PDA

View Full Version : Gun control dying in the Senate.


cutthemdown
04-17-2013, 03:19 PM
The Senate on Wednesday defeated a vital background check amendment seen as the linchpin to Democrats' gun control bill, dealing a major setback to President Obama -- who lashed out at opponents in unusually blunt terms during remarks from the Rose Garden.

"All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington," Obama said.

The vote was 54-46, with supporters falling six votes short of the required 60-vote threshold.



Democrats couldn't get the votes and were not willing to sacrifice the 4-5 dem senators who would lose re-election if they voted for it.

ant1999e
04-17-2013, 04:07 PM
Did I hear correctly that Harry Reid voted against it.

cutthemdown
04-17-2013, 04:18 PM
Did I hear correctly that Harry Reid voted against it.

He would have voted yes but because of their rules if he did he couldn't bring it up for a vote again. So by voting no they can work on the dems who voted against it. Basically Obama willing to sacrifice the Sen in Montana, Alaska in order to win this thing but they don't want to lose next election. Gun control very regional and its not a good issue for the dems which is why even the bill they voted on watered down like a bad drink. Really considering what liberals want in gun control the legislation is a joke. It virtually does nothing to make schools or people safer.

peacepipe
04-17-2013, 04:25 PM
He would have voted yes but because of their rules if he did he couldn't bring it up for a vote again. So by voting no they can work on the dems who voted against it. Basically Obama willing to sacrifice the Sen in Montana, Alaska in order to win this thing but they don't want to lose next election. Gun control very regional and its not a good issue for the dems which is why even the bill they voted on watered down like a bad drink. Really considering what liberals want in gun control the legislation is a joke. It virtually does nothing to make schools or people safer.

Actually you can put the blame squarely on reps,they didn't need to filibuster forcing 60 votes on this bill. The bill had the votes,54,in order to pass.

Just another reason to abolish the filibuster.

cutthemdown
04-17-2013, 04:33 PM
Even dems don't want to abolish the fillibuster so why argue about it? You can put the blame on Biden who was in charge of getting the needed votes and the dems who voted against it. Won't matter for me CA wants to ban all gun with detachable magazines. So that right there is probably more in line with what liberals really want. This DC BS more about trying to do something that looks like they want to do something about it without losing the dems in Montana, Alaska etc. CA more like what liberals really want because they have supreme power here right now.

ant1999e
04-17-2013, 04:59 PM
Actually you can put the blame squarely on reps,they didn't need to filibuster forcing 60 votes on this bill. The bill had the votes,54,in order to pass.

Just another reason to abolish the filibuster.

Blame the creators of this garbage for pushing worthless legislation. It would have done nothing to prevent the recent tragedies and will do nothing to prevent future ones. Maybe they should try a little harder to come up with better ideas.

peacepipe
04-17-2013, 05:02 PM
Blame the creators of this garbage for pushing worthless legislation. It would have done nothing to prevent the recent tragedies and will do nothing to prevent future ones. Maybe they should try a little harder to come up with better ideas.

Wouldn't stop all attacks but it would have prevented some which is better than nothing.

ant1999e
04-17-2013, 05:31 PM
Wouldn't stop all attacks but it would have prevented some which is better than nothing.

Which ones would it have stopped?

cutthemdown
04-17-2013, 06:13 PM
It is a garbage piece of wag the dog legislation. Kudos for repubs for standing up to this BS.

nyuk nyuk
04-18-2013, 10:47 AM
It is a garbage piece of wag the dog legislation. Kudos for repubs for standing up to this BS.

Damn right!!!!!

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS DEAD! :giggle:

Tombstone RJ
04-18-2013, 10:51 AM
Actually you can put the blame squarely on reps,they didn't need to filibuster forcing 60 votes on this bill. The bill had the votes,54,in order to pass.

Just another reason to abolish the filibuster.

Not at all! Everyone from time to time has used the filibuster, democrats and republicans. Just because the left doesn't like it does not mean it should be abolished. The liberals love it when there's a filibuster on issues they believe in. Total hypocrisy from the left, again.

TonyR
04-18-2013, 10:51 AM
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS DEAD!

Dying, but not dead.

