States With Most Gun Laws Have Fewest Gun Deaths [Archive]

boutons_deux

03-08-2013, 08:35 AM

States With Most Gun Laws Have Fewest Gun Deaths, Study Finds

According to NBC News:

“It seems pretty clear: If you want to know which of the states have the lowest gun-mortality rates just look for those with the greatest number of gun laws,” said Dr. Eric W. Fleegler of Boston Children’s Hospital who, with colleagues, analyzed firearm-related deaths reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 2007 through 2010.

By scoring individual states simply by the sheer volume of gun laws they have on the books, the researchers noted that in states with the highest number of firearms measures, their rate of gun deaths is collectively 42 percent lower when compared to states that have passed the fewest number of gun rules. [...]

As proof, Fleegler pointed to the firearm-fatality rates in law-laden states such as Massachusetts (where there were 3.4 gun deaths per 100,000 individuals), New Jersey (4.9 per 100,000) and Connecticut (5.1 per 100,000). In states with sparser firearms laws, researchers reported that gun-mortality rates were higher: Louisiana (18.0 per 100,000), Alaska (17.5 per 100,000) and Arizona (13.6 per 100,000).

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/07/1686081/study-states-with-most-gun-laws-have-fewest-gun-deaths/ (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/07/1686081/study-states-with-most-gun-laws-have-fewest-gun-deaths/)

more guns = more gun violence and gun deaths, an irrefutable FACT.

Imagine how many 10Ks of gun injuries and deaths, which far outnumber "terrorist" attacks on USA, if there were highly restrictive FEDERAL guns laws.

Oops, you gun fellators don't have enough brain cells to activate imagination.

BobaFett1

03-08-2013, 10:01 AM

Chicago has high rate of murders with guns and strict gun laws. You fail/

BobaFett1

03-08-2013, 10:03 AM

BobaFett1

03-08-2013, 10:04 AM

"Fleegler said he hoped the findings would influence debate on gun-control laws." The researcher just admitted going in with a bias. A real scientist does his research for its own sake, not to suck up to government.

BobaFett1

03-08-2013, 10:05 AM

Too bad this study doesn't use REAL statistics... like... say... from the F.B.I... that shows in states where people are allowed to exercise their 2nd Amendment RIGHT, crime is... wait for it... LOWER...

But hey, let's not use facts... Nice to see Gun (People) Control infested Chicago has such a low firearm crime rate... But hey... It's the media. I expect the Leftwing bias now... Even from this rag, the Trib...

BobaFett1

03-08-2013, 10:08 AM

Utter nonsense. Gun deaths in the United States are predominately associated with street gangs and the sale of narcotics. Chicago is the best example. Toughest firearms regulations possible in the city. Yet hundreds of young men are shot every year. Handguns used in 70% of the shootings (possibly more but ballistic evidence can be lacking). Majority of firearms recovered by police were not registered and were obtained outside the city or the state and were purchased by someone other than the shooter. Gun laws do not bother street gang members. This article is trash.

FuzzyLumpkins

03-08-2013, 10:18 AM

And those Chicago thugs can leave Cook county and get all the guns they would like. Or better yet they can go to IN and get even more. And the study is from the CDC, where in the fuck do you think they get the stats from?

BobaFett1

03-08-2013, 10:26 AM

BobaFett1

03-08-2013, 10:27 AM

FuzzyLumpkins

03-08-2013, 11:14 AM

TSA

03-08-2013, 11:46 AM

If you are going to change usernames you should get a new schtick. When you start the 'this is my thread' and 'America: love it or leave it' schtick it's pretty obvious.

I will say that you googling me and making beach fantasies is disturbing.

The article was referring to the CDC study. That biased too?
Your trolldar is as bad as your gaydar. Not me you fucking idiot.

"In conclusion, the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes."-CDC

FuzzyLumpkins

03-08-2013, 12:10 PM

Your trolldar is as bad as your gaydar. Not me you fucking idiot.

"In conclusion, the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes."-CDC

Sure thing, beachcomber. If that isn't you then you two use remarkably similar takes as I pointed out.

Your quote was not in reference to their own study. We have talked about other studies based on ownership in the US being limited because of that reality. That's why that study correlated violence with gun laws and why I bring up studies from countries that actually track their firearms.

You suck at critical thinking, beachcomber. You should note that when I insult your thining skills it has basis and is not blindly butthurt lashing out. Empiricism. Try it.

rascal

03-08-2013, 12:25 PM

Chicago has high rate of murders with guns and strict gun laws. You fail/
You have condensed your findings to a smaller area by taking a city instead of a state and made a conclusion based on that. The broader the area the more accurate the findings, so states > cities.
You fail

rascal

03-08-2013, 12:27 PM

TSA

03-08-2013, 01:03 PM

Your quote was not in reference to their own studyyes it was, coward.

FuzzyLumpkins

03-08-2013, 02:47 PM

yes it was, coward.

You only read the conclusion, beachcomber. The portion that the conclusion was referring to was:

Although multiple studies have examined the relationship between federal and state firearm laws and homicide and suicide rates, the overall association between firearm legislation and firearm mortality is uncertain and remains controversial.7- 8

Note the superscript in bold? Now go and look at what the superscript refers to. They teach that particular nuance in high school english class. In fairness though, you have shown a lack of critical thinking and reading skills expected of a 4th grader so I shouldn't be surprised. I know that is a lot to expect you to read. 10 whole pages with a lot of pictures and charts.

TSA

03-08-2013, 03:46 PM

"In conclusion, the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes."-CDC

TSA

03-08-2013, 03:46 PM

Anonymous coward.

Th'Pusher

03-08-2013, 04:20 PM

Anonymous coward.
You sound like a AGW denier whining there is no evidence!!!! Only in this case the has been a successful lobbying effort to actually prevent the collection of the data.

ChumpDumper

03-08-2013, 04:33 PM

I'd have to see the full list and methodology before saying anything about that study.

FuzzyLumpkins

03-08-2013, 06:24 PM

:cry I blindly lash out hoping that Fuzzy will tell me more about his personal life. :cry

TSA

03-08-2013, 07:28 PM

:cry I own guns but no one else should :cry

mavs>spurs

03-08-2013, 07:52 PM

you need to look at the total crime rates, not just "gun death." if less people die by guns but more people die from stabbings, beatings, etc then you haven't really accomplished anything.

admiralsnackbar

03-09-2013, 09:28 AM

My starting assumption would be that states in which more stringent gun laws are able to pass would be states where ownership and interest in guns/gun culture is lower in the first place.

boutons_deux

03-09-2013, 09:36 AM

Host Of TV Gun Show ‘A Rifleman’s Journal’ Shot And Killed

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Gregory-Rodriguez.jpg?Police say that at around 10:30 p.m. the woman’s husband, Wayne Bengston, came to the house and then shot Rodriguez and brutally beat his wife.

Police say Bengston then drove off with his 2-year old son who had been sleeping in the house and drove away.

He left the boy unharmed with a relative and then drove to his house in West Glacier.

That’s where Flathead County deputies and a SWAT team found his truck.

Authorities say they attempted to contact Bengston with no success, and when they entered his house they found Bengston dead of a gunshot wound to the head.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/09/1695301/gregory-rodriguez-shot-killed/

:lol

TeyshaBlue

03-09-2013, 11:36 AM

Really? That's funny, boutons? Go climb a wall of dicks.

boutons_deux

03-10-2013, 08:05 AM

Really? That's funny, boutons? Go climb a wall of dicks.

yes, hilarious. Darwinism at work taking care of creationist bubbas, a doomed species.

boutons_deux

03-10-2013, 08:07 AM

Fox News Guest Receives Racist Rape And Death Threats After Arguing Guns Aren’t The Solution To Rape

In the wake of her appearance, Maxwell was bombarded with harassing messages calling for her to be raped or murdered, often in explicitly racist terms. She provided ThinkProgress with screenshots of three examples:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Zerlina-12-e1362870767558.png
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Zerlina-21-e1362871064405.png

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/09/1695891/fox-news-guest-receives-racist-rape-and-death-threats-after-arguing-guns-arent-the-solution-to-rape/

think the racist, right-wing FBI will be forcing the service to cough up the real names of the racist, gun fellating haters?

boutons_deux

03-10-2013, 08:10 AM

Share of Homes With Guns Shows 4-Decade Decline

The share of American households with guns has declined over the past four decdes, a national survey shows, with some of the most surprising drops in the South and the Western mountain states, where guns are deeply embedded in the culture.

The gun ownership rate has fallen across a broad cross section of households since the early 1970s, according to data from the General Social Survey, a public opinion survey conducted every two years that asks a sample of American adults if they have guns at home, among other questions.

The rate has dropped in cities large and small, in suburbs and rural areas and in all regions of the country. It has fallen among households with children, and among those without. It has declined for households that say they are very happy, and for those that say they are not. It is down among churchgoers and those who never sit in pews.

The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data, analyzed by The New York Times.

In 2012, the share of American households with guns was 34 percent, according to survey results released on Thursday. Researchers said the difference compared with 2010, when the rate was 32 percent, was not statistically significant.

The findings contrast with the impression left by a flurry of news reports about people rushing to buy guns and clearing shop shelves of assault rifles after the massacre last year at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

"There are all these claims that gun ownership is going through the roof," said Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "But I suspect the increase in gun sales has been limited mostly to current gun owners. The most reputable surveys show a decline over time in the share of households with guns."

That decline, which has been studied by researchers for years but is relatively unknown among the general public, suggests that even as the conversation on guns remains contentious, a broad shift away from gun ownership is under way in a growing number of American homes. It also raises questions about the future politics of gun control. Will efforts to regulate guns eventually meet with less resistance if they are increasingly concentrated in fewer hands - or more resistance?

Detailed data on gun ownership is scarce. Though some states reported household gun ownership rates in the 1990s, it was not until the early 2000s that questions on the presence of guns at home were asked on a broad federal public health survey of several hundred thousand people, making it possible to see the rates in all states.

But by the mid-2000s, the federal government stopped asking the questions, leaving researchers to rely on much smaller surveys, like the General Social Survey, which is conducted by NORC, a research center at the University of Chicago.

Measuring the level of gun ownership can be a vexing problem, with various recent national polls reporting rates between 35 percent and 52 percent. Responses can vary because the survey designs and the wording of questions differ.

But researchers say the survey done by the center at the University of Chicago is crucial because it has consistently tracked gun ownership since 1973, asking if respondents "happen to have in your home (or garage) any guns or revolvers."

