Gun Control=What Dopes!
First Prev
of 6
Next Last
Heisenberg

Alamogordo, NM

#1 Dec 16, 2012
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/holder-we-hav...

Here ya go.
After everubody's forgetting Holder's failed attempt with Fast&Furious, here he comes again.

He should actually be in a jail cell, and here again is some more treasonous acts, and gestures by him, and the White House.

Go ahead, keep placing restrictions on law abiding responsible American Citizens, and see how this all backfires, and only causes more "No Gun Zones", where the dastardly can do their evil deeds.

Libs just don't get it.

With talk, and possible wanted anti-gun legislation, ala "Clinton Waco-Ruby Ridge Era", I'd bet all Assault Weapons are literally flying off the shelves. Colt, and all clones are probably doing the best in American Business right now.

In fact, I've seriously considered buying a couple fo sweet rifles myself the last 2 years, and may have to act before it's too late.

A pre ban AR-15, and an HK-93 should both fit the bill quite nicely.

And not because I have any immediate need to use them, but just because the Gov says I now can't have them, and also a affinity for all firearms, those with beauty, and those with high tech modern features.

A goverment who does not trust their people is a government that is not to be trusted!

Their alredy drumming up signatured for new restrictive legislation. Beware, these people are the idiots, the pannickers, the dolts who want to twll you how to live, how your life should be. some Utopian Communist-Marxist USA, where everything will now be all fine and dandy.

Like Odummy said to Brady's wife, "we're working on it, but keeping it under the radar". Yeah right.

Don't forget who you people are for a second! We are Americans! We aren't Japs, we aren't Germans, we aren't Aussies, and we aren't Limeys!
Ken Starr

Cloudcroft, NM

#2 Dec 16, 2012
Ralph's dim brother heard from.

Since: Oct 08

.

#3 Dec 16, 2012
I have seen many people claim that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow citizens to protect themselves from a "tyrannical government", so I'm wondering, how is that defined? What makes a government "tyrannical"?

For example, since Bush has been in office, the government has been granted the following powers:

Listen to your phone calls without warrant.
Read your emails without warrant.
Monitor your internet activity without warrant.
Monitor the books you borrow from the library, without warrant.
Monitor the groups you associate with.
Search your house without warrant.
Search your car without warrant.
Collect "evidence" from those places, without warrant.

On a whim, an American citizen can be declared an "enemy combatant", and:
Detained without charge, in secret.
Denied legal representation.
Denied the right to question his detention.
Shipped to a foreign country for interrogation, in secret.
Tortured, in secret.
Be tried by a military tribunal, in secret.
NOT be granted access to the secret evidence against him.
Convicted based on that secret evidence.

So, if the above is NOT considered "tyrannical", then what is? Where do you draw the line?
Heisenberg

Alamogordo, NM

#4 Dec 16, 2012
Ken Starr wrote:
Ralph's dim brother heard from.
Figured such, your not any American. One day, you'll be crying, "who's gonna help my tired weak helpless ass"?!

That's the huge problem with this country today, a bunch of pussies, who stand divided, not united. Libs, gibsmedats, dopers, drunks, 47%'ers, free cell phone Obamites, fornicators, sodomites.

The chickens will all one day come home to roost.
Take one for the team

Washington, DC

#5 Dec 16, 2012
Heisenberg wrote:
<quoted text>
Figured such, your not any American. One day, you'll be crying, "who's gonna help my tired weak helpless ass"?!
That's the huge problem with this country today, a bunch of pussies, who stand divided, not united. Libs, gibsmedats, dopers, drunks, 47%'ers, free cell phone Obamites, fornicators, sodomites.
The chickens will all one day come home to roost.
I'm just glad to hear that if your family got shot to hell. You'd be for the shooters "right" to carry.
Gorky

Albuquerque, NM

#6 Dec 16, 2012
There are plenty of ways to cut the chances of more shootings like yesterday's Sandy Hook shooting from happening while still allowing honest, law abiding citizens to own guns.

Simple rules could keep guns out of the hands of people who would be higher risk, while still allowing honest, sane citizens to have them.

Laws that require a two week, or even a month wait, are reasonable for honest, law abiding citizens. How about red-flagging individuals who buy thousands of rounds of ammunition, like James Holmes did? It was good that the gun club owner rejected Holmes because of his bizarre phone message. But we already have a homeland security policy of "see something or someone and say something." Why not apply that to people who ruin gun ownership for everyone else. There are responsibilities that are associated with gun ownership. Even the NRA should admit to THAT. Do they?

