NRA blames everybody but themselves
The Stinker

Hickory, KY

#163 Dec 30, 2012
Proud liberal wrote:
<quoted text>A gun meant for war, not hunting or protection!
I put this question to you again:

Would you agree that guns meant for war are fully automatic firearms?
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#164 Dec 30, 2012
Proud liberal wrote:
<quoted text>What is your personal definition of assault?
What are you, stoopid? The man's already told you:

"My definition of assault would be the same as any dictionary's"

What more do you need?
Proud liberal

Richmond, KY

#165 Dec 30, 2012
The Stinker wrote:
<quoted text>
I put this question to you again:
Would you agree that guns meant for war are fully automatic firearms?
Automatic and fully automatic assault guns are meant for war and nothing else!
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#166 Dec 30, 2012
Proud liberal eedjit wrote:
<quoted text>Automatic and fully automatic assault guns are meant for war and nothing else!
Please explain the difference you see between "automatic and fully automatic" firearms.

Posession already severly restricted under federal law since 1934, in any case. Educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearm...

Proud liberal

Richmond, KY

#167 Dec 30, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain the difference you see between "automatic and fully automatic" firearms.
Posession already severly restricted under federal law since 1934, in any case. Educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearm...
The public does not want to ban automatic and fully automatic guns, they want to ban automatic and fully automatic "ASSAULT" guns!
The only choice

Elmwood Park, NJ

#168 Dec 30, 2012
yowza massa Soros wrote:
<quoted text>
Lock psychos up! Even if they are a major DNC support group.
They're Romney supporters and members of the RNC:

Retards
Nuts
Crazies
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#169 Dec 30, 2012
Proud liberal eedjit wrote:
<quoted text>The public does not want to ban automatic and fully automatic guns, they want to ban automatic and fully automatic "ASSAULT" guns!
Since you have dodged the question, I repeat: Please explain the difference you see between "automatic and fully automatic" firearms.

Your latest extrusion compels me to add a second query - please explain the difference you see between "guns" and "ASSAULT" guns. Define what you mean by "ASSAULT gun." This is not merely a rhetorical question - if you can't intelligently define what you wish to restrict, you certainly cannot write a law or regulation that restricts them.

I am close to concluding you simply don't know WTF you're talking about, and are just posting nonsense - but I give you the benefit of the doubt. Last chance show us you're a serious and informed person, and not just another progressive controlling idiot.

Again - possession of both "automatic and fully automatic" (since there IS no difference) is already severly restricted under federal law, in any case. You already got your wish back in 1934. Educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearm ...

Now, the regulation, registration, and control of the mentally unstable or deranged in whose hands a firearm, edged tool, automobile, or other piece of machinery presents a major public safety risk, not to mention the mental health profession that keeps these potential killers secret for LE authorities, is another matter. You and your progressive liberal friends have yet to muster up the intellectual courage to address this. Why is that?

Since: Dec 12

Freeland, PA

#170 Dec 30, 2012
I blame the NRA all the deaths buy automatic wepons. Those deaths are on there hans.
When our forefathers created the second amendment there guns fired one bullet. A "One Bullet Law" would bring back there original vision, protect our rights and save lives. A simple solution. If you agree, You can help. sign this petition to the White House http://wh.gov/n4JF
We can not expect such a law to pass but it will remind the lawmakers how things went so wrong.
Proud liberal

Richmond, KY

#171 Dec 30, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you have dodged the question, I repeat: Please explain the difference you see between "automatic and fully automatic" firearms.
Your latest extrusion compels me to add a second query - please explain the difference you see between "guns" and "ASSAULT" guns. Define what you mean by "ASSAULT gun." This is not merely a rhetorical question - if you can't intelligently define what you wish to restrict, you certainly cannot write a law or regulation that restricts them.
I am close to concluding you simply don't know WTF you're talking about, and are just posting nonsense - but I give you the benefit of the doubt. Last chance show us you're a serious and informed person, and not just another progressive controlling idiot.
Again - possession of both "automatic and fully automatic" (since there IS no difference) is already severly restricted under federal law, in any case. You already got your wish back in 1934. Educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearm ...
Now, the regulation, registration, and control of the mentally unstable or deranged in whose hands a firearm, edged tool, automobile, or other piece of machinery presents a major public safety risk, not to mention the mental health profession that keeps these potential killers secret for LE authorities, is another matter. You and your progressive liberal friends have yet to muster up the intellectual courage to address this. Why is that?
I already answered that question, assault guns are meant for war and nothing else!
Proud liberal

