obama not after your guns ?

145791012

Comments

  • g under p said:

    hopefull nobama will be out before he can stir up anymore gun babble.....

    Godfather.

    No worries, as with EVERY OTHER president no matter how much babble you may hear it won't change any gun reform in this country. This country love it's guns and what they can way too much to change much of anything. Rest easy ALL will be well no matter what Fox says the president is babbling.

    Peace

    No kidding.

    I said it before, but it begs saying again: if Sandy Hook couldn't be the catalyst for some measure of change... then nothing can.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • SmellymanSmellyman Posts: 4,524
    When the Zombie apocalypse happens gun owners will be my best friends. Until then they are creepy and psychotic as f@#k
  • rr165892rr165892 Posts: 5,697
    Smellyman said:

    When the Zombie apocalypse happens gun owners will be my best friends. Until then they are creepy and psychotic as f@#k

    Painting with an awfully wide brush there Smelly.
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,594
    rr165892 said:

    Smellyman said:

    When the Zombie apocalypse happens gun owners will be my best friends. Until then they are creepy and psychotic as f@#k

    Painting with an awfully wide brush there Smelly.
    Accurate descriptor of zombies.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • cp3iversoncp3iverson Posts: 8,693
    edited July 2015
    <<<<<FYI: louisiana is probably around 7th or 8th in terms of lax gun laws according to the brady campaign. arizona has the most lax gun laws in the united states.>>>>>>>>

    #1 in partying and #1 in food tho! Just dont visit our urban areas. There's murders every night.
    Post edited by cp3iverson on
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    has everyone still got their guns???

    ok good.

    for a minute there i really believed obama was coming to take them away.

    suppose i should try living in the real world instead of the fox news and right wing radio cyclone of bullshit.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • SmellymanSmellyman Posts: 4,524
    So another cop shoots a black guy. Are they so trigger happy because they are worried people have guns? Everyone should be packing because that is their god given right as a freedom loving American.

    Either way, the tyranny of the police is getting our of hand. I am glad Americans can own guns so they can rebel agaisnt said tyranny.


    right?
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 Posts: 28,501
    Smellyman said:

    So another cop shoots a black guy. Are they so trigger happy because they are worried people have guns? Everyone should be packing because that is their god given right as a freedom loving American.

    Either way, the tyranny of the police is getting our of hand. I am glad Americans can own guns so they can rebel agaisnt said tyranny.


    right?

    The second amendment is a great thing. Thanks for chiming in from Taipei.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 39,025
    mcgruff10 said:

    Smellyman said:

    So another cop shoots a black guy. Are they so trigger happy because they are worried people have guns? Everyone should be packing because that is their god given right as a freedom loving American.

    Either way, the tyranny of the police is getting our of hand. I am glad Americans can own guns so they can rebel agaisnt said tyranny.


    right?

    The second amendment is a great thing. Thanks for chiming in from Taipei.
    Does that include tear gas grenades?
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • SmellymanSmellyman Posts: 4,524

    mcgruff10 said:

    Smellyman said:

    So another cop shoots a black guy. Are they so trigger happy because they are worried people have guns? Everyone should be packing because that is their god given right as a freedom loving American.

    Either way, the tyranny of the police is getting our of hand. I am glad Americans can own guns so they can rebel agaisnt said tyranny.


    right?

    The second amendment is a great thing. Thanks for chiming in from Taipei.
    Does that include tear gas grenades?
    Single shot muzzle loaders.
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 Posts: 28,501
    Smellyman said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    Smellyman said:

    So another cop shoots a black guy. Are they so trigger happy because they are worried people have guns? Everyone should be packing because that is their god given right as a freedom loving American.

    Either way, the tyranny of the police is getting our of hand. I am glad Americans can own guns so they can rebel agaisnt said tyranny.


    right?

    The second amendment is a great thing. Thanks for chiming in from Taipei.
    Does that include tear gas grenades?
    Single shot muzzle loaders.
    And the first amendment only covers the printing press.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Posts: 8,661
    I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.

    I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    .......I'll just laugh instead.

    Godfather.
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 Posts: 28,501

    I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.

    I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.

    both amendments were made at the same time; why isn't fair to compare amendments? why is it ok to argue muskets but not the printing press? you can't have it both ways.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Posts: 8,661
    mcgruff10 said:

    I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.

    I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.

    both amendments were made at the same time; why isn't fair to compare amendments? why is it ok to argue muskets but not the printing press? you can't have it both ways.
    So because they were written in the same year they can be compared to each other? What's the argument? Who's free speech was threatened? This is the gun thread, right?
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • WhatYouTaughtMeWhatYouTaughtMe Posts: 4,957
    Does anyone else think it's fucked up that it's easier to buy a gun than legally obtain a silencer in most places?http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/30/news/companies/gun-silencer-sales-up/
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Posts: 8,661

    Does anyone else think it's fucked up that it's easier to buy a gun than legally obtain a silencer in most places?http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/30/news/companies/gun-silencer-sales-up/

    Yes
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,954
    edited July 2015
    mcgruff10 said:

    I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.

    I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.

    both amendments were made at the same time; why isn't fair to compare amendments? why is it ok to argue muskets but not the printing press? you can't have it both ways.
    Because there is no essential difference between the results rendered by a printing press vs. a laser printer. But there is a huge difference between the results of the use of muskets vs. the kinds of weapons we have today. As Last mentioned: common sense.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • benjsbenjs Posts: 9,147
    PJ_Soul said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.