Get real, the idea that guns protect free speech is totally unsupportable. You want to protect free speech, start reining in the police state. I think we can agree there's a problem there. But guns against the police state? I don't think so. Guns didn't take down the Soviet Union or East Germany or Tunisia.
Heisenberg

Alamogordo, NM

#7 Dec 16, 2012
Gorky wrote:
There are plenty of ways to cut the chances of more shootings like yesterday's Sandy Hook shooting from happening while still allowing honest, law abiding citizens to own guns.
Simple rules could keep guns out of the hands of people who would be higher risk, while still allowing honest, sane citizens to have them.
Laws that require a two week, or even a month wait, are reasonable for honest, law abiding citizens. How about red-flagging individuals who buy thousands of rounds of ammunition, like James Holmes did? It was good that the gun club owner rejected Holmes because of his bizarre phone message. But we already have a homeland security policy of "see something or someone and say something." Why not apply that to people who ruin gun ownership for everyone else. There are responsibilities that are associated with gun ownership. Even the NRA should admit to THAT. Do they?
Get real, the idea that guns protect free speech is totally unsupportable. You want to protect free speech, start reining in the police state. I think we can agree there's a problem there. But guns against the police state? I don't think so. Guns didn't take down the Soviet Union or East Germany or Tunisia.
And how would that of stopped this last killer, he stole the guns he used. Ease up on the hookah there, you're not thinking clearly.

Criminals don't abide by any laws that are imposed upon the people, they break laws
Heisenberg

Alamogordo, NM

#8 Dec 16, 2012


Here ya go, this is how america needs to be.
excellent point

Albuquerque, NM

#9 Dec 16, 2012
The killer actually tried to buy his own weapons and was turned down. So what did he do...he stole his mothers gun to do this terrible act. He isnt a law abbiding citizen, he doesnt care if a law will state that he cant touch or shoot a weapon. He is gonna do that anyway because he doesnt care for the law. Well said Heisenberg.
Gorky

Albuquerque, NM

#10 Dec 17, 2012
The NRA hates freedom. They don't want you to have the freedom to send your children to school & expect them to come home alive.
Not A Problem

United States

#11 Dec 17, 2012
I cried when I heard of this trajedy. I also own guns and feel, more than ever, the need and ability to be able to protect my self and loved ones when they are threatened. This monster heard small children cry in pain and terror and kept on firing. My heart breaks just to hear a child crying when he falls down. This monster had no internal circuit breaker or conscience to place any kind of value on human life. This is not a case of gun control; he would have relished killing his victims with a machete or kitchen knife. He was trained by his mother to use weapons and he regualarly played first-person killer games - desensitized to feelings and personhood of anyone but himself. Now Congress is going to waste valuable time on a tangent to pass more laws. How many laws did he break in this disgusting crime?
Rat Killa

Wilmington, MA

#12 Dec 17, 2012
Gun violence did not appreciably decrease when we had an assault weapons ban, and it did not appreciably increase when the ban expired. So someone explain to me just how a new ban would limit these events. You've got hypocrites like Jamie Foxx saying that gun violence portrayed in movies is part of the problem, but I don't see him turning down these roles. Evil people will commit evil acts regardless of whether they have guns or not.
wind talker

Alamogordo, NM

#13 Dec 17, 2012
And the pendulum continues to swing. One day less gun laws the next more gun laws. The internet will be the ruin of us all. The earth cools and it heats. Life goes on.

Since: Oct 08

.

#14 Dec 17, 2012
wind talker wrote:
And the pendulum continues to swing. One day less gun laws the next more gun laws. The internet will be the ruin of us all. The earth cools and it heats. Life goes on.
but liberals only get dumber
wind talker

Alamogordo, NM

#15 Dec 17, 2012
Skuttlebutt wrote:
<quoted text>but liberals only get dumber
So, I assume your a liberal !

Since: Oct 08

.

#16 Dec 17, 2012
wind talker wrote:
<quoted text>
So, I assume your a liberal !
wind talker that is a good liberal name...talks and says nothing..just like a true libturd
Twisted news

Carrizozo, NM

#17 Dec 17, 2012
Even the news is reporting that the news overblows the rate of mass shootings like its on the rise.
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/mass...

Probably to take our eye off the "reporting".
wind talker

Alamogordo, NM

#18 Dec 17, 2012
Skuttlebutt wrote:
<quoted text>
wind talker that is a good liberal name...talks and says nothing..just like a true libturd
What could I possibly hope to say to someone who accesses their news from the scuttlebutt and uses an icon created be teens in the late 60's, early 70's to express themselves. Your a notorious gundecker who continually passes goldbricks. So, think what you want.
Ralph

Caledonia, OH

#19 Dec 18, 2012
I guess it would take a mass murderer using a knife to get stupid liberals to glean the truth. Obama killed far more children then this with Hell Fire missiles. Oh yeah, the spoon made me fat !!!!
Gorky

Albuquerque, NM

#21 Dec 18, 2012
Its down to the right to own a gun versus the right to grow up. Remember, only one percent of gun owners are members of a militia and protected by the constitution in their right to bare arms.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Alamogordo Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Grandpa says' (Jan '16) 3 hr Ralph 613
Quotes from famous people. 3 hr Ralph 23
Chump Joke of the Day 3 hr Ralph 287
President Trump Inherited A Mess 3 hr Ralph 15
President Trump had a great press conference ! 3 hr Ralph 20
The Nature of God . 3 hr Ralph 29
HIGH SCHOOL -- 1957 vs. 2014 3 hr Ralph 21

Alamogordo Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Alamogordo Mortgages