Richmond, KY

#172 Dec 30, 2012
onlyonebullet wrote:
I blame the NRA all the deaths buy automatic wepons. Those deaths are on there hans.
When our forefathers created the second amendment there guns fired one bullet. A "One Bullet Law" would bring back there original vision, protect our rights and save lives. A simple solution. If you agree, You can help. sign this petition to the White House http://wh.gov/n4JF
We can not expect such a law to pass but it will remind the lawmakers how things went so wrong.
That law would save a lot of lives!
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#173 Dec 30, 2012
onlyonebullet wrote:
I blame the NRA all the deaths buy automatic wepons. Those deaths are on there hans.
When our forefathers created the second amendment there guns fired one bullet. A "One Bullet Law" would bring back there original vision, protect our rights and save lives. A simple solution. If you agree, You can help. sign this petition to the White House http://wh.gov/n4JF
We can not expect such a law to pass but it will remind the lawmakers how things went so wrong.
No, we cannot expect such a law to pass because it is patently absurd.

The only thing our lawmakers need reminding of is that when our forefathers created the second amendment, they were intentionally writing into the Constitution the individual right of every American to keep and bear the standard MILITARY INFANTRY ARMS of the day.

Nothing has changed in this regard.

Teddy R

Reston, VA

#174 Dec 30, 2012
Proud liberal wrote:
<quoted text>That law would save a lot of lives!
Rank nonsense.
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#175 Dec 30, 2012
Proud liberal wrote:
<quoted text>I already answered that question, assault guns are meant for war and nothing else!
You answered nothing. Three strikes - you're out.

So I'll answer for you.

First - you talk of "automatic and fully automatic" firearms. There is no difference - ergo you clearly don't know WTF you're talking about, and your opinions on the subject can and should be dismissed from any serious consideration.

Second - you have no clear idea of what constitutes an "ASSAULT gun" that you would have lawmakers ban. Therefore, since you can't intelligently define what you wish to restrict, your opinions on the subject are worthless, and should be dismissed from any serious consideration.

Third - and to repeat - possession of what you seem to regard as an "assault gun" is ALREADY severly restricted under federal law. What more do you want? Since you seem to take great pride in maintaining and displaying your complete ignorance on the subject, I don't know why I bother - but here is an easy link to educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearm ...

Fourth - you have confirmed you lack the intellectual courage to address the real and present threat of mass murderers - the regulation, registration, and control of the mentally unstable or deranged in whose hands a firearm, edged tool, automobile, or other piece of machinery presents a major public safety risk. Nor have you demonstrated the courage to step up to holding the mental health profession that keeps these potential killers secret from LE authorities so they will be adequately watched and denied the instruments of committing mass carnage.

In summary - you have conclusively demonstrated you simply don't know WTF you're talking about, you are not a serious and informed person, and instead you are just another progressive Statist control-freak whose views have no place in a free society.

Dismissed.
Proud liberal

Richmond, KY

#176 Dec 30, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Rank nonsense.
Imagine how many of those children at Sandy Hood would still be alive if that law was in effect!
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#177 Dec 30, 2012
Proud liberal wrote:
<quoted text>Imagine how many of those children at Sandy Hood would still be alive if that law was in effect!
Sure - and if pigs had wings, they'd be pigeons. Equally ridiculous post. In the real world, where most of us live, that completely absurd law would have made no difference whatsoever.

Insane evil criminal lunatics don't live in your little progressive pretend-world. They don't pay any attention to rules and laws - by definition.

