Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#110 Jan 14, 2013
seriously wrote:
Aww that's cute. A duet by two old asses, of the lamest song I've ever heard.... Gay.
lmao!

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#111 Jan 14, 2013
the real anonymouse wrote:
Seriously, Tom Waits would eat you raw, shit you out, and finally your life would have value as Tom Waits made fertilizer.
haha you keep showing your age old man I've never heard of the song or the artist.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#112 Jan 14, 2013
The Real Antimouse wrote:
<quoted text>
haha you keep showing your age old man I've never heard of the song or the artist.
I promise you you'd like at least one of his songs. All bickering aside, he's a talented guy. He's in the rock and roll hall of fame. He's got one of the most diverse catalogues out there, yet retains his own distinct style.

Big in Japan is not one of his better songs, IMO, but I could pass the reference.

You might find the album The Black Rider to your liking if guns are a hot topic with you.. it's about magic bullets made by the devil that never miss their mark.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#114 Jan 14, 2013
Zebulon Shaw wrote:
<quoted text>I promise you you'd like at least one of his songs. All bickering aside, he's a talented guy. He's in the rock and roll hall of fame. He's got one of the most diverse catalogues out there, yet retains his own distinct style.

Big in Japan is not one of his better songs, IMO, but I could pass the reference.

You might find the album The Black Rider to your liking if guns are a hot topic with you.. it's about magic bullets made by the devil that never miss their mark.
I'll have to check it out.
confused

Duluth, GA

#115 Jan 14, 2013
I just seen on CNN Obama wants to extend and improve back ground checks. Ok here are my questions is this the only thing he is trying to do? Why is he trying to do it without congress approval? If this is the only thing obama wants to do why does congress refuse to back him up? What are his gun control measures?
DrS

Peoria, AZ

#116 Jan 15, 2013
The problem with "banning all guns" and making I "illegal to own a gun" is that criminals, people with nothing to loose and/or people with malicious intent disregard laws. There are "no weapons" signs on bank doors but banks are still robbed. Robbing (and murder for that fact) is illegal but it still occurs. Banning guns only removes them from people WITHOUT bad intentions.
WakeUp

Hopkinsville, KY

#117 Jan 15, 2013
confused wrote:
I just seen on CNN Obama wants to extend and improve back ground checks. Ok here are my questions is this the only thing he is trying to do? Why is he trying to do it without congress approval? If this is the only thing obama wants to do why does congress refuse to back him up? What are his gun control measures?
Here is what you need to know -

Obama Opposed Gun Ban Exception to Defend One’s Home

As a state senator in Illinois, President Obama opposed legislation providing an exception to handgun restrictions if the weapon was used in the defense of one’s home.

Obama’s vote would have maintained the status quo, which made it a violation of municipal gun ban law to use a firearm to save your own life in your own home. But the bill was passed anyway without his support.

The vote is a sign of how committed Obama may be to strict gun control measures.

The Illinois vote is hardly ancient history, having occurred in 2004 as Obama was running for election to the U.S. Senate. In opposing the measure, Obama lined up well to the left of the mainstream, as the Illinois Senate included 32 Democrats to 26 Republicans but approved the bill by an overwhelming margin and subsequently overrode a veto by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Obama did not participate in the veto override, which occurred in November 2004, likely after Obama had resigned his state Senate seat in order to prepare for his new role in the U.S. Senate.

The Illinois legislation was passed after a man who shot a burglar in his home was fined $750 by his town for disobeying its handgun ban. The absurdity and injustice of the situation doesn’t seem to have made much of an impression on Obama.

Just eight years earlier, in 1996, Obama answered “Yes” to a survey question asking whether he would support state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” The Obama 2008 presidential campaign claimed the form had been filled out by an aide who mischaracterized Obama’s position, even though Obama’s handwriting was found on survey.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/01/11/o...
allansson

Voorhees, NJ

#118 Feb 13, 2013
medical stuff makes us live past 30..

and

I was kinda surprised actually didn't think that many white people was gonna be against a gun ban..

thought blacks would be since they are in gangs the most..

and nobody actually believes in a religion all churches are scams.. of course they need to be banned.. nobody actually believes in that stuff it counts as cheap entertainment
allansson

Voorhees, NJ

#119 Feb 13, 2013
I thought more criminals would be against a gun ban than people who aren't criminals..
allansson

Voorhees, NJ

#120 Feb 13, 2013
yea but if guns are banned it would be easier to target the people who are gonna rob because they won't have a gun and we can stop them from having a gun in the first place ..

and we won't have to determine how they are gonna use the gun..
allansson

Voorhees, NJ

#121 Feb 13, 2013
they won't even be allowed to be sold a gun..

and we all know where the gun shops actually are.. you know??
allansson

Voorhees, NJ

#122 Feb 13, 2013
no how is there any logic that says that banning guns doesn't stop criminals..

it does..

stop them..

because if you see a gun it's automatically a crime for it to be there.. so nobody has to GUESS.. how someone is going to USE a gun..

“Dewey Beats Truman!”

