Moms make case for gun control

Moms make case for gun control

There are 9248 comments on the usatoday.com story from Mar 16, 2013, titled Moms make case for gun control. In it, usatoday.com reports that:

Peg Paulson had never beaten a path through the halls of Congress before or met a U.S. senator's staffer or advocated for a controversial issue.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at usatoday.com.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6257 Oct 1, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
Disproving your own claim AGAIN that it was Bush's decision. Thanks.
Right.

Because in your world, Rumsfeld would make this decision by himself while Bush was in the other room playing paddleball.

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!
spOko

Oakland, CA

#6259 Oct 1, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
Disproving your own claim AGAIN that it was Bush's decision. Thanks.
Huh? Gdub is still trying to find his way out of the paper bag is been stuck in!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6260 Oct 1, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
What does that have to do with the FACT that the link YOU PROVIDED said it was 2,000?
What does that have to do with another sources saying it was 1,000 yards, dumbphq?

1,000 yards, 2,000 yards: those are both visual range, STicky.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6261 Oct 1, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
"WASN'T Bush's decision"
of course it was, you stupid limp wristed fairy.

You are the president of the USA and there is an active military operation where the number one enemy of the USA is the target and you are going to let your secretary of defense make the call?

HAHAHAHAH!

You are a complete fraud.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6262 Oct 1, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
What does that have to do with the FACT that the link YOU PROVIDED said it was 2,000?
And I can't help but notice you have yet to provide ANY link proving that Clinton knew where bin Laden was or could get to him.

Funny how that is.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6263 Oct 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
What does that have to do with another sources saying it was 1,000 yards, dumbphq?
Because that is not what YOU LINKED. Regardless of the fact that your post didn't say anything about an order coming down from Bush.

Try again, dumbass.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6264 Oct 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Right.
Because in your world, Rumsfeld would make this decision by himself while Bush was in the other room playing paddleball.
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!
You REALLY need to now how a chain of command works. Bush was no military strategist. Nor did he have to be. That's what he had Rummy and the Joint Chiefs for. It is akin to Bush going to Rumsfeld and saying.....Rummy, I want Bin Laden's head on a plate. Make it happen. Then Rumsfeld goes to the Joint Chiefs and saying......the big guy says kill him. You guys work out a strategy and get back to me. Etc. etc. etc. on down the line.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6265 Oct 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And I can't help but notice you have yet to provide ANY link proving that Clinton knew where bin Laden was or could get to him.
Funny how that is.
Choke on it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/hank...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6266 Oct 1, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
You REALLY need to now how a chain of command works. Bush was no military strategist..
If you weren't a stolen valor fraud, you would know how the chain of command works: at the top of the chain in the United States of America sits the president.

It's been that way since George Washington.

George Bush was getting DAILY presidential briefs on this.

Granted: he has a limited attention span and GRANTED Rumsfeld like to pretend that he was in charge even pretend he was the president... but the TOP of the chain was George Bush and George Bush is responsible for this decision.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6267 Oct 1, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Choke on it:
I am sure your boyfriend tells you that every night but like a trooper: you take it all in.

Drone strikes - or in this case,*a* single strike from one drone- are not a for sure thing, shug, especially in 1999, and especially when relying on Afghan intelligence.

And if you are given the choice of attacking and perhaps killing a single target using a single rocket or instead using a dozen missiles each with much larger payload, what would you do, Shug?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6268 Oct 2, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you weren't a stolen valor fraud, you would know how the chain of command works: at the top of the chain in the United States of America sits the president.
It's been that way since George Washington.
George Bush was getting DAILY presidential briefs on this.
Granted: he has a limited attention span and GRANTED Rumsfeld like to pretend that he was in charge even pretend he was the president... but the TOP of the chain was George Bush and George Bush is responsible for this decision.
I never said Bush WASN'T at the top of the chain, dipshit. In fact, my post specifically stated that HE was the one telling Rumsfeld what he wanted. Now go back and re-read my post before you make more such assinine comments further proving what a complete waste of skin you are.

And "stolen valor"? Sorry, DICK. The Honorable Discharge Certificate hanging on my wall says otherwise. Now go f**k yourself.
Hey Wheels

Beckley, WV

#6269 Oct 2, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
Believe me, old scooter/barefool is no stranger to choking.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6270 Oct 2, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said Bush WASN'T at the top of the chain, dipshit. In fact, my post specifically stated that HE was the one telling Rumsfeld .
The way it works in the US military, dipsh!t: these kinds of decisions - when the POTUS is getting daily briefs - are made by the POTUS.

Because Dumsfeld walked out of the presidential briefing room and picked up the phone and gave an order... doesn't mean he gave the order, any more than a sergeant ordering his men to go over the top started the battle of The Bulge.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6271 Oct 2, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
And "stolen valor"? Sorry, DICK. The Honorable Discharge Certificate hanging on my wall says otherwise. Now go f**k yourself.
Don't dish it out DICK if you can't take it.

PS: Aaron Alexis had a Honorable Discharge Certificate hanging on his wall, too.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6272 Oct 2, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The way it works in the US military, dipsh!t: these kinds of decisions - when the POTUS is getting daily briefs - are made by the POTUS.
Because Dumsfeld walked out of the presidential briefing room and picked up the phone and gave an order... doesn't mean he gave the order, any more than a sergeant ordering his men to go over the top started the battle of The Bulge.
Talking shit again about something you have absolutely no clue or experience about. And battlefield sergeants do NOT give orders such as you described. They pass orders down the chain of command from their officer in charge, dumbass.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6273 Oct 2, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't dish it out DICK if you can't take it.
PS: Aaron Alexis had a Honorable Discharge Certificate hanging on his wall, too.
Don't dish it out?? YOU are the one throwing out ad hominems you pull from your ass. Not me, asshat.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6274 Oct 2, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't dish it out DICK if you can't take it.
PS: Aaron Alexis had a Honorable Discharge Certificate hanging on his wall, too.
And Alexis didn't EARN his Honorable Discharge, dumbass. He was being processed for a General Discharge due to "eight instances of misconduct on his record, including insubordination, disorderly conduct, unauthorized absences from work, and at least one instance of drunkenness. He left the service with an honorable discharge because he had never been convicted and there was a lack of evidence to merit a general discharge, a U.S. defense official said." http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/navy-yard-su...

Yep....sounds real "honorable" to me.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6275 Oct 2, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
And battlefield sergeants do NOT give orders such as you described
Sure they do.

And E-5s give orders to E-4s, and E4s to E3s.

You really don't have a clue, eh?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6276 Oct 2, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And Alexis didn't EARN his Honorable Discharge, dumbass.
Any more than you "earned" yours, eh, dumbass?

Or exactly as much.

Wipe your chin, shug.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6277 Oct 2, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't dish it out?? YOU are the one throwing out ad hominems you pull from your ass. Not me, asshat.
you aren't throw ad hominems, you spooge coated whiny-zzed momma's boy?

HAHAHAAHAHAHAH!

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.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The NRA And The Worst Ad You May Ever See 33 min Big Al 111
News Country singer Scotty McCreery cited for Mon Musikologist 3
News The Right to NOT be Persecuted for being a Shee... Jul 19 Marauder 2
News Judge blocks California's high-capacity magazin... Jul 19 Red Crosse 73
News How 'The Boyfriend Loophole' Arms Domestic Abusers Jul 17 Jagermann 1
News Democrats should start playing to strengths Jul 8 im not a doctor 1
News The Second Amendment vs. the Fourth Amendment Jul 7 javawhey 4
More from around the web