When I was in college, and first became a conservative, it was the liberals who had a reputation as rigid, doctrinaire, snide, and off-putting. I’m generalizing, but in those days, liberals were the ones who were far more likely to be brittle, who weren’t willing to look around and adjust their prescriptions to changing circumstances, who seemed disconnected from the world as it was. It seemed to me that liberals had emotional and ideological touchstones in a bygone political and cultural era, and they dealt with changing times by insisting on greater ideological purity in the ranks. Whatever else 1980s liberalism wasn’t, it wasn’t attractive. It seemed outdated and exhausted, both in terms of substantive policies and in terms of the way it presented itself to the public.

I began my college career as a liberal, and it slowly began to dawn on me that I didn’t really believe in liberalism so much as I couldn’t stand Reagan and the people who loved him. I spent my freshman year fuming over the fact that my dad and all his friends were Reagan Democrats living in false consciousness; it never once occurred to me to wonder why it was working-class men had ceased to identify with the Democratic Party, and whether or not liberalism had anything wrong with it. My side was losing, but we found it easier to blame the fools who voted for Reagan, or to blame Reagan for being such an accomplished liar, than to examine ourselves and our own beliefs. (When I did begin to do that, my liberalism, which was primarily attitudinal, faded away.)

This is pretty much the case with conservatism today, I’m afraid. We could argue, and should argue, over what the policies of conservative government should be today; that’s not my point in this blog entry. My point here is that there is no creative ferment on the Right, no breathing space, few places where new ideas can emerge. All the energy on the Right seems aimed at hunting down the heretics within. That, and making life as hard as possible for the opposition, not because they have something better in mind, but as an end in itself. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-fadingconservative-brand/

peacepipe
04-18-2013, 10:58 AM
Not at all! Everyone from time to time has used the filibuster, democrats and republicans. Just because the left doesn't like it does not mean it should be abolished. The liberals love it when there's a filibuster on issues they believe in. Total hypocrisy from the left, again.

Filibusters are supposed to be rare not an everyday event.

nyuk nyuk
04-18-2013, 11:01 AM
Dying, but not dead.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-fadingconservative-brand/

Sounds like a description of the Democrats, so I guess they're "dying," too. :thumbs:

nyuk nyuk
04-18-2013, 11:02 AM
Wouldn't stop all attacks but it would have prevented some which is better than nothing.

How's that?

Yet again, you guys want to outlaw a type of gun in the name of saving lives and tell us to instead use another type of gun which kills more people.

Nonsensical, retarded.

nyuk nyuk
04-18-2013, 11:03 AM
Hopefully the Dems will pipe down on their loud, arrogant insistence that "gun control is inevitable." We're all tired of the endless premature ejaculations.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VLnWf1sQkjY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dr. Broncenstein
04-18-2013, 11:42 AM
Obama is super pissed that he didn't get to blame the failure of his gun grabbing agenda on the house. Thanks for the help, democrat controlled senate.

peacepipe
04-18-2013, 11:44 AM
Obama is super pissed that he didn't get to blame the failure of his gun grabbing agenda on the house. Thanks for the help, democrat controlled senate.

You don't have a clue on how the senate works,do you.

Dr. Broncenstein
04-18-2013, 11:55 AM
You don't have a clue on how the senate works,do you.

It works just fine, apparently. Squirt some more tears about it.

Pony Boy
04-18-2013, 12:11 PM
It works just fine, apparently. Squirt some more tears about it.

pisspipe got his panties in a wad ..........

nyuk nyuk
04-18-2013, 12:14 PM
First the bogus "assault weapons" ban went down and now this, and it's Democrat-controlled!

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS **** UP.

Feinstein won the backing of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had previously voted against renewing the ban. But 15 of her fellow Democrats, including a number from Western states, and one independent voted against the ban, as did all Republicans except Sen. Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois.

peacepipe
04-18-2013, 12:19 PM
This isn't over by a long shot.

Dukes
04-18-2013, 12:24 PM
This isn't over by a long shot.

We know, the dream of Communism will never die for some of you.

Dr. Broncenstein
04-18-2013, 12:25 PM
This isn't over by a long shot.

Lets hope not. I hope to get a couple of kegs worth of your tears by the time it's said and done.

BroncoBeavis
04-18-2013, 12:34 PM
We know, the dream of Communism will never die for some of you.

It governs their hearts if nothing else. :)

Dr. Broncenstein
04-18-2013, 12:39 PM
None of this legislation was going to pass into law. It just wasn't supposed to go down in flames in the democrat controlled senate. This was supposed to be laid at the feet of house republicans. Oops.

