coldhands

United States

#21 Feb 13, 2013
I'm pretty sure "work" isnt part of the liberal agenda.

“I been hangin' on every word.”

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#22 Feb 13, 2013
coldhands wrote:
I'm pretty sure "work" isnt part of the liberal agenda.
Course it does. All work supports the Motherland.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#23 Feb 14, 2013
Sure, they WORK on shedding RESPONSIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, on to someone else and the WORK to ROB you and I of our CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS and STEAL WEALTH from BUSINESS OWNERS
Lib

Somerset, KY

#24 Feb 14, 2013
Dear Virg and voices in his head, I am beginning to think you have a 'personal issue' with background checks because you can't pass one.
http://www.google.com/url... (nics)%20has%20prevented%20nea rly%201.8&source=web&c d=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEYQF jAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.c sgv.org%2Fissues-and-campaigns %2Fgun-show-loophole&ei=HA AdUeDtKqWS2QXKxoCIAw&usg=A FQjCNEK-BxKcqL8gRDxksegEI17sLM zUA&bvm=bv.42452523,d.b2I
To date, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has prevented nearly 1.8 million criminals and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effect—prohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place.

Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.

Though commonly referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.

Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole.

SO....Virg, the 'universal backgound check laws' only work if enforced across the board as they were meant to be. Is it now your position that you are in favor of 'Nationally' enforcing the laws on the books?
If you are not a criminal it's obvious you can buy a gun whenever you please. If you are a criminal, or some kind of 'self appointed criminal advocate', then please feel free to consider your position 'noted'. I think your problem would be more with reporting 'mental instability'(& threats). Given your endless 'manifestos' on the Wet/Dry Vote, and now this.

Are you ever going to be able to bring yourself to discuss 'bullet control'?
Lib

Somerset, KY

#25 Feb 14, 2013
The Virg wrote:
Sure, they WORK on shedding RESPONSIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, on to someone else and the WORK to ROB you and I of our CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS and STEAL WEALTH from BUSINESS OWNERS
You don't work, should I worry about you robbing me? Aren't you the example Survivalist give as to why folks should own guns?
Lib

Somerset, KY

#26 Feb 14, 2013
The Virg wrote:
Did you actually read the article and view the corresponding video?? Yeah I didn't think so. The Video which was not of a local news broadcast but an NBC Nationwide Broadcast..
We already have FEDERAL BACKGROUND CHECKS Retard!! We have had them for many years now. Hundreds of thousands of transactions involving gun purchases are stopped every year not only in part to back ground checks but also to alert Gun Shop Owners who have the right to deny sale of any weapon to anyone if they suspect that there is a problem with the purchaser.
As Far as Chris Dorner goes, he is not only Military Trained, but Police Trained... The Supply of weapons he had was a result of his prior service. Absolutely nothing and no restrictions you libtards support would have stopped this individual from his rampage because you libtards would not have asked that local and federal government adhere to the same regulations you seek to put on people like me. So you can take your sick perverted attempt to use the death of more people and shove it straight up your well lubricated orfices. You Liberals truely have no damn shame, you use the death of kids, you use the death of COPS to try to shove your cowardice down other people's throats. I suggest a full extrication of your skull from your anal cavity because There is only ONE SINGLE Interpretation for the Second Amendment and it does not involve anything you support.
AHHHHHHHhhhhhhh, I'm telling....you called me a 'retard' & there are some people on this very thread that find that VERY offensive! Where are they?
Lib

Somerset, KY

#27 Feb 14, 2013
The Virg wrote:
Did you actually read the article and view the corresponding video?? Yeah I didn't think so. The Video which was not of a local news broadcast but an NBC Nationwide Broadcast..
We already have FEDERAL BACKGROUND CHECKS Retard!! We have had them for many years now. Hundreds of thousands of transactions involving gun purchases are stopped every year not only in part to back ground checks but also to alert Gun Shop Owners who have the right to deny sale of any weapon to anyone if they suspect that there is a problem with the purchaser.
As Far as Chris Dorner goes, he is not only Military Trained, but Police Trained... The Supply of weapons he had was a result of his prior service. Absolutely nothing and no restrictions you libtards support would have stopped this individual from his rampage because you libtards would not have asked that local and federal government adhere to the same regulations you seek to put on people like me. So you can take your sick perverted attempt to use the death of more people and shove it straight up your well lubricated orfices. You Liberals truely have no damn shame, you use the death of kids, you use the death of COPS to try to shove your cowardice down other people's throats. I suggest a full extrication of your skull from your anal cavity because There is only ONE SINGLE Interpretation for the Second Amendment and it does not involve anything you support.
yes Virg, I watched the video and read 'ALL' of the article, I have to admit, I'm a 'reader'.