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.xml;jsessionid=84E5E2BD09679AF032FEDF5CE229A 3B3?f=19

mavs>spurs

03-10-2013, 05:05 PM

thats propaganda, gun ownership is at an all time high and growing

FuzzyLumpkins

03-10-2013, 05:09 PM

I think that has more to do with guys getting an extra gun locker than it does more households having guns.

boutons_deux

03-10-2013, 05:31 PM

thats propaganda, gun ownership is at an all time high and growing

says the NRA/gun industry press release. Do you have any facts to support your bias?

mavs>spurs

03-10-2013, 05:35 PM

mavs>spurs

03-10-2013, 05:37 PM

harvard disagrees with you liberals on gun control

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductivehttp://theacru.org/images/thumbnails/flag.jpgI've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.
However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGRlMTNiZGM2MWFiMDY0NDIyZTUxNjhiZjc3YzFjMDg=)ar ticle (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGRlMTNiZGM2MWFiMDY0NDIyZTUxNjhiZjc3YzFjMDg=) following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf) Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.
The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:

[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gunmurder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownershipnecessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.
Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should.

boutons_deux

03-10-2013, 05:38 PM

Bills in states, Congress seek to raise firearm taxes

Efforts are underway in Congress and at least half a dozen states, including California, to raise taxes on firearms or ammunition to pay for programs targeting gun violence.

In Congress, a group of Democrats, led by Rep. Linda T. Sanchez of Lakewood, is pushing for an additional 10% tax on handgun purchases that could generate tens of millions of dollars nationwide to fund gun buybacks, firearms safety campaigns and anti-violence programs.

Legislation that would impose taxes on guns or bullets has also been introduced in Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey and Washington state. In Sacramento, a bill by Democratic Assemblyman Roger Dickinson would impose a nickel tax on every bullet sold in California to pay for screening and treating young children for mental illness.

The proposals are designed after similar taxes placed by federal, state and local governments on cigarettes to fund anti-smoking campaigns and healthcare programs.

"Anything that contributes to balancing out the costs that gun violence exacts on communities is a step in the right direction," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center. "Like cigarettes, guns should be taxed in a manner that takes into account the harm they inflict on society at large."

Massachusetts state Rep. David Linsky, who has proposed a 25% tax on the sale of guns and ammunition to fund mental health programs, police training and crime victims' programs, said that gun owners bore some responsibility for funding mental healthcare because of the effect of firearms on public health and safety.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/609/article/p2p-74745374/

unregulated, cheap guns cost USA $10Bs/year. Gun owners must pay through the nose. Gun industry, just like carbon industries, gets away with dumping externality costs on taxpayers.

mavs>spurs

03-10-2013, 05:45 PM

spurstalk won't let me post articles very easily lately but here's a link to what the guardian has to say about whether or not the rates are falling

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/25/gun-ownership-us-data

DMX7

03-11-2013, 12:47 AM

FuzzyLumpkins

03-11-2013, 05:36 AM

yes, gun sales are at an all time high. guns, magazines, etc are all on back order. you can't even get ammunition in certain calibers. they actually do polling on the subject too..you should check it out. millions of people who always thought about getting a gun someday but didn't yet own one actually made the leap and bought one thanks to your boy and all the bs that went down.

Making stuff up is fun! Actually calling reality as it is is better.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining

A study published in the Injury Prevention Journal, based on a 2004 National Firearms Survey, found that 20% of the gun owners with the most firearms possessed about 65% of the nation's guns.

A 2007 survey by the U.N's Office on Drugs and Crime found that the United States, which has 5% of the world's population, owns 50% of the world's guns.

The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010, according to a 2011 study produced by The University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center. The number of gun owners has gone down almost 10% over the same period, the report found.

Why is it that GOP types insist on living in a world that they wish existed instead of the one that actually does?

TSA

03-11-2013, 10:51 AM

Unfortunately Mr. Kundu, your study is from 2010 and does not apply to the recent run of gun purchases in 2012-13. Nice try though Mr. Kundu, maybe next time you'll provide us with relevant information.

mavs>spurs

03-11-2013, 01:14 PM

I trust the guardian over lolcnn aka dinosaur media aka nobody listens anymore aka liberal propaganda network

FuzzyLumpkins

03-11-2013, 03:41 PM

It's a cited source from less than 2 years ago from the University of Chicago.

And you guys have........ m<s doing a WC impersonation.

mavs>spurs

03-11-2013, 05:32 PM

Lol university of CHICAGO. Bahsha

Slutter McGee

03-12-2013, 01:52 PM

Th'Pusher

03-12-2013, 02:00 PM

Who the fuck cares if deaths are higher or lower. My right to have them exists regardless.

Silly Liberals who believe "the people" referred to in the 2nd Amendment is somehow different than "the people" in all of the others just because of a qualifier of purpose "the militia being necessary."

Slutter McGee
Your right to have guns has been limited (read infringed upon) and these limitations have been upheld by the SCOTUS. The only thing that is up for discussion now is how severely we as a nation are going to infringe upon your individual right to bare arms for the collective good of society.

boutons_deux

03-12-2013, 02:19 PM

Bills in states, Congress seek to raise firearm taxes

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/609/article/p2p-74745374/

boutons_deux

03-12-2013, 02:29 PM

Secrecy of gun tracking data gets scrutiny

In 2003, the National Rifle Association feared that the city of Chicago's bid to access ATF data on crime guns would spell doom for firearms manufacturers and retailers.

And so with the help of Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kansas, the NRA pushed language through Congress barring dissemination of ATF gun-trace information to cities and advocacy groups and severely restricting access by state and local law enforcement.

The Tiahrt amendment has been attached to successive Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives spending bills ever since, even after its author departed Congress in 2011.

Mostly, it has gone unnoticed. But it is coming under renewed scrutiny from pro-gun-control lawmakers and advocates pushing ahead on legislation in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings.

“Overturning the Tiahrt Amendment will help law enforcement track straw purchasers, require annual inventory checks to detect lost and stolen firearms and use trace data to ferret out unscrupulous gun dealers,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. “The only course of action is to remove this language from law.”

“Rolling back Tiahrt is something that's absolutely, incredibly important to do,” said Brian Malte, director of mobilization for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “In gun-violence-prevention advocacy circles, it's huge. We all get it.”

The NRA is equally dedicated to keeping Tiahrt on the books.

“Tiahrt is necessary because trace information was being abused by gun control groups and trial lawyers to sue gun makers and retailers, and push a political agenda,” said Andrew Arulanandam, NRA public affairs director. “Gun trace information was always meant to be used strictly for law enforcement purposes.”

At the core of the controversy is ATF's National Tracing Center, a sprawling facility in Martinsburg, W.Va., where workers process 340,000 inquires a year on firearms seized by police at crime scenes.

Because federal law prohibits creation of a fully automated national gun registry, employees use telephones and email to trace guns from manufacturer on down the chain to purchaser.

Additionally, they pore over microfilmed and scanned records of closed-down gun dealers.

http://mobile.mysa.com/mysa/db_283104/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=s9O9eTI0&full=true#display (http://mobile.mysa.com/mysa/db_283104/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=s9O9eTI0&full=true#display)

boutons_deux

03-12-2013, 02:34 PM

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check)

boutons_deux

03-12-2013, 02:38 PM

Gun owners most often cite protection as reason for having a firearm

Increasingly, gun owners cite protection, rather than hunting or other recreational activities, as the main reason they own a gun, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center. Nearly half of gun owners cited “protection” as their main reason for owning a gun, according to the survey. That’s twice the number who cited protection in a similar survey 15 years ago. Hunting, which used to be the main reason cited, is now the first reason given by only about one-third of adults.

By contrast, among people whose households do not have guns, almost six-in-ten say that having one at home would make them feel “uncomfortable.” Asked why, most said they worried about accidents or that they considered guns dangerous or unsafe.

That gulf in how people view guns – a source of protection or a threat – helps explain a wide gap in attitudes toward gun policy. Because the groups most likely to own guns – white men, particularly those older than 50 or living in rural areas – are also most likely to be Republicans, it’s no surprise that the division over gun policy has also become polarized by party.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/609/article/p2p-74777239/

Slutter McGee

03-12-2013, 06:05 PM

Your right to have guns has been limited (read infringed upon) and these limitations have been upheld by the SCOTUS. The only thing that is up for discussion now is how severely we as a nation are going to infringe upon your individual right to bare arms for the collective good of society.

Shall not be infringed. I seriously don't know how you can argue with this meaning. SCOTUS has made mistakes before.

Collective good? Goddamn commie.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Th'Pusher

03-12-2013, 07:27 PM

Shall not be infringed. I seriously don't know how you can argue with this meaning. SCOTUS has made mistakes before.

Collective good? Goddamn commie.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee
What about a background check? is that not infringement? Do you think a mentally ill person should be able to own a gun? What about a felon? What about fully automatic weapons? One for every boy and girl? The reality is state governments were infringing on the right to keep and bare arms when the framers wrote that the right shall not be infringed...we've been infringing on that right since day one.

Slutter McGee

03-12-2013, 07:31 PM

What about a background check? is that not infringement? Do you think a mentally ill person should be able to own a gun? What about a felon? What about fully automatic weapons? One for every boy and girl? The reality is state governments were infringing on the right to keep and bare arms when the framers wrote that the right shall not be infringed...we've been infringing on that right since day one.

Felons sure. Violent ones can get them anyways. Boys and Girls...absolutely. I encourage it. Fully Automatic weapons....absolutely. Mentally Ill is a more difficult.

Slutter McGee

Th'Pusher

03-12-2013, 07:34 PM

Felons sure. Violent ones can get them anyways. Boys and Girls...absolutely. I encourage it. Fully Automatic weapons....absolutely. Mentally Ill is a more difficult.

Slutter McGee
So you're ok with infringing on the rights of the mentally ill to keep and bare arms? Ok. You're going to need a constitutional amendment to get that done.

mavs>spurs

03-12-2013, 07:42 PM

all you coward traitors will be tried for treason and executed when its all said and done. it's all documented forever, everything you coward traitors are doing. not necessarily directed to the libs in here but all gun grabbers, vaccine pushers, fluoride pushers, gmo pushers, corrupt officials, all of you hoes will pay the piper someday. like it or not. the republic is awake and eyes are on you.

TSA

03-13-2013, 07:21 PM

It's a cited source from less than 2 years ago from the University of Chicago.

And you guys have........ m<s doing a WC impersonation.m>s is right. The source is shit. University of Chicago :lol
Survey done by General Social Survey, or GSS, which is funded by the Joyce Foundation, a well known anti-gun liberal organization. I'm sure the survey is very unbiased.

If you want anyone here to take you seriously on the gun control debate stop using such shitty biased studies, oh yeah, don't forget to turn in your firearm.

spursncowboys

03-13-2013, 07:28 PM

CosmicCowboy

03-14-2013, 09:57 AM

CosmicCowboy

03-14-2013, 09:59 AM

So you're ok with infringing on the rights of the mentally ill to keep and bare arms? Ok. You're going to need a constitutional amendment to get that done.

bare arms :lmao

http://asp.elitefts.net/images/upload/qa/52397477_31b787839d_o.jpg

cantthinkofanything

03-14-2013, 10:52 AM

bare arms :lmao

http://asp.elitefts.net/images/upload/qa/52397477_31b787839d_o.jpg

what a really odd choice of a picture to post.

boutons_deux

03-14-2013, 09:09 PM

Man kills self in front of children at Bellevue gun-safety class

Brian J. Parry is believed to have shot himself in the head with a pistol Sunday during a class at West Coat Armory, a gun range and dealer with outlets in Bellevue and Issaquah.

a man describing himself as a witness to the shooting said the dead man – identified by the Medical Examiner’s Office as Parry – stood in front of more than a dozen people participating in the class and ended his life.