Rigs11
04-18-2013, 12:41 PM
Not at all! Everyone from time to time has used the filibuster, democrats and republicans. Just because the left doesn't like it does not mean it should be abolished. The liberals love it when there's a filibuster on issues they believe in. Total hypocrisy from the left, again.

Really? How many times have the repubs used it versus the dems?

Tombstone RJ
04-18-2013, 12:45 PM
Really? How many times have the repubs used it versus the dems?

who cares? if the dems have used it once that's all that matters.

Pony Boy
04-18-2013, 12:48 PM
This isn't over by a long shot.

Poor little pisspipe

Rigs11
04-18-2013, 12:49 PM
We know, the dream of Communism will never die for some of you.

Communism like what palin did in Alaska? Perhaps you should look up the meaning instead of just flinging it around.

Rigs11
04-18-2013, 12:50 PM
who cares? if the dems have used it once that's all that matters.

Got it,thanks for making it clear for the rest of us:thanku:

Dukes
04-18-2013, 12:52 PM
Communism like what palin did in Alaska? Perhaps you should look up the meaning instead of just flinging it around.

Right, and you probably think this is about guns huh?

Pony Boy
04-18-2013, 12:53 PM
Communism like what palin did in Alaska? Perhaps you should look up the meaning instead of just flinging it around.

When you have nothing ....... deflect to Bush or Palin.

Dr. Broncenstein
04-18-2013, 12:53 PM
You libbys are all upset about something that wasn't going to pass the house anyway. So what exactly are you mad about?

Rigs11
04-18-2013, 12:57 PM
When you have nothing ....... deflect to Bush or Palin.

You think u have won something here? All you have done is lost votes.And when someone brings up communism you bet your ass I'm gonna bring up one of ur beloved leaders in the discussion

Dukes
04-18-2013, 01:00 PM
You think u have won something here? All you have done is lost votes.And when someone brings up communism you bet your ass I'm gonna bring up one of ur beloved leaders in the discussion

Is it about guns?

cutthemdown
04-18-2013, 01:11 PM
Got it,thanks for making it clear for the rest of us:thanku:

Obamas ideas are radical and controversial. Most of those fillibusters totally acceptable minority tactics. Don't get pissy over it. To pass controversial measures you need 60 votes. Thats how its been when dems were the minority and thats how it is now.

Deal with it and get all of your dems to vote together. Had they done that they would have won.

cutthemdown
04-18-2013, 01:12 PM
Dems cant gain votes on gun control only lose them.

peacepipe
04-18-2013, 01:21 PM
Obamas ideas are radical and controversial. Most of those fillibusters totally acceptable minority tactics. Don't get pissy over it. To pass controversial measures you need 60 votes. Thats how its been when dems were the minority and thats how it is now.

Deal with it and get all of your dems to vote together. Had they done that they would have won.

Even if all dems voted yes it still wouldn't have broke the filibuster.

BroncoBeavis
04-18-2013, 01:57 PM
Dems cant gain votes on gun control only lose them.

Yeah, the tradeoff for a Red State Democrat was pretty untenable...

almost nothing useful would've been accomplished other than Blue State feelgoodism. What the left fails to realize though is that same token feelgood "accomplishment" would be seen more more like a Scarlet Letter in Red gun-rights states.

Not sure why they think anyone from one of those states would stick their neck out for something that does little, but costs a lot (politically)

nyuk nyuk
04-18-2013, 03:32 PM
None of this legislation was going to pass into law. It just wasn't supposed to go down in flames in the democrat controlled senate. This was supposed to be laid at the feet of house republicans. Oops.

Same with amnesty. Though this bill was tanked by Democrats themselves, Obama yesterday goes on a rant against the NRA. Very typical.

nyuk nyuk
04-18-2013, 03:33 PM
Even if all dems voted yes it still wouldn't have broke the filibuster.

http://i48.tinypic.com/35irpma.png

ant1999e
04-19-2013, 10:55 PM
But I thought they were against guns.

http://news.yahoo.com/newtown-votes-armed-guards-elementary-schools-152326609.html

As the nation continues to confront the concept of "good guys with guns" in schools, armed guards are coming in force to Newtown, Connecticut. Late Thursday the Newtown Board of Education voted to request the presence of two kinds of guards inside the town's elementary schools. The vote, for now, only represents a request — it still needs to clear budget and logistical boundaries since the guards would come from the town's police resources as opposed to the school board itself. But the plan "would put two eyes and ears -- one armed, one unarmed -- at each Newtown school," reports Bronxville Patch's Davis Dunavin. The guards, officially called school resource officers (SROs), were already a fixture at all Newtown schools in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, but until this vote they were budgeted only to be a presence at middle and high Schools, according to NBC Connecticut. cont...