What a lively imagination you have, and to think you waste all that frustration on me & CV&T, & when we don't even pay you. Maybe you should parlay some of that pent up energy into a job..?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#28 Feb 14, 2013
Lib wrote:
<quoted text>
yes Virg, I watched the video and read 'ALL' of the article, I have to admit, I'm a 'reader'.
What a lively imagination you have, and to think you waste all that frustration on me & CV&T, & when we don't even pay you. Maybe you should parlay some of that pent up energy into a job..?
Tell your master King Obama to stop F'ing up the economy and perhaps I could get a job.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#29 Feb 14, 2013
Lib wrote:
<quoted text>
AHHHHHHHhhhhhhh, I'm telling....you called me a 'retard' & there are some people on this very thread that find that VERY offensive! Where are they?
Would you like a passifier with that whine of yours?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#30 Feb 14, 2013
Lib wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't work, should I worry about you robbing me? Aren't you the example Survivalist give as to why folks should own guns?
No you don't have to worry about me robbing you, you don't have anything worth going to jail over, much less me wasting a bullet to get it.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31 Feb 14, 2013
Lib wrote:
Dear Virg and voices in his head, I am beginning to think you have a 'personal issue' with background checks because you can't pass one.
http://www.google.com/url... (nics)%20has%20prevented%20nea rly%201.8&source=web&c d=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEYQF jAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.c sgv.org%2Fissues-and-campaigns %2Fgun-show-loophole&ei=HA AdUeDtKqWS2QXKxoCIAw&usg=A FQjCNEK-BxKcqL8gRDxksegEI17sLM zUA&bvm=bv.42452523,d.b2I
To date, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has prevented nearly 1.8 million criminals and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effect—prohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place.
Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.
Though commonly referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.
Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole.
SO....Virg, the 'universal backgound check laws' only work if enforced across the board as they were meant to be. Is it now your position that you are in favor of 'Nationally' enforcing the laws on the books?
If you are not a criminal it's obvious you can buy a gun whenever you please. If you are a criminal, or some kind of 'self appointed criminal advocate', then please feel free to consider your position 'noted'. I think your problem would be more with reporting 'mental instability'(& threats). Given your endless 'manifestos' on the Wet/Dry Vote, and now this.
Are you ever going to be able to bring yourself to discuss 'bullet control'?
Of Course I can pass a background check.. I bought my gun in November of 2011. I have no criminal history, no arrests, etc. I am not afraid of your pathetic universal background checks!! What a moron.. You still fail to explain how that will stop a criminal from buying from a trunk of a car!! There is no discussing bullet control because its a farce of a concept.. You lost the gun control debate so renaming it bullet control will not get you anywhere else other being further looked at as a complete nut case wrapped up in an oxymoron. Best thing for you to do is peel your head out of King Obama's rear end and stop calling him your master.
Lib

London, KY

#32 Feb 15, 2013
Oh Virg, another excuse not to work, really? Stop giving up hope and blaming your lot in life on everybody else. No body is responsible for your problems, not even your parents. Let me guess....it's your mother's fault you are such an angry man.

Now, I've spent way more time than I ever wanted to on your 'gun control' baby talk, and am ready to move on to...Bullet Control & Background Checks. In other words enforcing the laws that are already on the books for Background Checks in 'every' state, and paring down large magazines to 10 bullets. I figure 10 bullets gives a 1 in 10 chance to hit anything that breaths, & not really an issue in target practice.

PS: you've already agreed and gotten over the shock that buyers like yourself,'are' subjected to 'background cks'. So? Get rid of the loopholes that only favor criminals who want to buy guns.

Armor piercing bullets should only be sold to the Armed Forces, not to Cop Killers. Law Enforcement are the only ones 'issued' Bullet Proof Vests for daily wear. Armor Piercing Bullets are 'over kill'. What's next, grenades? Do grenades fall under the 2nd Amendment, which was defined by the 2008 Supreme Court's ruling on Heller.

Justice Scalia rules on the 2nd Amendment:'The District of Columbia V Heller'

Scalia authored a 5-4 ruling that struck down D.C.’s law banning handguns and as well as its requirement that owners purchase and use a gun lock and keep their guns unloaded. He took on a liberal shibboleth that the Second Amendment only applies to well-regulated militias and not to individuals. No, he said, the constitutional protection applies to individuals, too.

