ban all semi and fully auto rifles
common sense

Brodhead, KY

#258 Feb 10, 2013
Tits McGee wrote:
<quoted text>
What a stupid rational. Drunks don't get behind the wheel and try to kill. Yes, years ago a drunk drove down the wrong side of I 71 between Louisville and Cincinatti and killed a group of kids who were going to Kings Island. I hope that he rots in jail, but he did not leave the bar with the idea of killing a bus load of kids. The nut that shot the 26 teachers and kids in Sandy Hook did just that. Same results, different intention. As you have pointed out, vhhicular homicide is punished by a prison term. My argument is that gun homicide should be also punished by certain prison and that every gun owner must register his guns, thereby making him responsible for his weapons. Then there age military style assualt weapons and the amo that goes with them. Ban them.
You just babble on like a senseless idiot dont you. So if a person kills a large number of people but it was not intentional we should not be concerned. wow

And once again you believe that if someone steals a gun that I own and commits a crime I should be held responsible. I asked you once but you never answered. If I steal your car and kill someone with it should you be held responsible.
big dog

Winchester, KY

#259 Feb 10, 2013
dowhat wrote:
<quoted text>Are you registered to vote? If so, you did have to give your social security number didn't you? If you aren't registered then you can't vote. Do you feel that illegals voting is a major problem? Can you give examples of a president getting the most votes but still losing because of the electoral college? You don't sound very educated. Maybe Ted will crap in his pants again to avoid going to Vietnam. Talk about a pussy!
First off George Bush won in 2000 because of electoral votes . He didn't receive the popular vote though ! Second off tons of people don't vote because of electoral votes ! They believe their votes don't count ! Second thing is no I didn't have to give my social when voting ! I just walked up told them my name and I signed my signature ! Third I was talking about giving over the country to the people ! You went off in a complete different direction than what I was talking about which is normally what happens when pussies give their opinion ! Fourth I bet ya old Ted would survive a lot longer than you if the country goes to $hit ! Fifth I am very educated but I have seen the light ! I'm tired of yuppie ass pussies and babies wining about everything ! Shut up and leave us the hell alone !!! I kinda hope one day the country goes to shit so we can restore the balance !!! Strong make it and the pussies don't !!!! Lets see how these educated people survive when they have to hunt for their food and defend themselves !!!! LMFAO !
dowhat

Sweden

#260 Feb 10, 2013
common sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I think there are illegals that vote in our elections.
Why do you think this?
Tits McGee

Harrodsburg, KY

#261 Feb 10, 2013
common sense wrote:
<quoted text>
You just babble on like a senseless idiot dont you. So if a person kills a large number of people but it was not intentional we should not be concerned. wow
And once again you believe that if someone steals a gun that I own and commits a crime I should be held responsible. I asked you once but you never answered. If I steal your car and kill someone with it should you be held responsible.
It is hard to debate an idiot. No, I am concerned when any one dies. It is just this, dim wit: You own a car, you register it. You drive drunk, you can be charged with murder. Assuming that we will have to register our guns: if it is stolen REPORT IT, just as you would report a stolen car. You own a gun and you don't secure and your son uses it to kill. Blame you? You darn right.! Too many gun nuts don't want to take responsibility for their guns. You appear to be one of them.
Tits McGee

Harrodsburg, KY

#262 Feb 10, 2013
dowhat wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think this?
When we vote in a small community like Mercer County the election officers know most of us and voter fraud is not likely. In larger communities it should be required that a voter ID be presented. The Democrats fight against that. Yes, in large communities it is possible for a person, including illegals, to go from voting areas to voting areas and cast an illegal vote.
Tits McGee

Harrodsburg, KY

#263 Feb 10, 2013
big dog wrote:
<quoted text>
First off George Bush won in 2000 because of electoral votes . He didn't receive the popular vote though ! Second off tons of people don't vote because of electoral votes ! They believe their votes don't count ! Second thing is no I didn't have to give my social when voting ! I just walked up told them my name and I signed my signature ! Third I was talking about giving over the country to the people ! You went off in a complete different direction than what I was talking about which is normally what happens when pussies give their opinion ! Fourth I bet ya old Ted would survive a lot longer than you if the country goes to $hit ! Fifth I am very educated but I have seen the light ! I'm tired of yuppie ass pussies and babies wining about everything ! Shut up and leave us the hell alone !!! I kinda hope one day the country goes to shit so we can restore the balance !!! Strong make it and the pussies don't !!!! Lets see how these educated people survive when they have to hunt for their food and defend themselves !!!! LMFAO !
You keep claiming that the day is comming when we will all become savages and have to scrounge for our food and devend ourself against all of the other savages. Nonsense. If that is your excuse for loving assualt rifles, then you are in need of a mental health professional. You pretend to be the backbone of the country, even hoping that the country goes to hell so so called balance can be restored. Balance?
marty