    I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.

    both amendments were made at the same time; why isn't fair to compare amendments? why is it ok to argue muskets but not the printing press? you can't have it both ways.
    Because there is no essential difference between the results rendered by a printing press vs. a laser printer. But there is a huge difference between the results of the use of muskets vs. the kinds of weapons we have today. As Last mentioned: common sense.
    I'd like to call for a ban on 300+ DPI printers. Anything less should be fine, but I am offended by high-resolution, crisp text output. And I'm tired of the high-res lobbyists telling me that laser printers and printing presses are the same, they clearly are not!
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • benjs said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.

    I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.

    both amendments were made at the same time; why isn't fair to compare amendments? why is it ok to argue muskets but not the printing press? you can't have it both ways.
    Because there is no essential difference between the results rendered by a printing press vs. a laser printer. But there is a huge difference between the results of the use of muskets vs. the kinds of weapons we have today. As Last mentioned: common sense.
    I'd like to call for a ban on 300+ DPI printers. Anything less should be fine, but I am offended by high-resolution, crisp text output. And I'm tired of the high-res lobbyists telling me that laser printers and printing presses are the same, they clearly are not!
    At a very minimum... charge more for the ink.

    Or something.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • WhatYouTaughtMeWhatYouTaughtMe Posts: 4,957

    benjs said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.

    I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.

    both amendments were made at the same time; why isn't fair to compare amendments? why is it ok to argue muskets but not the printing press? you can't have it both ways.
    Because there is no essential difference between the results rendered by a printing press vs. a laser printer. But there is a huge difference between the results of the use of muskets vs. the kinds of weapons we have today. As Last mentioned: common sense.
    I'd like to call for a ban on 300+ DPI printers. Anything less should be fine, but I am offended by high-resolution, crisp text output. And I'm tired of the high-res lobbyists telling me that laser printers and printing presses are the same, they clearly are not!
    At a very minimum... charge more for the ink.

    Or something.
    You kidding? That shit is already out of control!
  • benjs said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.

    I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.

    both amendments were made at the same time; why isn't fair to compare amendments? why is it ok to argue muskets but not the printing press? you can't have it both ways.
    Because there is no essential difference between the results rendered by a printing press vs. a laser printer. But there is a huge difference between the results of the use of muskets vs. the kinds of weapons we have today. As Last mentioned: common sense.
    I'd like to call for a ban on 300+ DPI printers. Anything less should be fine, but I am offended by high-resolution, crisp text output. And I'm tired of the high-res lobbyists telling me that laser printers and printing presses are the same, they clearly are not!
    At a very minimum... charge more for the ink.

    Or something.
    You kidding? That shit is already out of control!
    No shit. It's cheaper to buy a new printer than it is to buy an ink cartridge.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,954
    edited July 2015
    benjs said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.

    I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.

    both amendments were made at the same time; why isn't fair to compare amendments? why is it ok to argue muskets but not the printing press? you can't have it both ways.
    Because there is no essential difference between the results rendered by a printing press vs. a laser printer. But there is a huge difference between the results of the use of muskets vs. the kinds of weapons we have today. As Last mentioned: common sense.
    I'd like to call for a ban on 300+ DPI printers. Anything less should be fine, but I am offended by high-resolution, crisp text output. And I'm tired of the high-res lobbyists telling me that laser printers and printing presses are the same, they clearly are not!
    I'm thinking the printing presses from the 1700s might have killed a few people, but I've never heard of death by 300+ DPI printers. :lol:
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • dudemandudeman Posts: 3,061
    PJ_Soul said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.

    I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.

    both amendments were made at the same time; why isn't fair to compare amendments? why is it ok to argue muskets but not the printing press? you can't have it both ways.
    Because there is no essential difference between the results rendered by a printing press vs. a laser printer. But there is a huge difference between the results of the use of muskets vs. the kinds of weapons we have today. As Last mentioned: common sense.
    Not much difference between printing press and laser printer but there is a world of difference between print media and 24 hour news channels and internet based news outlets that can broadcast globally in a matter of seconds. Propaganda spreads at the speed of light these days.
    If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 Posts: 28,501
    rgambs said:

    Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

    I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
    and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,594
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • SmellymanSmellyman Posts: 4,524
    mcgruff10 said:

    rgambs said:

    Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

    I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
    and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
    woot!
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,954
    edited August 2015
    dudeman said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.

    I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.

    both amendments were made at the same time; why isn't fair to compare amendments? why is it ok to argue muskets but not the printing press? you can't have it both ways.
    Because there is no essential difference between the results rendered by a printing press vs. a laser printer. But there is a huge difference between the results of the use of muskets vs. the kinds of weapons we have today. As Last mentioned: common sense.
    Not much difference between printing press and laser printer but there is a world of difference between print media and 24 hour news channels and internet based news outlets that can broadcast globally in a matter of seconds. Propaganda spreads at the speed of light these days.
    So it's the speed of propaganda that bothers you?? Pretty sure the first amendment is about free speech, not anti-propaganda. Sorry, just not seeing the connection there. I'll put it this way: I don't think the first amendment would really be any different if those who wrote it could see the future. The speed at which info is spread has no impact on what the amendment stands for. But i think the second amendment would be very different if they could have seen the future.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • SmellymanSmellyman Posts: 4,524
    mickeyrat said:
    Just protecting his family from noise pollution
Sign In or Register to comment.