Scalia will never be a hero to liberals, of course. But his emphasis on originalism and textualism seems to coincide with liberal interests on guns precisely because there were restrictions on guns during the colonial era; his reading of the original intent of the law was that it allowed an average person to have a typical firearm. Indeed, back in July, when he was promoting a new book, Scalia told Fox News that the Second Amendment “undoubtedly” permits some restrictions on firearms.

Look at the syllabus of the Court’s brief that he wrote:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Heller may allow all of the Obama proposals to be upheld, but one never knows. Still, even as he led the Court to strike down D.C.’s handgun ban, Scalia issued an opinion rich with clues for how he might rule. The opinion talks a lot about weapons that are widely held. When he heard arguments for the case, Scalia said,“I don’t know that a lot of people have machine guns or armor piercing bullets.” He notes “dangerous and unusual weapons.” If gun advocates can make the case that a badass Bushmaster is a commonly held weapon, they might get some traction with Scalia, but if high-powered, semiautomatic weapons with large magazines are considered a subculture, it’s hard to see Scalia voting to strike down those laws.(He’s already made it clear that the Constitution’s phrase “bear arms” means something that you can carry, so tanks and planes are out, in case you were worried.)

It's really a good read but quite lengthy Virg, but if you have some time on your hands.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#35 Feb 15, 2013
Maybe you can actually come up with something original to say. All you seem to be able to do is repeat liberal propaganda and quote something someone else has already said. Would you really want to be limited to 10 rounds per magazine if you are attacked by more than one person? You move on from gun control because you lost... You can revamp your argument as bullet control, as violence control, as military cosmetic weapons control, as trigger control,etc... You will lose every time. Get over it. Just admit that you only want the police and government to be armed to the teeth so that they can be used to force people like me into giving up more and more rights and if I were working it would be used to force me to give up more and more of my money. If you were intellectually and politically honest with yourself and the rest of us you would come clean but You won't. Your loyalty to the Federal Government is every bit as treasonist as King Obama is himself. You come much closer to being a terrorist against the US Constitution than I would ever become.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#36 Feb 15, 2013
Further more, You can't even begin to argue Bullet control when you know nothing about bullets.. Your focus is still on the popular rifle AR-15 that shoots the 223 rounds which are relatively weak in power compared to other rounds such as the 30-06 round. But all you can seem to talk about is AR-15's and their commonly equipped 30 round magazines.
Lib

London, KY

#37 Feb 16, 2013
No Virg, I haven't lost the argument....there is no argument only a Supreme Court ruling which is now an Amendment to the Constitution interpreting the 2nd Amendment. So my argument happens to be the 'law of the land', yours however is a 'wish list for the paranoid & afraid.

If a 'band' of bad guys breaks into your house & you cannot pick them off while in such a small area with doorways while using a 10 bullet magazine, then your problem is not with the amount of bullets in your gun, it is the fact that you couldn't hit the broad side of the barn while spraying bullets side to side with a gun capable of shooting 45 bullets (or more) a minute. Maybe you should take a clue from Lanza & tape your magazines end to end for quicker loading. Your argument is intellectually bankrupt.

You need to realize that your sources, such as La Pierre are businessmen selling products to the fearful. LaPierre NRA salary of $970,000 a year not counting outside sources such as speeches, bonuses, & manufacturer kickback. I'm going to try to post the link to their 2010 tax return. If you're looking for a job, this one seems EXtremely lucrative. http://archive.org/details/NationalRifleAssoc...
He's no fool and knows that after this, he'll be put out to pasture. It seems he's agreed to be their 'sacrificial lamb'. Actually, he happens to not even be in the top position at the NRA, but you don't see 'his' boss fighting this battle, do you? You're being led around by the nose by people who only want to frighten you enough to buy their product. I'm amazed you haven't caught onto this farce, since it comes up EVERY election.."the democrats are going to take your guns away". Forbes does GREAT reporting on Fortune 500s & such.

http://www.google.com/url...
As for salaries, fifty-six people in the organization earned more than $100,000 in 2010—and 10 made more than $250,000. Lapierre does not top the list. Kayne B. Robinson, the executive director of general operations does. He was paid just over $1 million. Lapierre was second, pulling in $970,000 in reportable and estimated comp.
Chris W. Cox, the executive director of the group’s lobbying efforts, was third. He earned just over $666,000.

Here's the latest 'NATIONWIDE' Gallup Poll
Gallup Poll. Jan. 19-20, 2013. N=1,013 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.

Suppose that on Election Day you could vote on key issues as well as candidates. Would you vote for or against a law that would [see below]?"

