)
(Edited)
There are restrictions on many things, take the First Amendment for example; you can be sued for libel if you slander someone causing them harm. This restricts free speech.
#119. To: A K A Stone (#117)
#120. To: A K A Stone (#118)
"Go take a bath you stink."
#121. To: Ferret Mike (#120)
#122. To: A K A Stone (#121)
(Edited)
#123. To: Ferret Mike (#103)
He's never as smart as he would like to imagine he is.
#124. To: Ferret Mike (#115)
You want restrictions on it. Restrictions that will grow and grow."
#125. To: sneakypete (#102)
Why are you so offended? I didn't even mention your God Stalin by name.
_2.jpg/220px-Raccoon_(Procyon_lotor)_2.jpg)
#126. To: mcgowanjm (#125)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]