Several children saw the shooting

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Man-kills-self-in-front-of-children-at-Bellevue-gun-safety-class-198073701.html

Come on Darwin, you can do it! :lol

mavs>spurs

03-14-2013, 09:10 PM

^youre next, cmon bitch pull it

boutons_deux

03-14-2013, 09:30 PM

^youre next, cmon bitch pull it

go suck a big black hard one

mavs>spurs

03-14-2013, 09:31 PM

put my big black hard one in your mouth and pull it bitch...i'll jack off on your dead body

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 06:24 AM

Why is it OK to infringe on the 2nd amendment but not the 1st or 4th? Thats like saying...hey...you can have two sentences of free speech, but no large capacity paragraphs...

Wild Cobra

03-15-2013, 07:34 AM

Why is it OK to infringe on the 2nd amendment but not the 1st or 4th? Thats like saying...hey...you can have two sentences of free speech, but no large capacity paragraphs...
Another reason why I call some of them libtards.

boutons_deux

03-15-2013, 08:19 AM

Why is it OK to infringe on the 2nd amendment but not the 1st or 4th? Thats like saying...hey...you can have two sentences of free speech, but no large capacity paragraphs...

where does the 2nd amendment, which specifies WELL REGULATED MILITIAS, preclude ANY REGULATIONS of any citizen's guns?

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 08:24 AM

where does the 2nd amendment, which specifies WELL REGULATED MILITIAS, preclude ANY REGULATIONS of any citizen's guns?

I'm going with the supreme courts interpretation and not idiotboobot's.

Blake

03-15-2013, 08:29 AM

Why is it OK to infringe on the 2nd amendment but not the 1st or 4th? Thats like saying...hey...you can have two sentences of free speech, but no large capacity paragraphs...

I should have the right to bear nuclear arms

boutons_deux

03-15-2013, 08:39 AM

the total craziness the guns-and-ammo industry behind its marketing/propaganda subsidiary the NRA has wreaked on the USA, for nothing but profit

2nd Amendment? :lol GFY

10 Crazy Gun Laws Introduced Since Newtown

In the wake of the Newtown massacre in December, lawmakers in nearly every state in the nation [1] have introduced gun legislation, either to strengthen gun controls or push back against them. There has also been a flurry of activity in local jurisdictions. Some of the proposals fall into the category of reasonable policy ideas, while others just seem to fire wildly, in both political directions. Here are 10 of them:

Glocks and gimlets: Allowing guns in bars has become something of a trend lately [2]. A bill introduced in South Carolina [3] would legalize concealed carry in bars and void the current law punishing the same with a fine of up to $2,000 or three years in jail. Gun owners would be required to remain sober, but the prospect of patrons packing heat in places where alcohol and attitudes mix remains worrisome, especially as self-defense laws grow increasingly lax [4]. Another bill awaiting approval from the state senate in Georgia [5] would allow guns in bars and churches.

K-12 teachers packing heat: Never mind that recently armed guards in schools have forgotten their guns [6] in restrooms and fired them by mistake [7]: Lawmakers in at least six states [8] have pushed bills since Newtown to allow K-12 teachers to carry guns. A few school districts around the country already allow teachers to carry them [9]; in early March, South Dakota became the first state to sign into law a bill explicitly giving all its teachers the right to do so.

Aiming for an A+ in target practice: In January, state Sen. Lee Bright (R) introduced a bill in South Carolina that would create an elective high school class on gun safety and the 2nd Amendment taught by police officers. The class would meet [10] at a local gun range and let students fire away. One high school junior said she thought the law could make her school safer (even though students would only use the guns off-campus), but told the local news station [11], "Just getting [guns] into the hands of certain students, that could potentially harm others."

Anger management classes for ammo buyers: Florida state Sen. Audrey Gibson (D) recently proposed a law that would outlaw the sale of ammunition [12] to anyone in the state who hasn't completed at least two hours of anger management training, regardless of prior history. Gibson said the bill was inspired by a teenager shot to death during an argument over loud music, and she just wanted ammo buyers to be "introspective." [12] Her detractors have called the bill [13] unconstitutional and an "insult" to gun owners.

Felony charges for guns that fire more than one round: Gun enthusiasts got worked up about New York's new assault weapons ban limiting magazines to seven rounds—the strictest in the nation [1]—but consider this: Connecticut state Sen. Edward Meyer (D), a gun-control advocate who also made news recently for wielding a BB gun [20] in a church, proposed a bill in January [21] that would make it a class C felony to own any gun made to fire more than a single round. The bill hasn't gone anywhere, but if Meyer's intentions were to rile up the right, he succeeded [22].

Busting business owners for banning guns: A bill introduced in January by Colorado state Sen. Kent Lambert (R) would require businesses open to the public to either allow concealed carry permit holders to bring their guns inside or hire armed security officers (1 for every 50 customers [23]). If a business fails to comply and violence on the premises ensues, the business would be held liable for any injuries or deaths that might've hypothetically been prevented by an armed citizen. "There's a responsibility for businesses to provide some security when they have asked people not to defend themselves," Lambert told KOAA News 5 [24].

Felony charges for introducing gun-control legislation: Last month, Missouri state Rep. Mike Leara (R) introduced a bill [25] that would charge "[a]ny member of the general assembly who proposes a piece of legislation that further restricts the right of an individual to bear arms, as set forth under the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States" with a class D felony. In fairness, Leara told TPM [25] that he had "no illusions" about the bill passing.

Sheriff visits in your living room: A bill to ban assault weapons in Washington, introduced by state Sen. Ed Murray (D), was roundly criticized by conservatives and liberals alike for violating gun owners' civil liberties. The legislation allowed current assault weapon owners to keep their guns, but only if they allowed the local sheriff to inspect their homes once a year to ensure the guns were safely stored. Murray followed up with a revised bill without that language, telling the Seattle Times [26], "I have to admit that shouldn't be in there."

Rejecting or even arresting the feds: Speculating about a federal gun grab, lawmakers in at least 15 states [27] have introduced bills aimed at barring officials from enforcing federal gun laws. In Montana, a voter referendum championed by gun lobbyist Gary Marbut [28] would grant police the authority to arrest FBI agents trying to enforce gun laws and charge them with kidnapping [29]. In Arizona, Richard Mack has called for his fellow sheriffs to refuse to enforce federal law [30]. The proposals, the latest nullification [31] protests against the Obama administration [32], would most likely be unenforceable since, well, they violate federal law.

Requiring literally everybody to have one: Next month, the city council of Nelson, Georgia, will vote on a law that would mandate gun ownership [33] for the town's "safety, security, and general welfare" and for "emergency management." The proposal, modeled on a law in nearby Kennesaw, includes exemptions for felons, the mentally ill, and those who oppose guns. Towns in Idaho and Utah are considering similar laws. In Byron, Maine, population 140, a mandatory gun law was rejected [34] even by the man who proposed it, after he concluded that he should have just made it a recommendation.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/crazy-gun-laws-newtown

America is SO FUCKED UP AND UN-UPFUCKABLE (fucking up America for fun and profit is what the 1% and United Corporations of America do)

Th'Pusher

03-15-2013, 09:00 AM

Why is it OK to infringe on the 2nd amendment but not the 1st or 4th? Thats like saying...hey...you can have two sentences of free speech, but no large capacity paragraphs...
The SCOTUS has consistently upheld limits on free speech. Next time, Do a little research before posting your myopic knee jerk response.

http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L04-LimitsFreedomSpeech.htm

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 09:58 AM

The SCOTUS has consistently upheld limits on free speech. Next time, Do a little research before posting your myopic knee jerk response.

http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L04-LimitsFreedomSpeech.htm

go fuck yourself, asshole.

Th'Pusher

03-15-2013, 10:21 AM

go fuck yourself, asshole.

Typical entitled boomer wants me to go fuck myself because he was too lazy to do a little research before making a wildly uninformed statement in his zeal to support team red.

boutons_deux

03-15-2013, 10:29 AM

thats propaganda, gun ownership is at an all time high and growing

the typical bubba-stupid gun fellator has an AVERAGE of 9 guns, and very probably THAT's what's increasing sales, not MORE GUN OWNERS.

"I need MORE GUNs because I'm paranoid chickenshit with a shrinking, flaccid penis." :lol

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 11:33 AM

Typical entitled boomer wants me to go fuck myself because he was too lazy to do a little research before making a wildly uninformed statement in his zeal to support team red.

You are the one that is fucking stupid and uninformed Mr. blue team cheerleader. Free speech is typically only constrained when it injures people or threatens national security. Classic example of yelling fire in a crowded theater or the wikileaks guy. Both are illegal acts.

There are already plenty of laws on the books making injuring or killing someone with a gun illegal.

Th'Pusher

03-15-2013, 12:12 PM

You are the one that is fucking stupid and uninformed Mr. blue team cheerleader. Free speech is typically only constrained when it injures people or threatens national security. Classic example of yelling fire in a crowded theater or the wikileaks guy. Both are illegal acts.

There are already plenty of laws on the books making injuring or killing someone with a gun illegal.
Sorry dude. Your analogy upstream about two sentences of free speech but no high capacity paragraphs was just fucking stupid. Free speech is limited and has been infringed. I can write a book on the infringement on our 4th ammendment rights since 9/11. The second ammendment is not immune.

boutons_deux

03-15-2013, 12:13 PM

the 1st Amendment basically applies to preventing specifically the govt from blocking speech.

There is essentially no freedom of speech in the private sector.

Assange is not a US citizen, was not on US soil, and committed no crime, but Imperial America crushes him anyway, for the MIC's incompetence and horribly bad design of their information security.

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 12:38 PM

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 12:47 PM

Sorry dude. Your analogy upstream about two sentences of free speech but no high capacity paragraphs was just fucking stupid. Free speech is limited and has been infringed. I can write a book on the infringement on our 4th ammendment rights since 9/11. The second ammendment is not immune.

No, it wasn't a bad analogy. High capacity ammo clips in the hands of a solid citizen are no more dangerous than non harmful speech. Neither should be illegal.

boutons_deux

03-15-2013, 01:01 PM

There is freedom of speech in the private sector but it is balanced by the accountability of civil litigation if the speech is damaging.

bulllshit

corporations fire people for Internet posts,

corporations ask candidates for their passwords to their private facebook, etc accounts.

taxpayer-financed public schools suspend/expel/arrest students any speech violations in or out of school

etc, etc, etc.

There's TONS of intimidation of free speech in private sector.

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 01:45 PM

bulllshit

corporations fire people Internet posts,

corporations ask candidates for their passwords to their private facebook, etc accounts.

taxpayer-financed public schools suspend/expel/arrest students any speech violations in or out of school

etc, etc, etc.

There's TONS of intimidation of free speech in private sector.