Vote for Vote against Unsure
%%%

"Require criminal background checks for all gun sales"
1/19-20/13
91 8 2

"Increase government spending for mental health programs for young people"
1/19-20/13
82 15 3

"Increase government spending for training police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks"
1/19-20/13
79 19 2

"Increase criminal penalties for people who pass the required background check but who buy a gun for someone who has not passed a background check"
1/19-20/13
75 23 2
"Ban the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement"
1/19-20/13
77 20 3

"Reinstate and strengthen the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004"
1/19-20/13
70 25 5

"Limit the sale of ammunition magazines to those with 10 rounds or less"
1/19-20/13
84 13 3

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#40 Feb 16, 2013
Lib wrote:
No Virg, I haven't lost the argument....there is no argument only a Supreme Court ruling which is now an Amendment to the Constitution interpreting the 2nd Amendment. So my argument happens to be the 'law of the land', yours however is a 'wish list for the paranoid & afraid.
If a 'band' of bad guys breaks into your house & you cannot pick them off while in such a small area with doorways while using a 10 bullet magazine, then your problem is not with the amount of bullets in your gun, it is the fact that you couldn't hit the broad side of the barn while spraying bullets side to side with a gun capable of shooting 45 bullets (or more) a minute. Maybe you should take a clue from Lanza & tape your magazines end to end for quicker loading. Your argument is intellectually bankrupt.
You need to realize that your sources, such as La Pierre are businessmen selling products to the fearful. LaPierre NRA salary of $970,000 a year not counting outside sources such as speeches, bonuses, & manufacturer kickback. I'm going to try to post the link to their 2010 tax return. If you're looking for a job, this one seems EXtremely lucrative. http://archive.org/details/NationalRifleAssoc...
He's no fool and knows that after this, he'll be put out to pasture. It seems he's agreed to be their 'sacrificial lamb'. Actually, he happens to not even be in the top position at the NRA, but you don't see 'his' boss fighting this battle, do you? You're being led around by the nose by people who only want to frighten you enough to buy their product. I'm amazed you haven't caught onto this farce, since it comes up EVERY election.."the democrats are going to take your guns away". Forbes does GREAT reporting on Fortune 500s & such.
http://www.google.com/url...
As for salaries, fifty-six people in the organization earned more than $100,000 in 2010—and 10 made more than $250,000. Lapierre does not top the list. Kayne B. Robinson, the executive director of general operations does. He was paid just over $1 million. Lapierre was second, pulling in $970,000 in reportable and estimated comp.
Chris W. Cox, the executive director of the group’s lobbying efforts, was third. He earned just over $666,000.
Here's the latest 'NATIONWIDE' Gallup Poll
Gallup Poll. Jan. 19-20, 2013. N=1,013 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.
Suppose that on Election Day you could vote on key issues as well as candidates. Would you vote for or against a law that would [see below]?"
Vote for Vote against Unsure
%%%
"Require criminal background checks for all gun sales"
1/19-20/13
91 8 2
"Increase government spending for mental health programs for young people"
1/19-20/13
82 15 3
"Increase government spending for training police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks"
1/19-20/13
79 19 2
"Increase criminal penalties for people who pass the required background check but who buy a gun for someone who has not passed a background check"
1/19-20/13
75 23 2
"Ban the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement"
1/19-20/13
77 20 3
"Reinstate and strengthen the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004"
1/19-20/13
70 25 5
"Limit the sale of ammunition magazines to those with 10 rounds or less"
1/19-20/13
84 13 3
Yeah sorry but the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Law of the Land.. Only the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Besides the SCOTUS doesn't have a good track record of adhereing to the supreme law of the land.. over 55 million unborn babies slaughtered in the last 40 years would very much agree with me.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#41 Feb 16, 2013
I think its sad that you Lib would advocate for the futher slaughter of more kids and teachers by not allowing teachers the choice to exercise their second amendment rights.

I think its sad that you Lib would limit the amount of rounds that could by shot by a woman who is about to get sexually violated.

I think its sad that you Lib would advocate that Law Enforcement and the Military be able to be more powerfully armed than the rest of the people in this country whose tax money pays for their salaries.

I think its sad that you Lib would support more and more limits on law biding people while always failing to address those who have no trouble arming themselves illegally.

