|
Post by freestater on Oct 7, 2015 8:50:00 GMT -5
does the pope shit in the woods? Stop changing the subject. I know if I smoke, aint no way I'm making it to the gym. Right. before. I. go. there's no way to stay on the elliptical if I don't...lol.
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Oct 7, 2015 8:51:41 GMT -5
Stop changing the subject. I know if I smoke, aint no way I'm making it to the gym. Right. before. I. go. there's no way to stay on the elliptical if I don't...lol. You need your own fitness channel.
|
|
|
Post by freestater on Oct 7, 2015 8:59:29 GMT -5
Right. before. I. go. there's no way to stay on the elliptical if I don't...lol. You need your own fitness channel. that;s a new one. I have been told I need my own action-figure.
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Oct 7, 2015 9:14:29 GMT -5
You need your own fitness channel. that;s a new one. I have been told I need my own action-figure. Podium sold separately.
|
|
|
Post by samschneider on Oct 7, 2015 11:38:44 GMT -5
There's one born every minute. hEy free, how ya been? nOne of those regulations would have stopped me from getting the fire arms I own. wHich one do you object to? unfortunately wouldn't have stopped the charleston shooter or oregon shooter. how about this- liberals/democrats continue to cry for expanded background check so in exchange for expanding background checks: 1) any crime committed with an illegal gun carries a minimum five year prison sentence 2) since you are expanding background checks and potentially infringing on the constitutional rights of Americans at the same time institute drug testing for all welfare recipients. sounds like a fair trade off.
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Oct 7, 2015 11:41:36 GMT -5
hEy free, how ya been? nOne of those regulations would have stopped me from getting the fire arms I own. wHich one do you object to? unfortunately wouldn't have stopped the charleston shooter or oregon shooter. how about this- liberals/democrats continue to cry for expanded background check so in exchange for expanding background checks: 1) any crime committed with an illegal gun carries a minimum five year prison sentence 2) since you are expanding background checks and potentially infringing on the constitutional rights of Americans at the same time institute drug testing for all welfare recipients. sounds like a fair trade off. That wouldnt work. They want them to stay on welfare, not get off.
|
|
|
Post by Gunnails on Oct 7, 2015 12:26:19 GMT -5
I have an unhealthy dislike for Hillary and this dastardly plan. What does she mean exactly by domestic abusers and stalkers? Pretty sure her "husband" is one of those. ============================= It's purely political talking points with little chance of impacting gun violence. Designed to punish honest citizens and American gun manufacturers and turn them into criminals, while duping the public into thinking they are doing something worthwhile. Military style assault weapons, how broad is that? Knives kill more people then rifles, should we ban knives? I'm 90% sure that by federal law any one convicted of domestic abuse forfeits there gun rights, and any one suspected/charged with domestic assault is not allowed to buy weapons, any one with a restraining order is not allowed to buy guns. So this part of the plan is completely redundant and useless. Fear mongering at it's worst. Should we hold Ford liable for thaose that drink and drive in a Ford? Should we hold McD's liable for people being fat. Politicians like Hillary are why we need to protect our gun rights.
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Oct 7, 2015 13:39:44 GMT -5
hEy free, how ya been? nOne of those regulations would have stopped me from getting the fire arms I own. wHich one do you object to? unfortunately wouldn't have stopped the charleston shooter or oregon shooter. how about this- liberals/democrats continue to cry for expanded background check so in exchange for expanding background checks: 1) any crime committed with an illegal gun carries a minimum five year prison sentence 2) since you are expanding background checks and potentially infringing on the constitutional rights of Americans at the same time institute drug testing for all welfare recipients. sounds like a fair trade off. Didn't say it would have stopped anyone. Google info about welfare recipients being tested and you'll see its a huge waste of money. The numbers are miniscule compared to the cost of testing. Also, I don't thing "trade-off's are a way to legislate. Each issue is independent.
|
|
|
Post by Gunnails on Oct 7, 2015 14:55:02 GMT -5
www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/10/07/gun-control-truthers-carson-attacks-prove-media-want-schoolchildren-helpless-and-dead/There are very real practical solutions to this very real epidemic. Secure our schools: Media won’t talk about that. Put armed security guards in schools: Media won’t talk about that. When it’s brought up, the media acts horrified at the idea of shattering the innocence of children with armed guards in schools. The media is a-okay with shattering the innocence of schoolchildren with sex education but not with a good guy carrying a gun who might save their lives. Train, certify, and arm volunteer teachers: Anytime someone brings this up, like Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson did this week, you’d think he suggested we teach first graders about homosexuality. Oh, wait. Fight back when confronted by a mad gunman: Again, being proactive, Carson suggested that instead of waiting to die, students charge the gunman. Someone will probably die doing so but that approach will almost certainly lower the death count. It is a brave and risky thing to do. No one should be judged for not doing it. Carson is not judging anyone for not doing it. Nevertheless, he is being murdered in the media for daring to suggest such a thing and those who are the most self-righteous and sanctimonious, like MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, are laughably attacking Carson for “criticizing the victims.” 5. Stop advertising gun-free zones: Put a sign out front of a journalist’s home that reads “GUN FREE HOME” and watch how quickly it is torn down. No journalist would advertise their home and family as helpless, but that’s what they want advertised outside of your child’s school. This is utter madness. —
|
|
|
Post by Hotman on Oct 7, 2015 15:25:05 GMT -5
Idiocracy is here and it's in full force. I really wish I could move to another country.
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Oct 7, 2015 17:06:28 GMT -5
Train, certify, and arm volunteer teachers: Sooooo....exactly who are these folks who will volunteer to roam at schools armed all day?
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Oct 7, 2015 17:07:00 GMT -5
Idiocracy is here and it's in full force. I really wish I could move to another country. Why cant you?
|
|
|
Post by vin on Oct 7, 2015 17:10:45 GMT -5
Idiocracy is here and it's in full force. I really wish I could move to another country. Why cant you? Because if he did, you'd be happy about it. And he doesn't want you to be happy. So fuck you.
|
|
|
Post by Gunnails on Oct 7, 2015 17:26:49 GMT -5
Train, certify, and arm volunteer teachers: Sooooo....exactly who are these folks who will volunteer to roam at schools armed all day? What roaming? Teachers, staff, janitors etc. Whats your idea to protect our schools?
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Oct 7, 2015 19:48:31 GMT -5
Sooooo....exactly who are these folks who will volunteer to roam at schools armed all day? What roaming? Teachers, staff, janitors etc. Whats your idea to protect our schools? It said volunteers....can't really see that happening. arming teachers is not realistic. The skill set for teaching is the exact opposite of a security guard. Front door security works fine if done right.
|
|