United States

#264 Feb 11, 2013
Oh well the debate goes on,only a handful who support their right to own mass killing firearms. For personal use,most of the time it is only one criminal breaking into a home,ussually a druggie looking for something to help pay for their drug habit,and i do remember the Ok,bombing the gov.passed a bill to regulate the sale of ammonia nitrate,which was one of the chemicals used,legal farmers had to sign a statement to purchase the well known fertilizer farmers used for years,and it is now regulated how many you can purchase at once,if it hasn,t changed since last time i bought any,and hell yes alcohol should be limited to how much you can buy on any one given day,but since 99% of all our politicians are social drinkers and 99% of the U.S uses alcohol it will never happen,to me it is stupid,people look down on smokers but go to a bar or restuarant and consume alcohol and don,t know when to stop,most will drive home drunk,and some will kill themselves or some innocent person on the street going home or wherever,the world is going to hell and no one can stop it,we will destroy ourselves not some terrorist country,
corn

Winchester, KY

#265 Feb 11, 2013
Why are people called gun nuts for wanting to own a fire arm that kills less people than the 22 rifle?
The lack of education by some people is astounding
common sense

Brodhead, KY

#266 Feb 11, 2013
Tits McGee wrote:
<quoted text>
It is hard to debate an idiot. No, I am concerned when any one dies. It is just this, dim wit: You own a car, you register it. You drive drunk, you can be charged with murder. Assuming that we will have to register our guns: if it is stolen REPORT IT, just as you would report a stolen car. You own a gun and you don't secure and your son uses it to kill. Blame you? You darn right.! Too many gun nuts don't want to take responsibility for their guns. You appear to be one of them.
I agree it is hard to debate an idiot. I really wish you would answer my question. If someone steals your car and commits a crime with it should you be held responsible. It is a yes or no question.
common sense

Brodhead, KY

#267 Feb 11, 2013
marty wrote:
Oh well the debate goes on,only a handful who support their right to own mass killing firearms. For personal use,most of the time it is only one criminal breaking into a home,ussually a druggie looking for something to help pay for their drug habit,and i do remember the Ok,bombing the gov.passed a bill to regulate the sale of ammonia nitrate,which was one of the chemicals used,legal farmers had to sign a statement to purchase the well known fertilizer farmers used for years,and it is now regulated how many you can purchase at once,if it hasn,t changed since last time i bought any,and hell yes alcohol should be limited to how much you can buy on any one given day,but since 99% of all our politicians are social drinkers and 99% of the U.S uses alcohol it will never happen,to me it is stupid,people look down on smokers but go to a bar or restuarant and consume alcohol and don,t know when to stop,most will drive home drunk,and some will kill themselves or some innocent person on the street going home or wherever,the world is going to hell and no one can stop it,we will destroy ourselves not some terrorist country,
But it was not banned was it. Its amazing how morons like you want to control the lives of law abiding citizens. You claim to purchase
the same items that were used to make that bomb. I have no need for them. In my opinion no one needs them. So we should ban them. And even if I can not purchase enough to make a bomb with that much power I can still make a bomb that will kill people. So the bottom line here you only want to ban the things that you dont need or want. What an ass you are if that is true....
Old man

Lena, IL

#268 Feb 11, 2013
Tits McGee wrote:
<quoted text>
Marty, I am with you. Banning assualt weapons would be a good thing if it saved one child's life. I suspect that some of our countrymen are hung up on what they think is their right to own an AR. Of course the second ammendment gives us the right to arm ourself, but it does not give us permission to have military style weapons. Then there those who think that having a weapon that fires a multitude of bullets rapidly makes them macho. Of course, that is not true. It is more like, can you say, chicken?
A study by the national Institute of Justice says guns do protect good people; they are used defensively by law-abiding citizens at least 600,000 to 2.4 million times per year. as many as 75 lives protected by a gun for every life lost to a gun--lives saved, injuries prevented,medical costs saved, and property protected. One must admit, therefore that a good citizen's life lost because a gun was absent is at least as valuable as a vicious predator's life lost because a gun was present. So banning assaualt weapons to save one child but would cost 75 lives wouldn't seam very good to me.
Old man

Lena, IL

#269 Feb 11, 2013
Tits McGee wrote:
<quoted text>
You make more sense than all of these gun nuts. I have a shot gun. I can protect my family with it. I don't need an assualt rifle or large magazines, and neither do these nuts. The bigger the gun that they have the bigger gun that the criminal will have. As you say, the army needs assualt rifles, we do not.
The so-called assault weapon you talk about being for the army, is a mistake or a lie . Not a one of them is used by any military. Military forces use real assault weapons. None of the weapons you refer to are used by any military and therefore is not a "military" weapon. They are made for sale to the public and not to the military.