Since: Apr 12

Here

#123 Feb 13, 2013
Dude's talking to himself. I think the NRA's president even said he should not be allowed to buy a gun as a crazy person.
Infidel

Duluth, GA

#124 Feb 13, 2013
Data published earlier this year showed that while the ban was in place, from 1994 to 2004, the number of mass shootings actually rose slightly during that period.
Add to that the fact that most gun crimes in America are committed with handguns, and Columbine occurred right in the middle of it.
From 1985-1994, there were 173 mass shootings and 766 victims. From 1995-2004 (starting with 1995 because it was the first full year the law was in effect), there were 182 mass shootings and 830 victims.
Only a "tiny fraction" of crimes involve assault weapons no matter how it's measured. And a number of factors are at play, covering everything from policing to the state of the economy. According to the Justice Department, gun-related homicides overall have declined since they peaked in 1993. That decline is mostly attributed to a drop in murders involving handguns, which fell from nearly 14,000 in 1993 to close to 9,000 a decade later.
Both sides of this debate have pointed to several reasons why the assault-weapons ban was limited in its effectiveness. Aside from the fact that handguns are the most prevalent in violent crime, the assault-weapons ban included an array of exemptions.
To qualify as a semiautomatic assault weapon, a semiautomatic rifle had to have a detachable magazine and two or more of five specific features -- including a grenade launcher and a bayonet mount. Some gun makers simply modified their weapons to avoid qualifying under this definition.
A November report by the Congressional Research Service noted that opponents argued the banned guns "were potentially no more lethal than other semiautomatic firearms."
In addition, the law allowed people to keep semiautomatic weapons that they had before it took effect. The saturation of firearms in the country limited the impact of the ban. If the same law were passed today, that means more than 300 million firearms -- or one gun for every person in America -- would still be floating around.
Fat Boy

Hopkinsville, KY

#125 Feb 14, 2013
Infidel wrote:
Data published earlier this year showed that while the ban was in place, from 1994 to 2004, the number of mass shootings actually rose slightly during that period.
Add to that the fact that most gun crimes in America are committed with handguns, and Columbine occurred right in the middle of it.
From 1985-1994, there were 173 mass shootings and 766 victims. From 1995-2004 (starting with 1995 because it was the first full year the law was in effect), there were 182 mass shootings and 830 victims.
Only a "tiny fraction" of crimes involve assault weapons no matter how it's measured. And a number of factors are at play, covering everything from policing to the state of the economy. According to the Justice Department, gun-related homicides overall have declined since they peaked in 1993. That decline is mostly attributed to a drop in murders involving handguns, which fell from nearly 14,000 in 1993 to close to 9,000 a decade later.
Both sides of this debate have pointed to several reasons why the assault-weapons ban was limited in its effectiveness. Aside from the fact that handguns are the most prevalent in violent crime, the assault-weapons ban included an array of exemptions.
To qualify as a semiautomatic assault weapon, a semiautomatic rifle had to have a detachable magazine and two or more of five specific features -- including a grenade launcher and a bayonet mount. Some gun makers simply modified their weapons to avoid qualifying under this definition.
A November report by the Congressional Research Service noted that opponents argued the banned guns "were potentially no more lethal than other semiautomatic firearms."
In addition, the law allowed people to keep semiautomatic weapons that they had before it took effect. The saturation of firearms in the country limited the impact of the ban. If the same law were passed today, that means more than 300 million firearms -- or one gun for every person in America -- would still be floating around.
Exactly. I have a gun I had to remove the bayonet to make the Clintons happy. The bayonet is long gone. Wish the Clintons would go home. I'm amazed that people think that a gun ban would take care of the problem. Let's take a closer look at the people that cause harm to others. Not the type of gun used. A man uses a pistol to kill people so let's ban AR's ? That's nuts.
Infidel

Duluth, GA

#126 Feb 14, 2013
If guns kill people then forks make people fat. It's a government control issue. The majority of people in the United States who own "assault weapons" are law abiding citizens. Punishing those millions who abide by the law due to the criminal acts carried out by a very select few is absolute nonsense. Numbers don't lie and facts speak for themselves.
StupidLib

Hopkinsville, KY

#127 Feb 14, 2013
I think they should make crack and heroin illegal too, then the bad guys wont have drugs or guns!
Black Ceaser

United States

#128 Feb 15, 2013
the real anonymouse wrote:
Dude's talking to himself. I think the NRA's president even said he should not be allowed to buy a gun as a crazy person.
You spook go take your mammy to KFC and get yall some good ol chicken.

“Dewey Beats Truman!”

Since: Apr 12

Here

#129 Feb 16, 2013
Now I am black again? You guys need to get your official profile of me straight cause this grasping at straws only embarrasses you more and more. Even if you are going to be wrong, at least be consistently wrong!
dont like know it alls

Hopkinsville, KY

#130 Feb 17, 2013
the real anonymouse wrote:
Muskets and knives. See the thing is you accept that there are limits on what are legal "arms" to carry. I was being overkill earlier when I said I should be allowed to carry a sword in public, own a switch blade, or have biological or nuclear weapons, but all are "arms", right? Yet each one is illegal to own. There already was a ban on semi-automatic guns. It didn't stop anyone from owning other guns or protecting their home, did it?
The NRA just wants to scare people that gun control of the most dangerous weapons will lead to total gun control and that is just not realistic or ever going to happen. The real reason they don't want a ban on semi-autos is that they make money on them. They don't care about your freedom, they just want money.
Why are you in Washington ? You have got to be one of the biggest know nothing know it all i have ever seen. Arent you the idiot that defened Brady on Hoptown hall ? Get some facts please .......

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.

Hopkinsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
josh knight liz knights brother what u think ab... (Mar '11) 8 min Dan Nord 21
Hong Kong Garden 1 hr Mee 16
tori 2 hr Leaf beans 1
Ice cream truck 2 hr Just here 1
special prosecutor in jail case 5 hr Hillary 3
Where can I buy a confederate flag? 5 hr HeritageNotHate 32
Old men with younger chicks 6 hr Good Old Days 8
Which Churches around allow members to drink al... 7 hr SHAFT 8
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hopkinsville Mortgages