I think is quite unacceptable that you would further exploit the deaths of kids that policies you support allowed for to attempt to further weaken the ability of the people to defend themselves should their government eventually decide to completely attempt to disarm them.
Lib

London, KY

#42 Feb 17, 2013
The Virg wrote:
I think its sad that you Lib would advocate for the futher slaughter of more kids and teachers by not allowing teachers the choice to exercise their second amendment rights.
I think its sad that you Lib would limit the amount of rounds that could by shot by a woman who is about to get sexually violated.
I think its sad that you Lib would advocate that Law Enforcement and the Military be able to be more powerfully armed than the rest of the people in this country whose tax money pays for their salaries.
I think its sad that you Lib would support more and more limits on law biding people while always failing to address those who have no trouble arming themselves illegally.
I think is quite unacceptable that you would further exploit the deaths of kids that policies you support allowed for to attempt to further weaken the ability of the people to defend themselves should their government eventually decide to completely attempt to disarm them.
I think it's sad Virg, that you're nuts. Maybe a 'mental check' would be a more attainable goal than a job. There's 'no' employer that will keep someone who refuses to learn.

I sent some of my friends to read these posts and they are in agreement that you probably didn't quite pass even early Social Studies, and are probably a good candidate for GED classes, though you have to want to learn, not just be there... Our library probably has some old 'School House Rock' episodes to help you understand how a 'Bill' becomes a 'Bill' coupled with the added bonus of catchy little tunes. My kids picked up on that kind of knowledge at a very early age.

If you believe your rights are so infringed upon in this country, another one would not be for you. The fact is you have rights, but only until they infringe on mine... or you threaten to put me in danger, then you get to go to jail.

The way you've tried to bully the local churches with your constant battering is nothing short of shameful, and.... you're using the same tyrannical rant on anyone who disagrees with you on 'gun laws'. Too bad..you can't bully me, and I'm thinking the reason you pick out 'liberals' as 'All that's wrong with your world' is obvious, they weigh 'all' sides of an argument. But, you're too shallow or self centered to figure out that most Americans are liberal in their thinking, because we all have our own notion of what's right. You need to think a little deeper... there are Democrats & there are Republicans, & each party has a different philosophy, but all believe in 'cks and balances', in our country, in defending our country even to the death young and old, and all believe in abiding by the 'law of the land' & that the 'majority rules'.

The 'tea party' started out as a complimentary part of the republican party, but then got hijacked by the likes of people like you, who are lawless. The ones left are the ones who want 'no' government, and the rest of us are left to wonder 'what planet they're on'.

I am not depending on you to protect my country Virg. I figure if you actually wanted to do that, you would have joined our Armed Forces to fight for our freedom, instead of waiting for the chance it will show up at your door. & No, I don't want hotheads like yourself armed to the teeth with the same weapons it will take, to take you down'. We've had lots of examples of 'renegades' lately, like Dorner the 'cop killer', or 'survivalist' like the old man who grabbed that little boy off the school bus & held him hostage for a week, or even Lantz the 'gun enthusiast' who slaughtered innocent children & the real life heroes like the teachers who tried to protect them, to know someone whose as unbalanced as yourself is the perfect example as to why we need to protect ourselves.

No 'one' is impressed with your skills for survival. You're just another hothead, waiting to snap and I've kept this going because like with the wet/dry vote, the longer you ramble, you make my point better than I ever could.
Indy

London, KY

#43 Feb 17, 2013
Dear Virgil,
You are an idiot. If more guns reduced crime and violence, America would be the safest, most crime free nation in the world. It is not. It is the most dangerous, crime-ridden nation in the world.
You are also a paranoid mental midget if you think your personal arsenal is protecting you from the federal government. Have I got a drone for you! What a moron.
take a trip

Barnesville, OH

#44 Feb 17, 2013
Indy wrote:
Dear Virgil,
You are an idiot. If more guns reduced crime and violence, America would be the safest, most crime free nation in the world. It is not. It is the most dangerous, crime-ridden nation in the world.
You are also a paranoid mental midget if you think your personal arsenal is protecting you from the federal government. Have I got a drone for you! What a moron.
The only parts of the land mass known as "America" that are the most dangerous and crime-ridden are south of the USA borders, and we (the USA) are not part of any of those nations. If you separate USA and Canada from the rest of "America", and are speaking of Central and/or South America, you might be closer to being correct. But if you are speaking of the good old USA, or North America in general, when you say "America", then you're just plain wrong. Go back to elementary school and re-learn geography.

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.

Irvine Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Dollar General next to Advance Auto 3 min Punk 29
drug bust 32 min Ratty 50
Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 1 hr Yes and Amen 131,391
Nick parsons 2 hr Good luck 11
Justin Wolfinbarger 5 hr Who knows 4
Open letter to the Irvine City Council 11 hr sugarsweet 7
Edmund Chaney 12 hr Rough 8
Irvine Dating
Find my Match

Irvine Jobs

Irvine People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Irvine News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Irvine

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]