I'm off te exercise my 2nd Amendment Right!

[eternal cynic]

tallyho wrote:

that will flip him

Why would it flip me? I consider the source and understand you’re retarded and unable to see the world for what it is.

[tallyho]

it did you are here carrying on ..

[tallyho]

i see it clearly you escape abortion

[Rooster]

tallyho wrote:

i see it clearly you escape abortion

We clearly see you're the afterbirth of a now moron nation

[quilterqueen]

Why do people blame the gun? It didn't fire itself. When a drunk driver kills someone - do they blame the car or the liquor - no they blame the out-of-control person.

[flbadcatowner]

quilterqueen wrote:

Why do people blame the gun? It didn't fire itself. When a drunk driver kills someone - do they blame the car or the liquor - no they blame the out-of-control person.

I am not in favor of an outright ban on firearms, but there ought to be some restrictions on what type one can own. One doesn't need an assault rifle that can hold a clip of 20 bullets or more to defend himself. Anybody with the right knowldge can easily modify a semiautomatic assault rifle into a fully automatic one and make a mass killing that much easier. While I certainly respect the right of people to worship as they please, I do believe that there should be limitations on religions that encourage others to commit acts of violence or other crimes against others and I believe the Military should have the right to exclude those of a faith whose religious views run counter to U.S. foreign policy or provide a possible security risk.

[Dr-Sniper]

tallyho wrote:

yep another right at work...Local media reported there were two shooters, while police reportedly said a gunman was in the main office of the school and that a person in one room had "numerous gunshot wounds". A SCHOOL

Yes, a school which is a GUN FREE ZONE!

[Dr-Sniper]

tallyho wrote:

some one doesn't get the fact that the right has to have stipulation ,,, period ...so outdated

The stipulation is why schools are such common targets of mass shootings!

[eternal cynic]

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>I am not in favor of an outright ban on firearms, but there ought to be some restrictions on what type one can own. One doesn't need an assault rifle that can hold a clip of 20 bullets or more to defend himself. Anybody with the right knowldge can easily modify a semiautomatic assault rifle into a fully automatic one and make a mass killing that much easier. While I certainly respect the right of people to worship as they please, I do believe that there should be limitations on religions that encourage others to commit acts of violence or other crimes against others and I believe the Military should have the right to exclude those of a faith whose religious views run counter to U.S. foreign policy or provide a possible security risk.

When the last time a full auto was used to commit a crime? You worry about nothing. Magazine capacity is irrelevant. The Phoenix shooter used a high capacity magazine with his Glock. It was that high capacity magazine which brought an end to the carnage, it jammed as high capacity magazines often do.

So, you would violate the first amendment rights of a US citizen based on their religious belief?

[eternal cynic]

tallyho wrote:

it did you are here carrying on ..

If you believe everyone flips over what’s posted on Topix then you take all of this way too serious. Do yourself a favor, requisition a life.

[flbadcatowner]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
When the last time a full auto was used to commit a crime? You worry about nothing. Magazine capacity is irrelevant. The Phoenix shooter used a high capacity magazine with his Glock. It was that high capacity magazine which brought an end to the carnage, it jammed as high capacity magazines often do.
So, you would violate the first amendment rights of a US citizen based on their religious belief?

Just beacause it has never happened does not mean it can't. Allowing people to own assault rifles is a disaster looking for a place to happen and nobody needs an assault rifle for self defense purposes. Assault rifles have been implicated in mass murders before.

[tallyho]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
If you believe everyone flips over what’s posted on Topix then you take all of this way too serious. Do yourself a favor, requisition a life.

funny you are the person whining...... how many IDS

THAT WILL FLIP YA

[flbadcatowner]

FAST and FURIOUS wrote:

<quoted text>Tell your idiot president to quit running them across the Mexican border then, d!ckhead...

I agree it was not a wise plan and be informed that the plan was hatched before he even took office. Obama should have ended it as soon as he took office, though.

[eternal cynic]

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>Just beacause it has never happened does not mean it can't. Allowing people to own assault rifles is a disaster looking for a place to happen and nobody needs an assault rifle for self defense purposes. Assault rifles have been implicated in mass murders before.

Unbelievable, you would impinge the rights of others on a what-if? That’s worse than violating the rights of others on the actions of one or a few.

I have an AK-47, the most feared weapon by liberal weenies. It’s never jumped off the rack and shot a visitor. Maybe I should watch it more closely.

Interesting you didn’t reply to me about you egregious statement about the first amendment.

[eternal cynic]

tallyho wrote:

<quoted text>
funny you are the person whining...... how many IDS
THAT WILL FLIP YA

Just one ID. You’re the flipped fool. I’m good. Why does your life suck so badly?

[Ferrerman]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
Unbelievable, you would impinge the rights of others on a what-if? That’s worse than violating the rights of others on the actions of one or a few.
I have an AK-47, the most feared weapon by liberal weenies. It’s never jumped off the rack and shot a visitor. Maybe I should watch it more closely.
Interesting you didn’t reply to me about you egregious statement about the first amendment.

Yeah...you're just the kinda guy society needs having access to weapons....

[eternal cynic]

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>I agree it was not a wise plan and be informed that the plan was hatched before he even took office. Obama should have ended it as soon as he took office, though.

Showing your ignorance again. On occasion you slither into the guns forum, spout your nonsense and slither off again once you’re proven wrong.

Fast and Furious was started under the Obama Administration. You’ve been told this before. Under Bush a slightly similar mission called Wide Receiver was started.

Obama lies http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/...

Here’s a reasonable summary explaining the differences between Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-5-biggest...

To add further insult on Fast and Furious when Congress demanded answers from Holder our president illegally used executive privilege to protect Holder. Cronyism at its’ finest.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/...

[eternal cynic]

Ferrerman wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah...you're just the kinda guy society needs having access to weapons....

The fairyman speaks again about an issue he knows nothing about. Are you and tallywacker kindred spirits or just the same person?

[tallyho]

yep here you are .. same post same azzzzzz

you are missing a few btw [posts]

[tallyho]

Ferrerman wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah...you're just the kinda guy society needs having access to weapons....

funny in away , claiming he has one ID and you have 5 icons

and only 3 of us posted ....I don't icon