Free speech does not necessarily mean freedom from the repercussions of said speech.

boutons_deux

03-15-2013, 01:58 PM

Free speech does not necessarily mean freedom the the repercussions of said speech.

a 5-year old was arrested at school and booked as a terrorist for talking about "shooting" at her friend, she was talking about shooting bubbles, not bullets. Obviously, the repercussions of shooting bubbles are criminalizing.

the obvious problem with your "repercussions" position is that lots of speech harms no one, "breaks no bones", but it still widely intimidated.

DMC

03-15-2013, 02:02 PM

1. Washington, D.C. The nation's capital is also the capital of gun deaths. There were 24.5 firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people in Washington, D.C.

Possession of firearms In Washington, D.C., all firearms must be registered with the police, by the terms of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975).
The same law also prohibited the possession of handguns, even in private citizens' own homes, unless they were registered before 1976. However, the handgun ban was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller). The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) acknowledges and guarantees the right of the individual to possess and carry firearms, and therefore D.C.'s ban on handguns was unconstitutional.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_District_of_Columbia#cite_note-CNNHeller-3)
Following the Heller decision, the Washington D.C. City Council enacted a set of rules regulating the possession of handguns in citizens' homes. In addition to each handgun being registered with the police, the rules require that D.C. residents undergo a background check and submit fingerprints. The firearms registry photographs the applicant. Residents must take an online gun safety course, and pass a written test on the District's gun laws. Residents must also declare where it will be kept.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_District_of_Columbia#cite_note-NYTEnacts-4)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_District_of_Columbia#cite_note-CSMRulesUpheld-5)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_District_of_Columbia#cite_note-WashPostHard-6)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_District_of_Columbia#cite_note-WashPostConsiderEasing-7)
Concealed carry The District of Columbia does not permit the concealed carrying of firearms. Open carry is also prohibited. A lawsuit was filed on August 6, 2009, to compel the district to issue permits to carry weapons.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_District_of_Columbia#cite_note-SAFCarry-8)

boutons_deux

03-15-2013, 02:03 PM

Father accidentally shoots, kills 10-month-old son in front of family

A 10-month-old boy was shot and killed by his father Thursday in an apparent accident at a Nashville, Tenn.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/15/17323505-reports-father-accidentally-shoots-kills-10-month-old-son-in-front-of-family?lite

NRA is really pissed off at the death of highly potential gun fellator.

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 02:05 PM

And in other news, someone was killed in a car accident. Shit happens.

boutons_deux

03-15-2013, 02:17 PM

And in other news, someone was killed in a car accident. Shit happens.

gun fellators' fatalism is hilarious :lol

Th'Pusher

03-15-2013, 02:31 PM

And in other news, someone was killed in a car accident. Shit happens.

And Seat belts are cumpulsory to minimize fatalities in car accidents. Seatbelt regulation has been highly effective.

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 02:31 PM

Booshits hysteria is hilarious.:lol

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 02:32 PM

Pushers blue team cheerleading is hilarious.:lol

boutons_deux

03-15-2013, 02:38 PM

And Seat belts are cumpulsory to minimize fatalities in car accidents. Seatbelt regulation has been highly effective.

mandatory seat belts, and all kinds of safety features have been designed into cars in the last 35+ years have reduced car deaths.

the alcohol industry, always seeking profits at all costs, has very effectively limited the state penalties for DWI, as well has blocking any attempts to lower the legal limit beyond the ridiculously high 0.08. Countries not ruled by their alcohol industries use 0.05.

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 02:39 PM

And if you really want to use a car regulation analogy the proposed gun regulations would be more like outlawing cars with more than 150hp.

TeyshaBlue

03-15-2013, 02:40 PM

In B4 V8 Fellator.

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 02:42 PM

In B4 V8 Fellator.

:lol I confess to being a V8 fellator

boutons_deux

03-15-2013, 03:06 PM

And if you really want to use a car regulation analogy the proposed gun regulations would be more like outlawing cars with more than 150hp.

no. the correct analogy would speed limits of 150 mph for all vehicles, no seat belts, no reinforced bodies for crash protection, no air bags.

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 03:11 PM

suits the hell outa me.

Th'Pusher

03-15-2013, 03:16 PM

suits the hell outa me.

And we've now drilled down to moronic.

FREEDOM!

Fuckin William Wallace here thinks seat belts meaningfully infringe on his liberty.

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 03:18 PM

And we've now drilled down to moronic.

FREEDOM!

Fuckin William Wallace here thinks seat belts meaningfully infringe on his liberty.

I voluntarily wear my seatbelt. I did it before it was against the law not to wear it.

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 03:20 PM

Just like I safely use guns with large capacity magazines.

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 03:21 PM

My 86 year old mother just got her CHL last weekend using my 15 shot 9mm.

Th'Pusher

03-15-2013, 03:29 PM

I voluntarily wear my seatbelt. I did it before it was against the law not to wear it.
Your personal antcitdotes are irrelevant tbh. Has seatbelt regulation effectively reduced fatalities?

TeyshaBlue

03-15-2013, 03:30 PM

Your personal antcitdotes are irrelevant tbh. Has seatbelt regulation effectively reduced fatalities?

Yes. Nobody is killed by seatbelts any more.

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 03:42 PM

Your personal antcitdotes are irrelevant tbh. Has seatbelt regulation effectively reduced fatalities?

It would be even safer to stuff the car with the strawmen you keep building.

Th'Pusher

03-15-2013, 03:49 PM

It would be even safer to stuff the car with the strawmen you keep building.
What strawman? You said you wore your seatbelt voluntarily, I said who cares has cumpulsory seatbelt regulation been effective?

TeyshaBlue

03-15-2013, 03:50 PM

Strawbags FTW!

Drachen

03-15-2013, 03:53 PM

Why is it OK to infringe on the 2nd amendment but not the 1st or 4th? Thats like saying...hey...you can have two sentences of free speech, but no large capacity paragraphs...

You know that you have to get a permit to protest right? Do you also know that they have limited where you can protest? Heck, the poor westboro baptist church isn't able to protest as closely to the funerals of military soldiers as they would like, or on the days they would like.

Th'Pusher

03-15-2013, 04:08 PM

Strawbags FTW!
No straw here. Read the thread CC said he was fine with eliminating seatbelt regulation.

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 04:10 PM

No straw here. Read the thread CC said he was fine with eliminating seatbelt regulation.

LOL, you are such a joke little anklebiter.

Th'Pusher

03-15-2013, 04:17 PM

LOL, you are such a joke little anklebiter.

I think "suits the hell outta me" was your exact response when bd, of all people, logically dismantled your redneck ass.

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 04:24 PM

First BD did no such thing. I don't care if there is a law requiring seat belt use because smart people wear their seat belt anyway. Fuck the stupid people that want to get ejected out the windshield. Let them die.

Second the topic was laws outlawing certain guns and magazines and you were madly building strawmen about seatbelts and airbags.

fuck off, loser.

TeyshaBlue

03-15-2013, 04:25 PM

.....bd of all people logically dismantled your redneck ass.

http://www.images-graphics-pics.com/signs/parody/windows/bluescreen/default.aspx?text=unable+to+parse+%27bd%27+and+%27 logic%27+within+string%2E&color=white&fontsize=12&move2=&move=&font=fixedsys&allow=306494&pic=bluescreen

boutons_deux

03-15-2013, 04:28 PM

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 04:30 PM

it was YOUR analogy with car regulations that I trashed.

The only thing you have trashed today is your racing striped jockey shorts.

boutons_deux

03-15-2013, 04:35 PM

The only thing you have trashed today is your racing striped jockey shorts.

to quote that joker TB :lol, that's your typical COWARD non-response.

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 04:35 PM

it was YOUR analogy with car regulations that I trashed.

And Seat belts are cumpulsory to minimize fatalities in car accidents. Seatbelt regulation has been highly effective.

mandatory seat belts, and all kinds of safety features have been designed into cars in the last 35+ years have reduced car deaths.

the alcohol industry, always seeking profits at all costs, has very effectively limited the state penalties for DWI, as well has blocking any attempts to lower the legal limit beyond the ridiculously high 0.08. Countries not ruled by their alcohol industries use 0.05.

It was you and the little pekinese comparing car safety laws to gun laws.

Th'Pusher

03-15-2013, 04:36 PM

The only thing you have trashed today is your racing striped jockey shorts.
Actually no, your bullshit has been dismantled. As much as bags like you want to deny it, regulation can work.

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 04:37 PM

My analogy was that accidents happen. That's why they are called accidents. I'm sure someone was electrocuted somewhere today too. Do you want to pass laws limiting electrical services to 24V?

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 04:40 PM

Actually no, your bullshit has been dismantled. As much as bags like you want to deny it, regulation can work.

:lmao

not hardly :lol BTW does my sock fuzz taste good, anklebiter?

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 04:42 PM

Strawbags FTW! :lmao

TeyshaBlue

03-15-2013, 04:47 PM

to quote that joker TB :lol, that's your typical COWARD non-response.

I really left a mark, eh?

Wild Cobra

03-15-2013, 04:48 PM

And if you really want to use a car regulation analogy the proposed gun regulations would be more like outlawing cars with more than 150hp.
I'd have to split my WS6 in half, and that still wouldn't be enough...

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 04:51 PM

I'd have to split my WS6 in half, and that still wouldn't be enough...

Yeah, I'm crankin 375 in my truck. I may not use em but I want em if I need em.

rjv

03-15-2013, 04:51 PM

My analogy was that accidents happen. That's why they are called accidents. I'm sure someone was electrocuted somewhere today too. Do you want to pass laws limiting electrical services to 24V?

if a root cause analysis indicated that the extent of the voltage was statistically likely to create more incidents, yes. because it would not be a purely random event.

would such an analysis of assault weapons be feasible? perhaps-but it would have to leave out subjective assertions which would be difficult.

TeyshaBlue

03-15-2013, 04:53 PM

if a root cause analysis indicated that the extent of the voltage was statistically likely to create more incidents, yes. because it would not be a purely random event.

would such an analysis of assault weapons be feasible? perhaps-but it would have to leave out subjective assertions which would be difficult.

Ummm that analysis has been complete for about, I dunno, maybe 125 years.

Also, enjoy baking your cake for 13 hours with your 24V oven.:lol

Wild Cobra

03-15-2013, 04:55 PM

Assault weapons bans make no sense at all. Not I have ever seen proposed makes any sense. One of the biggest things politicians do that is bad if fuck with how society already operates and is comfortable with. Sometimes it is necessary, but it always causes blow back. I see no reason why banning what is already legal in weapons, has any net positive effect for the general welfare.

TeyshaBlue

03-15-2013, 04:59 PM

translation? Anybody?

rjv

03-15-2013, 05:07 PM

Ummm that analysis has been complete for about, I dunno, maybe 125 years.

Also, enjoy baking your cake for 13 hours with your 24V oven.:lol

exactly. accidents occurring under such circumstances would point to another variable. there would be no uncertainty regarding the absolute random nature of the accident. but not all car accidents would belong to such a set (purely random events). some may occur as a result of a root cause (e.g., texting) that at some point could become regulated.

the question is: can such a determination be made about incidents involving assault weapons?

rjv

03-15-2013, 05:08 PM

translation? Anybody?

it it ain't broke don't fix it.