Meck77
04-20-2013, 04:09 PM
Good deal. Maybe the Dems should focus on pressure cookers now. Tens of millions of them in unregulated hands.

peacepipe
04-20-2013, 04:20 PM
But I thought they were against guns.

http://news.yahoo.com/newtown-votes-armed-guards-elementary-schools-152326609.html

As the nation continues to confront the concept of "good guys with guns" in schools, armed guards are coming in force to Newtown, Connecticut. Late Thursday the Newtown Board of Education voted to request the presence of two kinds of guards inside the town's elementary schools. The vote, for now, only represents a request — it still needs to clear budget and logistical boundaries since the guards would come from the town's police resources as opposed to the school board itself. But the plan "would put two eyes and ears -- one armed, one unarmed -- at each Newtown school," reports Bronxville Patch's Davis Dunavin. The guards, officially called school resource officers (SROs), were already a fixture at all Newtown schools in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, but until this vote they were budgeted only to be a presence at middle and high Schools, according to NBC Connecticut. cont...
They never said they were against guns.

cutthemdown
04-20-2013, 04:32 PM
Good deal. Maybe the Dems should focus on pressure cookers now. Tens of millions of them in unregulated hands.

What about backpacks? Think of all the no good people killing things people hide in backpacks. Not to mention drugs. I think we should make a law saying all backpacks have to be see through. If it saves even 1/2 of a life its worth it.

houghtam
04-20-2013, 04:45 PM
What about backpacks? Think of all the no good people killing things people hide in backpacks. Not to mention drugs. I think we should make a law saying all backpacks have to be see through. If it saves even 1/2 of a life its worth it.

No, my right to freedom trumps your right to safety. Rather, I'm for getting rid of all anti-terrorism laws, because let's face it, only criminals break the laws anyhow.

cutthemdown
04-20-2013, 05:50 PM
No, my right to freedom trumps your right to safety. Rather, I'm for getting rid of all anti-terrorism laws, because let's face it, only criminals break the laws anyhow.

Who has ever said we don't need laws to punish and help catch criminals and terrorists?

cutthemdown
04-20-2013, 05:52 PM
Liberals cant stand it when their stupid ideas get thwarted. They start blabbing nonesense about needing no laws lol.

pricejj
04-21-2013, 05:09 PM
Alcohol related deaths in the US, exceed gun related deaths.

errand
04-21-2013, 07:00 PM
Liberals cant stand it when their stupid ideas get thwarted. They start blabbing nonesense about needing no laws lol.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRg_KrE8iaTh1LrW8Lw-xD9kreKh9c_oH0AgZ_f2DE8ZlYgLNWgEw

peacepipe
04-21-2013, 07:03 PM
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRg_KrE8iaTh1LrW8Lw-xD9kreKh9c_oH0AgZ_f2DE8ZlYgLNWgEw

Damn,he better hope Hillary Clinton sees eye to eye with him ,or his attempt to overthrow the gov. Will be short lived.

errand
04-21-2013, 07:07 PM
Damn,he better hope Hillary Clinton sees eye to eye with him ,or his attempt to overthrow the gov. Will be short lived.

She's a liberal....so she does see eye to eye with him. why do you think she took the Secretary of State job offer to bow out of the Dem primary.

peacepipe
04-21-2013, 07:31 PM
She's a liberal....so she does see eye to eye with him. why do you think she took the Secretary of State job offer to bow out of the Dem primary.

She didn't bow out she lost.