The Sandy Hook shooter broke dozens of existing gun laws before he even stepped into that school.

You think he consulted fed, state and local gun laws before setting out on his murderous mission? Do you think one more goo-goo gun law would have troubled him in the least?

If you do, you're as delusional as he was.
Proud liberal

Richmond, KY

#178 Dec 30, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure - and if pigs had wings, they'd be pigeons. Equally ridiculous post. In the real world, where most of us live, that completely absurd law would have made no difference whatsoever.
Insane evil criminal lunatics don't live in your little progressive pretend-world. They don't pay any attention to rules and laws - by definition.
The Sandy Hook shooter broke dozens of existing gun laws before he even stepped into that school.
You think he consulted fed, state and local gun laws before setting out on his murderous mission? Do you think one more goo-goo gun law would have troubled him in the least?
If you do, you're as delusional as he was.
Of course the crime would have taking place anyway but the point is that if he was using anything but an assault rifle the body count would have been much smaller!
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#179 Dec 30, 2012
Proud liberal wrote:
<quoted text>Of course the crime would have taking place anyway but the point is that if he was using anything but an assault rifle the body count would have been much smaller!
a) Please cite your authoritative reference source for exactly what weapons were actually used in the Sandy Hook shooting - I have read conflicting reports, and I was not aware that LE had issued confirmed info on that. Some reports stated the shooter left an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle in his car, and entered the school with two handguns.

b) An "assault rifle" was not used at Sandy Hook in any event. The AR-15 is not an "assault rifle," it is not a standard-issue weapon in any military in the world.

c) There is no basis whatsover for your ludicrous claim that "the body count would have been much smaller" if the shooter had only the Glock and Sig Sauer pistols he entered the school with. Both these pistols have magazines with a standard capacity of 15 rounds, and can be reloaded in 1.5 seconds by a practiced shooter.

d) You continue to intentionally ignore the obvious truth that the Sandy Hook shooter, who had broken dozens of existing gun laws before he even entered the school building would have paid any attention to the additional gun laws you are fantasizing over.
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#180 Dec 30, 2012
*whatsoever
Proud liberal

Richmond, KY

#181 Dec 30, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
a) Please cite your authoritative reference source for exactly what weapons were actually used in the Sandy Hook shooting - I have read conflicting reports, and I was not aware that LE had issued confirmed info on that. Some reports stated the shooter left an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle in his car, and entered the school with two handguns.
b) An "assault rifle" was not used at Sandy Hook in any event. The AR-15 is not an "assault rifle," it is not a standard-issue weapon in any military in the world.
c) There is no basis whatsover for your ludicrous claim that "the body count would have been much smaller" if the shooter had only the Glock and Sig Sauer pistols he entered the school with. Both these pistols have magazines with a standard capacity of 15 rounds, and can be reloaded in 1.5 seconds by a practiced shooter.
d) You continue to intentionally ignore the obvious truth that the Sandy Hook shooter, who had broken dozens of existing gun laws before he even entered the school building would have paid any attention to the additional gun laws you are fantasizing over.
The shooter used an assault rifle with an extended clip. It was the pistols he left in the car!
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#182 Dec 30, 2012
Proud liberal wrote:
<quoted text>The shooter used an assault rifle with an extended clip. It was the pistols he left in the car!
Link your original source for this claim, please.

I have various press reports quoting LE that a Glock, a Sig Sauer, and an AR-15 were found next to his body, and he left a shotgun at his car.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Clinton Corners Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 18 min Criminal X 326,544
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 1 hr TMAN_Mets 46,184
Women celebrate Trump's one year anniversary 6 hr Close the open bo... 3
Add a word, Drop a word (Dec '09) 8 hr Whiny1 19,173
President Trump's first 100 days - Roadmap to D... (Nov '16) 8 hr Bloody Bill Anderson 6,205
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 11 hr Princess Hey 17,982
jets talk back (Dec '07) 11 hr jimi-yank 15,491

Clinton Corners Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Clinton Corners Mortgages