Th'Pusher

03-15-2013, 05:16 PM

No no no. When bd drew it down to the most basic level you said fuck it, no regulation is fine with me. Then you threw out some bullshit about me making a strawman. I can walk you through your dismantling if you like.

CosmicCowboy

03-15-2013, 05:17 PM

mavs>spurs

03-15-2013, 05:47 PM

rjv

03-15-2013, 06:11 PM

there isn't any such thing as an "assault weapon." i guess theoretically that just means a weapon used to assault someone..which basically everything on earth falls into that category. my cell phone is an "assault weapon" if i throw it as hard as i can at someone. so we need to just ban life and kill ourselves i guess, government can go first.

actually that would be difficult to do since it would probably entail a violation of the following section of violent crime control and law enforcement act of 1994 (which also contains the assault weapons ban that ended in 2004)

SEC. 60014. HOMICIDES AND ATTEMPTED HOMICIDES INVOLVINGFIREARMS IN FEDERAL FACILITIES.
Section 930 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—(1) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f) as subsections(d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively;(2) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘(c)’’ and inserting ‘‘(d)’’;and(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:‘‘(c) A person who kills or attempts to kill any person in thecourse of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of anattack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or otherdangerous weapon, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111,1112, and 1113.’’.

CosmicCowboy

03-19-2013, 02:19 PM

Feinstein: Reid excluded the assault-weapons ban from Senate gun bill
POSTED AT 9:21 AM ON MARCH 19, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY

No one expected the assault-weapons ban proposed by Dianne Feinstein to pass as part of the Senate’s gun-control package. Now it won’t even be a part of it. Last night, Feinstein told reporters that Harry Reid had excluded it from the final version of the legislative package:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on Monday that a controversial assault weapons ban will not be part of a Democratic gun bill that was expected to reach the Senate floor next month.

After a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday, a frustrated Feinstein said she learned that the bill she sponsored — which bans 157 different models of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines — wouldn’t be part of a Democratic gun bill to be offered on the Senate floor. Instead, it can be offered as an amendment. But its exclusion from the package makes what was already an uphill battle an almost certain defeat.
“Almost certain defeat”? Left on its own as an amendment, Feinstein’s bill would be lucky to get 35 votes. She knows it, too, which is why she vented her frustration:

“My understanding is it will not be [part of the base bill],” Feinstein said. “It will be separate.”

Asked if she were concerned about the decision, Feinstein paused and said, “Sure. I would like to [see the bill moved], but the leader has decided not to do it.”

“You will have to ask him [Reid],” she said, when asked why the decision was made.
Do we need to ask? Reid can be accused of many things, but he’s not clueless when it comes to the politics of guns. Reid wants to pass a bipartisan bill to expand background checks, and he’s more than willing to sacrifice Feinstein’s effort to get it, especially since Reid was never enthusiastic about the renewed AWB in the first place.

This way, he gets two wins. First, using Feinstein’s proposal as the extreme of the effort, the background-check legislation looks more reasonable, even where it may not be. Second, by allowing Democrats in red states to vote against the AWB in a separate floor action, he protects them from attacks in the 2014 election. It’s a win-win for Reid.

It’s more of a mixed bag for gun-rights advocates. Depending on whether the Senate bill includes federal registration of all firearms, it’s a big loss — but that has absolutely no chance of passing the House anyway, and Republicans in the Senate won’t have any reason to stick around if it does. If it doesn’t, it’s more of a headache than a problem. The upside will be the outright rejection of the AWB, which should stick a stake through its heart for another decade after politicians who took the risk to demand it ended up with egg on their faces.

hater

03-19-2013, 04:02 PM

these same states will be the first ones to get their asses kicked once civil war kicks in

mavs>spurs

03-19-2013, 05:52 PM

^yeah buddy, patriots will sweep through the disarmed liberal states like a tidal wave crashing through the beach, wiping out new world order collaborators in our path.

FuzzyLumpkins

03-19-2013, 06:02 PM

^yeah buddy, patriots will sweep through the disarmed liberal states like a tidal wave crashing through the beach, wiping out new world order collaborators in our path.

Except the part where it's going to be the police and military forces and not liberals in Manhattan that you are fighting. Go full on with the schtick and advocate going Pol Pott with them.

mavs>spurs

03-19-2013, 06:05 PM

police and military are waking up, most of the military will defect and join their real american brothers. our servicement call into conservative/libertarian talk radio all the time, the vets know they're targets. it'll be patriots, former military and police, and many current military and police taking back our country in a bloodbath. globalists will be hung from billboards and their shitty bodies left in ditches.

Blake

03-19-2013, 07:52 PM

these same states will be the first ones to get their asses kicked once civil war kicks in

Rofl

boutons_deux

03-28-2013, 10:53 AM

Gun Violence Costs U.S. Health Care System, Taxpayers Billions Each Year

The bullet exploded like a fragment from the past, piercing his present and laying waste to the future he envisioned. It tore through Jerome Graham’s back, wrecked his spleen, damaged his pancreas and kidney, and left him paralyzed from the waist down.

And while the direct medical consequences of that gunshot fired a year ago in East Baltimore end there, the full force of its destruction has reverberated more broadly, encompassing Graham’s friends, his family, his community. It has carried into the American health care system, while confronting American taxpayers with costs reaching hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Before he was shot last year, Graham, 33, supported his wife and three children by working as an electrician. Barring a medical miracle, he will never walk again, greatly complicating his ability to earn a paycheck. Since the shot went through his body, he and his family have come to rely on government programs like Medicaid, Social Security and subsidized housing.

In the American conversation, discussion of gun-related violence (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/gun-deaths-us-newtown_n_2935686.html) generally centers on the tragic loss of life or permanent injuries that result. But beneath these headline-grabbing, life-shattering facts are costs measured in vast numbers of dollars.

Firearms-related deaths cost the U.S. health care system and economy $37 billion (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/guns-deaths-sandy-hook-shooting_n_2325706.html) in 2005, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention attempted an estimate (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html). The cost of those who survive gun violence came to another $3.7 billion that year, according to the CDC.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/gun-violence-costs-health-care_n_2965248.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=032813&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

No doubt that NRA will be buying enough Repugs to defund such CDC gun violence data collection, just like NRA bought enough Repugs to block other govt gun studies and record keeping.

boutons_deux

03-28-2013, 10:55 AM

http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/firearm-deaths-population#table-tab

ElNono

03-30-2013, 08:41 PM

316707860023230465

:lol

boutons_deux

05-01-2013, 03:22 PM

5-Year-Old Get .22 Caliber Birthday Rifle, Shoots and Kills 2-Year-Old SisterA 5-year-old-boy shot and killed his 2-year-old sister with a .22 caliber rifle he received for his birthday, said police in Cumberland County, Ohio, where the incident occurred.

"It's a Crickett," said Cumberland County coroner Gary White. "It's a little rifle for a kid. ...The little boy's used to shooting the little gun."

The Lexington Herald-Leader (http://www.kentucky.com/2013/04/30/2621458/5-year-old-boy-accidentally-shoots.html) reports the shooting happened around 1 p.m. with the mother at home. The family says they didn’t know the gun was loaded.

"Just one of those crazy accidents," said White. :lol

Crickett .22s are manufactured and sold by Keystone Sporting Arms, LLC. The Pennsylvania-based weapons maker markets its signature product as “My First Rifle.” :lol

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/5-year-old-get-22-caliber-birthday-rifle-shoots-and-kills-2-year-old-sister?akid=10386.187590.DPj2Ey&rd=1&src=newsletter833535&t=5

My First Rifle and My First Sibling Kill!

More guns = more gun violence and deaths.

CosmicCowboy

05-01-2013, 03:38 PM

I wonder if they are gonna get her mounted?

TSA

05-01-2013, 04:20 PM

What 5 year old has his own rifle? What parents leave said rifle in the corner of the living room loaded and unattended? These sorry excuses for parents need to both place their lips around the barrel of that .22 and pull the trigger for their gross negligence.

boutons_deux

05-01-2013, 04:32 PM

this will be written off as an accident

The parents are guilty of child endangerment, both should be fined and imprisoned for manslaughter.

Th'Pusher

05-01-2013, 04:50 PM

The rights of that five year old shall not be infringed.

The Reckoning

05-01-2013, 09:34 PM

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2013/01/16/assault-rifles-are-not-involved-in-many-u-s-murders-a-look-at-the-data/

i dont get the point of having a handgun without a special license or concealed permit. theyre easy to hide and transport. drug dealers and crooks love that shit because theyre lightweight and look gangsta.

rifles and shotguns? perfect for home/vehicle/work defense. i only own a 30-30, semi auto shotgun and a SKS, and that's all i need, and they're for hunting. i dont get the point of having a handgun unless im selling crack.

i doubt the legislature even looks at stats. it's all about sensationalism, reelections and job security for them.

and :lol at more murders committed by FISTS than rifles in the US.

Blake

05-01-2013, 10:07 PM

lmao @ "My First Rifle"

boutons_deux

05-03-2013, 02:34 PM

http://media.salon.com/2013/05/rifle3n-5-web-620x412.jpg

Inside the Kiddie Gun Market

The Crickett is a small, air-light firearm billed as “My First Rifle” by gun manufacturer Keystone Sporting Arms. It comes in pink and blue. It is a “training wheels” gun, part of the growing youth market in firearms.

As NBC News reports (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/03/.UYOffRsmui4.twitter):

Firearms made for minors represent a new market for gun makers, said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. As the gun market has been saturated, Sugarmann said, gun makers have followed a “path trailblazed by a wide range of other industries, particularly the tobacco industry, and focused its efforts on women and children.”

Yet despite the availability of triggers for tiny fingers, gun makers and marketers are hesitant to actually spell out what age a child should be before handling his or her first firearm, said Sugarmann. Crickett’s website, for instance, makes no references to appropriate age ranges for their child-sized weapons.

“There’s a recognition that the majority of the American public has concerns about putting guns in the hands of children,” he said.

Through studies and promotional materials, some sporting associations encourage young people to take up hunting and shooting as recreational activities, and point to potential benefits — both for avid gun-owners and youths themselves — of young people handling firearms.

Magazines like “Junior Shooter” call hunting with firearms “one of the safest recreational activities in America,” and sees introducing kids to guns early on as a direct investment in future pro-gun voters: “Each person who is introduced to the shooting sports and has a positive experience is another vote in favor of keeping our American heritage and freedom alive,” Junior Shooter editor-in-chief Andy Fink wrote in the winter 2012 issue.” Adding: “They may not be old enough to vote now, but they will be in the future.”

“Kid guns” aren’t such an unusual phenomenon from a marketing perspective; fast food chains, clothing brands and other companies target young consumers to establish product loyalty and lifelong purchasing habits, but a youth recruitment strategy for deadly weapons has, understandably, given some gun control advocates pause.