TonyR
04-24-2013, 08:01 AM
It’s easy to envision the next Democratic presidential candidate campaigning on gun control—and winning. Thirteen years ago, Democrats needed rural Ohio, West Virginia, or Missouri to win the presidency. Today, Democratic presidential candidates are less reliant on rural, conservative gun owners than at any time in the history of the party. Democrats win with big margins in cities and suburbs, where support for gun control is an asset, not a hindrance. This is even true in Ohio, where Obama won twice despite losing additional ground in the traditionally Democratic, gun-toting, southeastern part of the state. Now Republicans find themselves in the place that haunted Democrats in the early part of the last decade: To win, Republicans need to reclaim the socially moderate suburbs around Denver, Washington, and Philadelphia, where gun control is a real asset to Democratic candidates. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112983/gun-control-2016-wedge-issue-helps-democrats

BroncoBeavis
04-24-2013, 08:19 AM
Here's the fundamental problem for Democrats next time around.

Obama can't run again. And a Hillary or JoeBi electorate will look nothing like the one that rose up around the President.

Candidate quality matters. A lot. It drives turnout. When that doesn't happen, motivated issue voters (even single issue voters) start to make more of a difference. It's why midterm elections generally look way different than Presidential ones. Democrats got their clocks cleaned with Clinton in office during midterms. But the people still reelected Clinton, because the other guy (although a nice guy) wasn't a good candidate. At least not in today's media-driven age.

In 2016, everything pretty much starts all over again. Anyone making declarations about what happens afterwards is kidding themselves.

TonyR
04-24-2013, 09:06 AM
Here's the fundamental problem for Democrats next time around...

...

Candidate quality matters...

Re "fundamental problems", the GOP has more of them than the Dems do. Demographics continue to trend in the wrong direction for the GOP, for example.

Re "candidate quality", this issue goes both ways. McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan say hello! :rofl:

houghtam
04-24-2013, 09:22 AM
Here's the fundamental problem for Democrats next time around.

Obama can't run again. And a Hillary or JoeBi electorate will look nothing like the one that rose up around the President.

Candidate quality matters. A lot. It drives turnout. When that doesn't happen, motivated issue voters (even single issue voters) start to make more of a difference. It's why midterm elections generally look way different than Presidential ones. Democrats got their clocks cleaned with Clinton in office during midterms. But the people still reelected Clinton, because the other guy (although a nice guy) wasn't a good candidate. At least not in today's media-driven age.

In 2016, everything pretty much starts all over again. Anyone making declarations about what happens afterwards is kidding themselves.

Umm, have you actually looked at the models out there? The Republicans will have to have an historic performance with white voters to counteract even the most conservative Democrat minority turnout models.

But sure, I'm sure this is just another case of us telling ourselves what we want to hear, and there's no chance Fill-in-the-blank loses.

cutthemdown
04-24-2013, 09:28 AM
Obama care will be such a disaster by then no Dem will be able to win. Already we are seeing states cut workers hours below 30 so they can send them to the exchanges. Private companies doing the same thing. The federal cost of Obama care will be 100's of millions of dollars a yr more expensive then Obama claimed. The economy won't grow much at all and unemployment will still be high. It won't look as bad because govt will have stopped counting 1000's of unemployed workers.

Repubs need to put someone like Christie on the ticket and see what happens.

houghtam
04-24-2013, 09:41 AM
Obama care will be such a disaster by then no Dem will be able to win. Already we are seeing states cut workers hours below 30 so they can send them to the exchanges. Private companies doing the same thing. The federal cost of Obama care will be 100's of millions of dollars a yr more expensive then Obama claimed. The economy won't grow much at all and unemployment will still be high. It won't look as bad because govt will have stopped counting 1000's of unemployed workers.

Repubs need to put someone like Christie on the ticket and see what happens.

Christie is the Republicans' only chance, and his approval ratings are in the 70s. That should tell you something.

peacepipe
04-24-2013, 10:56 AM
Here's the fundamental problem for Democrats next time around.

Obama can't run again. And a Hillary or JoeBi electorate will look nothing like the one that rose up around the President.

Candidate quality matters. A lot. It drives turnout. When that doesn't happen, motivated issue voters (even single issue voters) start to make more of a difference. It's why midterm elections generally look way different than Presidential ones. Democrats got their clocks cleaned with Clinton in office during midterms. But the people still reelected Clinton, because the other guy (although a nice guy) wasn't a good candidate. At least not in today's media-driven age.

In 2016, everything pretty much starts all over again. Anyone making declarations about what happens afterwards is kidding themselves.