Since: Oct 12

Baltimore, Maryland

#270 Feb 11, 2013
Old man wrote:
<quoted text> A study by the national Institute of Justice says guns do protect good people; they are used defensively by law-abiding citizens at least 600,000 to 2.4 million times per year. as many as 75 lives protected by a gun for every life lost to a gun--lives saved, injuries prevented,medical costs saved, and property protected. One must admit, therefore that a good citizen's life lost because a gun was absent is at least as valuable as a vicious predator's life lost because a gun was present. So banning assaualt weapons to save one child but would cost 75 lives wouldn't seam very good to me.
Link?
Old man

Lena, IL

#271 Feb 11, 2013
One True Digger wrote:
<quoted text>
Link?
htt://www.rkba.org/research/su ter/aw.html
Old man

Lena, IL

#272 Feb 11, 2013
/suter/aw.html

Since: Oct 12

Baltimore, Maryland

#273 Feb 11, 2013
Old man wrote:
<quoted text>htt://www.rkba.org/res earch/suter/aw.html
This does not appear to be a link to the National Institute of Justice.
Old man

Lena, IL

#274 Feb 11, 2013
One True Digger wrote:
<quoted text>
This does not appear to be a link to the National Institute of Justice.
The Title of the whole article is "ASSAULT WEAPONS" Revisited An Analysis of the AMA Report.Last paragraph on bottom of page 7 where the study by National Inst Of justice was at. I printed 10 pages. Some quotes was from other parts of the AMA report . I thought the whole report was good. I tried the Link it took me to the AMA report just read to the bottom of page 7 you will find what I was referring to.
Tits McGee

Harrodsburg, KY

#276 Feb 13, 2013
Old man wrote:
<quoted text>The Title of the whole article is "ASSAULT WEAPONS" Revisited An Analysis of the AMA Report.Last paragraph on bottom of page 7 where the study by National Inst Of justice was at. I printed 10 pages. Some quotes was from other parts of the AMA report . I thought the whole report was good. I tried the Link it took me to the AMA report just read to the bottom of page 7 you will find what I was referring to.
Old Fart: The one question I would like you to consider is this. Does anyone really need a gun that fires a multitude of rounds at a face pace and if they do, how would they be used? You can link all you want and you can quote all kinds of stuff, but the question remains the same.

Since: Oct 12

Baltimore, Maryland

#277 Feb 13, 2013
Old man wrote:
<quoted text>The Title of the whole article is "ASSAULT WEAPONS" Revisited An Analysis of the AMA Report.Last paragraph on bottom of page 7 where the study by National Inst Of justice was at. I printed 10 pages. Some quotes was from other parts of the AMA report . I thought the whole report was good. I tried the Link it took me to the AMA report just read to the bottom of page 7 you will find what I was referring to.
I wouldn't take any report seriously that says "between 600,000 and 2.4 million." I mean if you do a study and the best you can do is narrow it down to variable of 1.8 million, your method isn't sound.
hmm

Lawrenceburg, KY

#278 Feb 13, 2013
Save the kids wrote:
<quoted text>
You gun nuts are making yourselves look dumb. A sword could have not killed 26 people in Sandy Hook. Why do you need an assualt rifle in the first place. How many bullets do you need? You can scream the second ammendment and you can cry in your beer, but change is comming and you cannot do a thing about it. So sulk and groan and talk about killing with swords all you like, but those assault rifles are going to go as well as large magazines.
Actually libs like you are making yourself look pathetic. Less than 1% of crimes are even committed by assault riffles. It doesnt matter why I or anyone else needs a assault riffle. The fact is its in the Constitution. They shoot like any other riffle. Im 22 and i dont own one but I would like to some day just to shoot.

Libs like you make me sick, your ideology is a disease in this country. Banning weapons wont solve your problems. Look at other countries around the country, Yes their guns violence went down but the overall crime rate goes up.

There is no change coming for you. They will not ban assault riffle or lower mags. If they were going to do it they would have by now and the Democrats arent willing to lose their seats in Congress like they did in the 90s. The only thing getting change is background checks and mental health.

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.

Willisburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
jocko's pool hall 8 min Randy 10
Chad Baker 1 hr Cry more 16
Trump the new low 5 hr America first 20
Hope You Enjoy 6 hr Clown Spotter 5
Jim Todd Dec 13 Jim two 1
April Michelle Mccaulley Dec 11 It is what it is 1
mikie chesser and April Michelle McCauley Dec 10 for a fact 1

Willisburg Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Willisburg Mortgages