In an interview reported (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/02/boy-shoots-sister-my-first-rifle/2128573/) by USA Today, Dr. Denise Dowd, an emergency room pediatrician who co-wrote the American Academy of Pediatricians policy on children and guns, said she was “blown away” that anyone would buy a rifle for a 5-year-old child.

“We don’t give our kids the keys to our car, and there is a good reason for it,” she added.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/03/inside_the_kiddie_gun_market/

2nd Amendment? :lol

home defense? :lol

I have a small, flaccid dick. YES! :lol

It's all about SOFT ON CRIME and selling guns and ammo.

TSA

05-03-2013, 02:43 PM

I think we all agree here a five year old shouldn't have a rifle, much like you shouldn't have Internet access.

boutons_deux

05-03-2013, 02:47 PM

I think we all agree here a five year old shouldn't have a rifle, much like you shouldn't have Internet access.

Apparently, the NRA, the gun mfrs, and plenty of gun fellating bubbas who buy guns for their kids, aren't part of your "we".

do you support rigorous b/g checks for every gun purchase, with penalties for sellers not performing b/g checks?

TSA

05-03-2013, 03:11 PM

I have stated numerous times I am fine with background checks for purchases, as long as that information is not used for confiscation down the road.

Wild Cobra

05-03-2013, 03:18 PM

I have stated numerous times I am fine with background checks for purchases, as long as that information is not used for confiscation down the road.
What I don't like is since it becomes public record, you have the freedom of information fanatics that like to publish what still should be considered private information.

That's right. Tell thieves who own guns so you can case their place and steel them when they go out...

clambake

05-03-2013, 03:20 PM

you ever heard of a gun safe?

Wild Cobra

05-03-2013, 03:22 PM

you ever heard of a gun safe?
Like always, you miss the point. It still increases the odds of being a burglary statistic.

clambake

05-03-2013, 03:25 PM

but you always say the bad guys will always get guns anyway.

pick a lane.

Wild Cobra

05-03-2013, 03:30 PM

but you always say the bad guys will always get guns anyway.

pick a lane.
Are you seriously that daft?

Why should I pick one lane when there are several, and this adds one...

Bye ClamBoy.

clambake

05-03-2013, 03:33 PM

i know you're more inclined to think that way, flaglot.

Blake

05-03-2013, 04:44 PM

I think we all agree here a five year old shouldn't have a rifle, much like you shouldn't have Internet access.

what's the minimum age you think a kid should have a gun?

CosmicCowboy

05-03-2013, 04:56 PM

what's the minimum age you think a kid should have a gun?

hmmm. I started shooting (under strict parental supervision) at 6. I started hunting by myself at 9.

TeyshaBlue

05-03-2013, 04:58 PM

hmmm. I started shooting (under strict parental supervision) at 6. I started hunting by myself at 9.

That's pretty close to when I started shooting too. Got my first cut down .410 around 6 or 7.

CosmicCowboy

05-03-2013, 04:59 PM

Here's your nine year old gun fellator, bitch.

http://imageshack.us/a/img209/382/dadsfirstdeer.jpg

TeyshaBlue

05-03-2013, 04:59 PM

But, I wasn't whipping it out and shooting down siblings either.

CosmicCowboy

05-03-2013, 05:00 PM

But, I wasn't whipping it out and shooting down siblings either.

Yeah, me either.

Blake

05-03-2013, 05:03 PM

I think we all agree here a five year old shouldn't have a rifle, much like you shouldn't have Internet access.

Huh. I guess we don't all agree.

TSA

05-03-2013, 05:07 PM

Huh. I guess we don't all agree.Who here disagrees that a five year old should not be left alone with a loaded gun in the room?

Th'Pusher

05-03-2013, 05:16 PM

Who here disagrees that a five year old should not be left alone with a loaded gun in the room?

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand, you fucking statist?

TSA

05-03-2013, 05:20 PM

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand, you fucking statist?did you not notice how everyone ignored this the first time you posted it? Try again, third time's a charm.

Th'Pusher

05-03-2013, 05:50 PM

did you not notice how everyone ignored this the first time you posted it? Try again, third time's a charm.

I'm not gonna let you wipe your ass with the constitution and neither is the NRA. Guns for anyone, no limits. It enshrined in the precious document.

Wild Cobra

05-03-2013, 06:19 PM

Who here disagrees that a five year old should not be left alone with a loaded gun in the room?

I don't think anyone does. It appears the problem was, he was unsupervised and had access to it like a toy. There are so many things you do not let a young kid have access to unsupervised. A gun is just one of several potentially dangerous things.

Wild Cobra

05-03-2013, 06:20 PM

did you not notice how everyone ignored this the first time you posted it? Try again, third time's a charm.
The pusher must be on an overdose of the drugs he peddles.

TSA

05-03-2013, 06:21 PM

I'm not gonna let you wipe your ass with the constitution and neither is the NRA. Guns for anyone, no limits. It enshrined in the precious document.
Are okay with your five year old watching pornography?

TSA

05-03-2013, 06:24 PM

I don't think anyone does. It appears the problem was, he was unsupervised and had access to it like a toy. There are so many things you do not let a young kid have access to unsupervised. A gun is just one of several potentially dangerous things.

This incident has everything to do with terrible parenting. The background check failing has some here so but thirst they'll use this dead child to push their agenda. Typical butthurt liberal method.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-03-2013, 06:45 PM

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand, you fucking statist?

is a rocket launcher an arm?

Th'Pusher

05-03-2013, 06:52 PM

Are okay with your five year old watching pornography?
Pornograhy is not a right that was enshrined in our sacred constitution you statist.

Th'Pusher

05-03-2013, 06:54 PM

is a rocket launcher an arm?

Yep.

Th'Pusher

05-03-2013, 06:59 PM

The pusher must be on an overdose of the drugs he peddles.
This statist probably thinks the existing federal law requiring background checks is constitutional.

TSA

05-03-2013, 07:02 PM

Pornograhy is not a right that was enshrined in our sacred constitution you statist.
The first amendment most definitely is, and I saw no age limit on that either.

TSA

05-03-2013, 07:07 PM

is a rocket launcher an arm?

Yes, and legal to own. You've been down this road before, do you have a point this time?

Th'Pusher

05-03-2013, 07:11 PM

The first amendment most definitely is, and I saw no age limit on that either.
Ginsberg vs New York. Look it up.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-03-2013, 07:11 PM

Yes, and legal to own. You've been down this road before, do you have a point this time?

sure we have you can own anything with a permit but there is no RIGHT to own it. They can choose to decline your request for a permit which makes the weapon illegal. you have no recourse at that point.

we are talking about rights here jackass. you understand the difference between a right and a privilege?

Th'Pusher

05-03-2013, 07:13 PM

TSA

05-03-2013, 07:19 PM

Ginsberg vs New York. Look it up.

You're the one wanting to argue the Constitution as it was originally written. As originally written, everyone regardless of age should have the right to pornography.

Th'Pusher

05-03-2013, 07:26 PM

You're the one wanting to argue the Constitution as it was originally written. As originally written, everyone regardless of age should have the right to pornography.

Yep. That shit was unconstitutional too. Our sage founders explicitly provided a way to change the constitution in the constitutional amendment process. Look it up statist.

Blake

05-03-2013, 07:29 PM

Who here disagrees that a five year old should not be left alone with a loaded gun in the room?

Yeah, move the goal posts some more.

Blake

05-03-2013, 07:30 PM

Yes, and legal to own. You've been down this road before, do you have a point this time?

Is it legal to fire off a rocket launcher?

TSA

05-03-2013, 07:31 PM

sure we have you can own anything with a permit but there is no RIGHT to own it. They can choose to decline your request for a permit which makes the weapon illegal. you have no recourse at that point.

we are talking about rights here jackass. you understand the difference between a right and a privilege?we aren't talking about rights here, we are witnessing the butthurt of an antigunner play a semantics game with a five year olds right to bear arms.

It amazes me that a few of you will turn a blind eye on the parents involved just to push your pussy laden agendas. Gun, knife, dog, fire, bathtub.......anything could have killed that child unattended, this one is solely on the parents.

If you two are so scared of guns, write your senators, attend rallies, donate money. I know I did, and guess what, my side is winning. Instead of doing these things you just log on to the Internet and bitch and moan and come off as little whiners. Have either of you written your senators and representatives? Shown up to any anti-gun rallies lately? Donated any money to the Brady campaign lately? Nahhhhh.......Internet whining is all you got.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-03-2013, 07:32 PM

That rights. and the law requiring a permit is unconstitutional.

Scalia who is the most conservative justice out there has commented on this and when pressed on something that could be used to shoot down planes said that it was not necessarily a right. I get what you are saying about a literal interpretation and he said that anything handheld in his opinion is protected but when certain specifics were mentioned he would not say that.

Howitzers are armaments as well and the constitution does not say small arms so from a literal interpretation those should be protected as well.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-03-2013, 07:33 PM

we aren't talking about rights here, we are witnessing the butthurt of an antigunner play a semantics game with a five year olds right to bear arms.

It amazes me that a few of you will turn a blind eye on the parents involved just to push your pussy laden agendas. Gun, knife, dog, fire, bathtub.......anything could have killed that child unattended, this one is solely on the parents.

If you two are so scared of guns, write your senators, attend rallies, donate money. I know I did, and guess what, my side is winning. Instead of doing these things you just log on to the Internet and bitch and moan and come off as little whiners. Have either of you written your senators and representatives? Shown up to any anti-gun rallies lately? Donated any money to the Brady campaign lately? Nahhhhh.......Internet whining is all you got.

We are talking about the bill of rights, dimwit. And you have no idea what I have done or not done. Its irrelevant. Keep guessing though its entertaining watching you build strawmen.

TSA

05-03-2013, 07:34 PM

Yeah, move the goal posts some more.
My first post on this, never moved anything.

What 5 year old has his own rifle? What parents leave said rifle in the corner of the living room loaded and unattended? These sorry excuses for parents need to both place their lips around the barrel of that .22 and pull the trigger for their gross negligence.

TSA

05-03-2013, 07:35 PM

Scalia who is the most conservative justice out there has commented on this and when pressed on something that could be used to shoot down planes said that it was not necessarily a right. I get what you are saying about a literal interpretation and he said that anything handheld in his opinion is protected but when certain specifics were mentioned he would not say that.

Howitzers are armaments as well and the constitution does not say small arms so from a literal interpretation those should be protected as well.
Can you "bear" a howitzer? Didn't think so.

Wild Cobra

05-03-2013, 07:37 PM

Can you "bear" a howitzer? Didn't think so.
SuperFuzzyTroll can lift any strange argument...

Blake

05-03-2013, 07:37 PM

My first post on this, never moved anything.

The post I quoted you on was different than your response.

If you want to say you screwed up and meant something different, that would be fine.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-03-2013, 07:38 PM

And puritanical statism much like puritanical libertarianism is nonexistent and impossible. Anyway were about to head out so you kats take of yourselves.

Th'Pusher

05-03-2013, 07:38 PM

TSA

05-03-2013, 07:39 PM

We are talking about the bill of rights, dimwit. And you have no idea what I have done or not done. Its irrelevant. Keep guessing though its entertaining watching you build strawmen.
No, we are talking about parents who leave a loaded gun in the room with an unattended child, not whether or not the five year old had a right to bear that arm. And you want to talk about building strawmen? For fucks sake it doesn't get more strawman than that.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-03-2013, 07:41 PM

Can you "bear" a howitzer? Didn't think so.

Depends on your definition of bear. Possession and bear have been conflated in legal argument.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-03-2013, 07:42 PM

No, we are talking about parents who leave a loaded gun in the room with an unattended child, not whether or not the five year old had a right to bear that arm. And you want to talk about building strawmen? For fucks sake it doesn't get more strawman than that.

that is not the only thing being discussed and that is besides the point. you don't get to dictate what or what not is talked about.

Blake

05-03-2013, 07:42 PM

Is it legal to fire off a rocket launcher?

I'm asking because I don't know. Anyone?

TSA

05-03-2013, 07:42 PM

The post I quoted you on was different than your response.

If you want to say you screwed up and meant something different, that would be fine.Found it. I still don't see anyone here that says a five year old should have a rifle. Is there something I missed?

TSA

05-03-2013, 07:44 PM

I'm asking because I don't know. Anyone?

If they are legal to own and you have enough property I would assume so. If not it would be pretty stupid to purchase something you couldn't use. I have no clue. Why not ask the gun expert fuzzy?

Blake

05-03-2013, 07:46 PM

Found it. I still don't see anyone here that says a five year old should have a rifle. Is there something I missed?

CC and TB both said they were good with guns when they were six.

If you want to nit pik that it's not five, then you're just playing six year old games

Th'Pusher

05-03-2013, 07:46 PM

Found it. I still don't see anyone here that says a five year old should have a rifle. Is there something I missed?
I think a five year old should be able to own a rifle until you ammend the constitution to say that 5 year olds right to bear arms can be infringed.

Blake

05-03-2013, 07:47 PM

If they are legal to own and you have enough property I would assume so. If not it would be pretty stupid to purchase something you couldn't use. I have no clue. Why not ask the gun expert fuzzy?

I'm simply curious if you have the right to purchase it, but not the right to bear it.

TSA

05-03-2013, 07:48 PM

that is not the only thing being discussed and that is besides the point. you don't get to dictate what or what not is talked about.
Actually I do get to dictate what is talked about as I will now remove myself from further discussing the absurdity of a five year olds right to bear arms.

Wild Cobra

05-03-2013, 07:49 PM

CC and TB both said they were good with guns when they were six.

If you want to nit pik that it's not five, then you're just playing six year old games
I think the distinction is who keeps physical possession of the weapons.

TSA

05-03-2013, 07:50 PM

CC and TB both said they were good with guns when they were six.

If you want to nit pik that it's not five, then you're just playing six year old games
All you do is nitpick, so yes, I was and still am correct. Your own game bit you in the ass.

Th'Pusher

05-03-2013, 07:50 PM

Actually I do get to dictate what is talked about as I will now remove myself from further discussing the absurdity of a five year olds right to bear arms.
Statist pussy.

TSA

05-03-2013, 07:52 PM

CC and TB both said they were good with guns when they were six.

If you want to nit pik that it's not five, then you're just playing six year old gamesto nitpick a bit more, they never said they were good with guns at six either.

Wild Cobra

05-03-2013, 07:53 PM

I think a five year old should be able to own a rifle until you ammend the constitution to say that 5 year olds right to bear arms can be infringed.
If the 5 year old was emancipated, then I would agree with you.

The constitution doesn't spell out every detail. Things like when a child was considered a man or a woman have bearing, as it was part of the culture that wasn't needed to be defined in written law.

Blake

05-03-2013, 08:05 PM

to nitpick a bit more, they never said they were good with guns at six either.

No, that's moving the goal posts again.

Blake

05-03-2013, 08:06 PM

All you do is nitpick, so yes, I was and still am correct. Your own game bit you in the ass.

Sure. As long as we're clear your simply nitpicking.

TSA

05-03-2013, 08:10 PM

No, that's moving the goal posts again.

Started shooting at six does not mean they were good with guns, as you said.

TSA

05-03-2013, 08:12 PM

Sure. As long as we're clear your simply nitpicking.

Perfectly clear. Why are you even asking? Nitpicking posts is your M.O.

Blake

05-03-2013, 08:26 PM

Perfectly clear. Why are you even asking? Nitpicking posts is your M.O.

What age do you think is the appropriate age to own a gun?

Blake

05-03-2013, 08:26 PM

Started shooting at six does not mean they were good with guns, as you said.

Doesn't mean they're against a five year old having one.

Keep up with yourself.

TSA

05-03-2013, 08:37 PM

What age do you think is the appropriate age to own a gun?

That's up for the parents to decide. As I don't have my own kids yet, I can't say as I would have to make sure they were not retarded first.

TSA

05-03-2013, 08:39 PM

Doesn't mean they're against a five year old having one.

Keep up with yourself.

You claimed they disagreed with me. Keep up with yourself.

TSA

05-03-2013, 08:44 PM

What age do you think is the appropriate age to own a gun?
I misread your question as to when to be allowed to shoot a gun. To own one? I'd probably let my kid "own" one when he/she was of legal age to buy his/her own. He/she could shoot the hell out of mine up until that point and that would be encouraged if they enjoyed it.

Blake

05-03-2013, 09:05 PM

You claimed they disagreed with me. Keep up with yourself.

You agreed you were nitpicking. Either you are or you aren't. No real difference between 6 and 5 other than nitpicking.

You suck at my game.

Blake

05-03-2013, 09:08 PM

I misread your question as to when to be allowed to shoot a gun. To own one? I'd probably let my kid "own" one when he/she was of legal age to buy his/her own. He/she could shoot the hell out of mine up until that point and that would be encouraged if they enjoyed it.

I looked it up. It's 18 for long gun, 21 for hand gun?

If this is correct, do you feel the 18 year old has a constitutional right to own and bear a handgun?

TSA

05-03-2013, 09:24 PM

You agreed you were nitpicking. Either you are or you aren't. No real difference between 6 and 5 other than nitpicking.

You suck at my game.
When you go out of your way to quote me and say I was wrong, of course I'll nitpick and point out you were in fact wrong. I'm done discussing the nitpicking. You are nitpicking the nitpicking, I can't imagine coming on a message board and posting in the manner you do, it must be tiring. Do you keep a logbook of posts or have a notepad next to your computer?

TSA

05-03-2013, 09:29 PM

I looked it up. It's 18 for long gun, 21 for hand gun? :lol You had to look that up? You really don't know shit about firearms, at least you've admitted it.

If this is correct, do you feel the 18 year old has a constitutional right to own and bear a handgun?Sure, when he turns 21.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-04-2013, 12:42 AM

Actually I do get to dictate what is talked about as I will now remove myself from further discussing the absurdity of a five year olds right to bear arms.

to nitpick a bit more, they never said they were good with guns at six either.

Statist pussy.

Yup pretty much. And one that exhibits poor self control.

The point that is being missed here is that the rights of the child are subordinate to the parents. Children do not own property. It is the parents that own it. If a parent decides to allow a child to shoot then that is their perogative. There are issues with child endangerment of course.

boutons_deux

05-04-2013, 06:55 AM

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/nrakidsguns4-e1367609543354.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/nrakidsguns2-e1367607691341.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/nrakidguns3-e1367608354714.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/nrakidsguns9-e1367612170235.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/nrakidsguns51-e1367611500942.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/nrakidsguns6crop-e1367611792500.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/03/1961871/after-child-shooting-nra-conference-peddles-guns-for-kids/

Wild Cobra

05-04-2013, 07:17 AM

What's wrong with teaching kids how to properly use a weapon?

boutons_deux

05-04-2013, 07:31 AM

the death-peddling gun industry is a corrupt, unethical as the cigarette industry.

Get 'em hooked young, get 'em hooked for life.

the gun industry doesn't care about "properly", only about selling as much guns and ammo, TO ANYBODY, as they can, by ANY means.

Blake

05-04-2013, 11:37 AM

:lol You had to look that up? You really don't know shit about firearms, at least you've admitted it.

Sure, when he turns 21.

I've admitted it plenty of times.

18 year olds go off to die for our country in the military. Why are you grossly denying brave men and women of our armed forces their 2nd Amendment rights?

TSA

05-04-2013, 01:03 PM

18 year olds go off to die for our country in the military. Why are you grossly denying brave men and women of our armed forces their 2nd Amendment rights?
I didn't send them to war and I am not denying any rights. They signed up for the military, I see them no different than any other 18 year old.

Blake

05-04-2013, 03:09 PM

Why is 21 the cut off for you?

boutons_deux

05-04-2013, 03:10 PM

More images from the tasteful gun fellatin sickos

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/IMAG0237.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/IMAG0235-1024x682.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/IMAG0245-1024x682.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/IMAG0240-1024x682.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/IMAG0234-e1367639373896-1024x727.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/IMAG0238-1024x682.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/IMAG0254-1024x682.jpg

2nd Amendment! :lol

Home Defense! :lol

Marans! :lol

Water the Tree! :lol

Liberty! :lol

Freedom! :lol

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

TSA

05-04-2013, 03:46 PM

Why is 21 the cut off for you?
The law says it is.

Blake

05-05-2013, 09:46 AM

The law says it is.

So now you're ok with an unconstitutional law.

duly noted.

boutons_deux

05-05-2013, 11:14 AM

NRA ‘Home Defense’ Course Instructs Audience To Store Guns In Kids’ Room (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/04/1964091/nra-guns-kids-room/)

PINCUS:

How about putting a quick-access safe in your kids’ room? [...] Good idea or bad idea? We have an emotional pushback to that. Here’s my position on this. If you’re worried that your kid is going to try to break into the safe that is in their bedroom with a gun in it, you have bigger problems than home defense. [Laughter]

If you think that the kid who’s going to try to break into the safe because it’s in their room isn’t sneaking into your room to try to break into stuff, you’re naive and you have bigger problems than this.

So let’s settle that issue and think about it. In the middle of the night, if I’m in the bathroom or getting a glass of water or in the bedroom or watching TV in the living room, if that alarm goes off and the glass breaks and the dog starts barking, what’s the instinct that most people are going to have, in regards to, “am I going to run across the house to get the gun, or am I going to run over here to help the screaming kid?”

And if I’m going to go to the kid anyway, and I have an extra gun and an extra safe, why not put it in their closet?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/04/1964091/nra-guns-kids-room/

TSA

05-05-2013, 12:36 PM

So now you're ok with an unconstitutional law.

duly noted.why do you believe it is unconstitutional?

boutons_deux

05-05-2013, 05:56 PM

http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/article_imgs8/8904-wayne-lapierre-flag-hand-013013.jpg
NRA Leader Warns of Rising Cost of Senators
National Rifle Association C.E.O. Wayne LaPierre used his opening speech at the N.R.A.’s national convention today to highlight several challenges facing the organization, including what he called “the rising cost of Senators.”

“Over the past few years, we’ve seen the price of purchasing a Senator surge astronomically,” he told the N.R.A. faithful. “Unless something is done to make Senators more affordable, the ability of a tiny lobbying group to overrule the wishes of ninety per cent of the American people will be in jeopardy.”

The days are over, he said, when “you could buy a Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) for little more than pocket change.”

“Now it costs thousands to purchase a marginally effective Senator like Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.),” he said.

Mr. LaPierre was followed at the podium by the former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, the rock musician Ted Nugent, and several other people who would not pass background checks.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/05/nra-leader-warns-of-rising-cost-of-senators.html

boutons_deux

05-05-2013, 06:55 PM

Gun Protesters Plan March On Washington With Loaded Rifles To ‘Put The Government On Notice’ (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/05/1965191/open-carry-washington-march/)

The event’s Facebook invitation (https://www.facebook.com/events/252728144871259/?ref=3) describes the march as a nonviolent demonstration, “unless the government chooses to make it violent”:
This is an act of civil disobedience, not a permitted event. We will march with rifles loaded & slung across our backs to put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated & cower in submission to tyranny. We are marching to mark the high water mark of government & to turn the tide. This will be a non-violent event, unless the government chooses to make it violent. Should we meet physical resistance, we will peacefully turn back, having shown that free people are not welcome in Washington, & returning with the resolve that the politicians, bureaucrats, & enforcers of the federal government will not be welcome in the land of the free.

There’s a remote chance that there will be violence as there has been from government before, and I think it should be clear that if anyone involved in this event is approached respectfully by agents of the state, they will submit to arrest without resisting. We are truly saying in the SUBTLEST way possible that we would rather die on our feet than live on our knees.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/05/1965191/open-carry-washington-march/

It's best that these ignorant, deluded, clinically paranoid shitstains be put out of their misery by suicide by firing on the REAL FIREPOWER of the govt.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-05-2013, 07:16 PM

why do you believe it is unconstitutional?

Other than nuance you apparently are clueless as to blatant irony. Did you come up through the California education system?

Blake

05-06-2013, 09:03 AM

why do you believe it is unconstitutional?

We train 18 year olds how on hand guns to use overseas, but God forbid they buy and carry here!

boutons_deux

05-06-2013, 09:31 AM

gun fellators' kids will be kids

Florida 13-year-old shoots 6-year-old sister playing hide-and-seek
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/06/florida-13-year-old-shoots-6-year-old-sister-playing-hide-and-seek/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

boutons_deux

05-06-2013, 10:34 AM

At NRA Conference, Major Gun Groups Debunk NRA Spin On Background Checks (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/06/1963891/nra-spin-debunked/)
Two prominent gun rights group are distributing literature taking apart the National Rifle Association (NRA)’s misinformation on the Manchin-Toomey background check bill — at the NRA’s own conference.

written by former NRA Board member Dave Workman (http://www.meetthenra.org/nra-member/Dave%20Workman), takes an oblique shot at the NRA, which built its argument against Manchin-Toomey on the specter of gun registration and confiscation (http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/politics/senate-guns-vote):

Gun rights activists across the nation believe the Schumer measure would establish a de facto gun registry due to a record keeping requirement. There is no record keeping provision in the Manchin-Toomey bill, and using background check information to create a registry would be punishable by up to 15 years in prison.[...]

The Manchin-Toomey alternative would provide for background checks on all commercial gun sales, including those done at gun shows and that originate on the Internet. An important exemption applies to transfers of firearms between family members, and private sales between friends and neighbors would also be exempt.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/06/1963891/nra-spin-debunked/

TSA

05-06-2013, 11:16 AM

Other than nuance you apparently are clueless as to blatant irony. Did you come up through the California education system?Are you really this dense?

TSA

05-06-2013, 11:25 AM

We train 18 year olds how on hand guns to use overseas, but God forbid they buy and carry here!

They're fighting an unconstitutional war, evens it all out.

boutons_deux

05-06-2013, 12:28 PM

NRA waits until convention's final day to tell vendor to remove bleeding 'Obama' target from booth (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/06/1207215/-NRA-waits-until-convention-s-final-day-to-tell-vendor-to-remove-bleeding-Obama-target-from-booth)
(white father teaching his son how to shoot the n!gg@s: )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Qo_BJ7Bhwhc#at=102

The National Rifle Association has asked a vendor at its convention to remove a target that resembles Obama from its booth, a worker told BuzzFeed.
The company, Zombie Industries, sells a range of three-dimensional "life sized" targets that "bleed when you shoot them." The Obama likeness has been on display for two days, but was notably absent on Sunday.

"Someone from the NRA came by and asked us to remove it" a Zombie Industries booth worker told BuzzFeed in hushed tones. "They thought it looked too much like President Obama."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/06/1207215/-NRA-waits-until-convention-s-final-day-to-tell-vendor-to-remove-bleeding-Obama-target-from-booth?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

boutons_deux

05-06-2013, 12:51 PM

Texas House Approves 12 Firearms Bills To Put More Guns In Classrooms And Defy Federal Law (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/06/1967041/texas-house-approves-12-firearms-bills-to-put-more-guns-in-classrooms-and-defy-federal-law/)
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/rick-perry-gun-275x300.jpg

the Texas House passed 12 gun bills (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/04/texas-passes-gun-laws/2135881/) to make it even easier to obtain and possess firearms in the state. The onslaught of legislation contains provisions to allow college students to carry handguns in class and to block any theoretical federal bans on assault weapons or high-capacity ammunition. The 12 bills, a veritable goody bag for gun rights advocates, passed easily in the Republican-dominated House.

Texas lawmakers introduced about twice as many gun bills (http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/track-83rd-gun-bills/) this session as last year, generally in response to the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. The state’s already forgiving gun laws will become even more permissive if even a handful of these bills become law. See a sample below:

No federal gun laws apply to the state.

In a blatantly unconstitutional move, the House approved Rep. Steve Toth’s (R) proposal to exempt the state (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/15/1453061/unconstitutional-texas-bill-would-make-enforcing-federal-gun-laws-a-felony/) from any future federal laws to ban or restrict assault weapons or magazines. Federal law enforcement officers would be punished with up to 5 years in prison and a $50,000 fine if they tried to enforce these bans.

Guns in classrooms.

Even after recent shootings at Texas A&M University (http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/13/justice/texas-am-shooting) and Lone Star College (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/22/1480001/multiple-students-wounded-in-texas-school-shooting/), one of the newly passed bills now opens college classrooms to concealed weapons. Schools will be allowed to opt out if they choose. Separately, the Texas Senate approved a measure allowing college students to keep their guns in their cars on campus.

Armed marshals in schools.

Public elementary, middle and high schools would select employees with concealed weapons permits to receive firearms training (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/02/1384531/armed-teacher-training-program/). These marshals would be granted access to guns in emergency situations.
Relaxed requirements to obtain concealed carry permits. The House reduced (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/27/1645241/texas-bill-slashes-hours-required-for-concealed-gun-training/) the number of training hours to get a concealed weapon permit by half, and allow individuals to renew permits online. Another bill passed would lower the handgun license fee for police, veterans, national and state Guard, and some Criminal Justice Department employees. The lost fees will cost the state up to $2 million.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/06/1967041/texas-house-approves-12-firearms-bills-to-put-more-guns-in-classrooms-and-defy-federal-law/

TSA

05-06-2013, 12:58 PM

good for Texas

boutons_deux

05-07-2013, 10:50 AM

Army veteran accidentally shoots himself dead inside fraternity house
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/07/army-veteran-accidentally-shoots-himself-dead-inside-fraternity-house/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

more guns = more gun violence and deaths

At least this vet was thoroughly trained on weapons.

TSA

05-07-2013, 11:34 AM

Anyone thoroughly trained in firearms doesn't accidentally shoot themselves in the face. Anyone thoroughly trained in firearms always assumes the firearm is loaded. I'm guessing he was drunk.

boutons_deux

05-07-2013, 12:01 PM

Anyone thoroughly trained in firearms doesn't accidentally shoot themselves in the face. Anyone thoroughly trained in firearms always assumes the firearm is loaded. I'm guessing he was drunk.

:lol

that's why the NRA and Repugs want guns carried by all college students who would promise never to drink while shooting. :lol

boutons_deux

05-07-2013, 12:03 PM

Stewart rips you gun fellators, NRA, and Repugs a huge, gaping, bleeding asshole

Jon Stewart Slams NRA Fearmongering at Gun-apaloozaAs Jon Stewart pointed out on last night's Daily Show, the gun lobby group also went after Obama on health care reform and Benghazi, of all things. It was a lineup remarkably close to that of CPAC, the conservative political action conference, Stewart pointed out.

When the conservative all stars like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Rick Perry got to guns, they resorted to predictable fearmongering. Glenn Beck, for one, virtually accused non-gun owners of allowing their loved ones to be raped. Watch Jon Stewart slam NRA fearmongerng in the two Daily Show segments below:

http://www.alternet.org/jon-stewart-slams-nra-fearmongering-gun-apalooza

boutons_deux

05-07-2013, 12:26 PM

you stay classy, all you tasteful, well-balanced, calm gun fellators

Zombie Industries Zombie 3D

"The Ex"

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2BfeEK6c0L._SX385_.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/Zombie-Industries-3D-The-Ex/dp/B007ZCJGR4/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1367947458&sr=8-6&keywords=the+ex+zombie

boutons_deux

05-08-2013, 12:22 PM

Protest group plans July 4 march on Washington with loaded rifles

An Iraq war veteran and Internet talk show host is trying to gather thousands of protesters to march into the District on Independence Day with loaded rifles on their backs.

But if Adam Kokesh follows through with his July 4 plans — 2,500 people have signed up for the cause — he and his makeshift band will be met on the Arlington Memorial Bridge by two police forces packing guns of their own.
Kokesh, 31, and D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier say they want to work together to ensure a peaceful airing of grievances. But the chief says only one side can have guns: hers. And she’ll have backup from the U.S. Park Police, which will also position officers at the District line.

“If you’re coming here to protest government policy, great,” Lanier said Tuesday on her monthly appearance on NewsChannel 8, reacting to the group’s plan to cross the Potomac River from Arlington National Cemetery. “If you’re coming here to break the law, we’ll take action.”

Lanier added, “There’s a pretty good chance we’ll meet them on the D.C. side of the bridge.”

Kokesh is calling the event an “Open Carry March” but described it as a general demonstration against “tyranny,” not a protest against specific gun laws.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/protest-group-plans-july-4-march-on-washington-with-loaded-rifles/2013/05/07/59b8e392-b727-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html?tid=pm_pop

tyranny! :lol

how poetic!

Kokesh rhymes with Koresh!

Will Kokesh and his gun-fellating super-patriots meet the same fate has Koresh and his equally benighted, misguided followers?

2nd Amendment! :lol

tyranny! :lol

freedom! :lol

water the tree of liberty! :lol

marans! :lol

BobaFett1

05-08-2013, 12:32 PM