You greatly underestimate the voter turnout that will likely turnout for Hillary Clinton. Every poll I have seen has Hillary with a significant lead over the likes of Christie & rubio in their home states. There well be big turnout for Hillary if she runs.

peacepipe
04-24-2013, 11:33 AM
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/newtown-votes-down-budget-extra-school-security.php?ref=fpb

NEWTOWN, Conn. (AP) — Newtown residents have rejected a budget that included money for extra school security in the wake of the December school shootings.

Voters turned down the $72 million school budget by 482 votes and rejected the $39 million town government budget by 62 votes Tuesday. Nearly 4,500 residents voted on the plans, which would have increased spending by 4.7 percent next fiscal year.

Officials put an extra $1 million in the school and town budgets to hire extra police officers and unarmed security guards to put in each of Newtown’s seven schools. The plan was spurred by the shootings that killed 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

First Selectwoman Patricia Llodra says she’s not sure what message voters were sending. She says officials will revise the budget.

BroncoBeavis
04-24-2013, 12:23 PM
You greatly underestimate the voter turnout that will likely turnout for Hillary Clinton. Every poll I have seen has Hillary with a significant lead over the likes of Christie & rubio in their home states. There well be big turnout for Hillary if she runs.

LOL

cutthemdown
04-24-2013, 02:36 PM
Hillary looked weak and beaten down around the time she resigned. I'm not sure she will want to try and be President but maybe she still yearns for it. Not sure how she would do. I doubt she is more popular now then she was 6 yrs ago. Also lot's of women get caddy when it comes to other women in power and sometimes prefer a man. A woman vice prez could be the smarter move for either party. Repubs should pick the gov from New Mexico and run her with Christie as the Presidential candidate. That is if they want to win. If they don't they can nominate some religious zealot and be done with it.

cutthemdown
04-24-2013, 02:37 PM
Fat white guy plus woman hispanic = can't lose!

cutthemdown
04-24-2013, 02:38 PM
i would also say Jeb Bush but I think that name will just drag him down.

peacepipe
04-24-2013, 02:47 PM
Hillary looked weak and beaten down around the time she resigned. I'm not sure she will want to try and be President but maybe she still yearns for it. Not sure how she would do. I doubt she is more popular now then she was 6 yrs ago. Also lot's of women get caddy when it comes to other women in power and sometimes prefer a man. A woman vice prez could be the smarter move for either party. Repubs should pick the gov from New Mexico and run her with Christie as the Presidential candidate. That is if they want to win. If they don't they can nominate some religious zealot and be done with it.

LOL she looked damn strong during the benghazi witch hunt hearing. Everybody from Johnson to Paul looked puny in comparison to H. Clinton.
She's got a 64% approval rating,she's not only as popular as she was in '08 but a stronger candidate.
You shouldn't presume to think you know how women vote. Especially considering the trend that women by very good margins are voting democrat.
Your boy Christie,wouldn't win his home state vs Clinton.

houghtam
04-24-2013, 03:08 PM
LOL she looked damn strong during the benghazi witch hunt hearing. Everybody from Johnson to Paul looked puny in comparison to H. Clinton.
She's got a 64% approval rating,she's not only as popular as she was in '08 but a stronger candidate.
You shouldn't presume to think you know how women vote. Especially considering the trend that women by very good margins are voting democrat.
Your boy Christie,wouldn't win his home state vs Clinton.

I disagree. I think Christie matches up very well with any candidate the democrats can put up, including Clinton.

Completely ridiculous to think Clinton wouldn't walk away with the woman vote, but of course it's supported by "because I feel" statements instead of facts. My biggest concern with Clinton is she'll be 70. I'm not sure she's running.

The biggest mistake the Republicans could make would be running a minority as the presidential candidate. It would come off as pandering, especially with a strong candidate like Christie available. If they don't run Christie, they're sealing their own fate.

cutthemdown
04-24-2013, 03:15 PM
I agree that Clinton just seems too old and tired. i don't feel she wants to run but of course people get a 2nd wind sometimes and maybe 2 yrs off with Bill egging her on would get her fired up. i was just surprised someone told me Obama did better with women then Hilliary was doing and thats why she lost. Maybe that wasn't true. I believe most women like a man more just an opinion but politics is all about opinions and hunches, not everything is spelled out in a graph.

Clinton too old and couldnt get the nomination last time. She knows hell some young democrat with new ideas and less baggage could just come in and Obama her again. Also she barely got out of debt from the last campaign. Not sure she wants to go through it all again at 70, in fact i think its a huge long shot.

Biden.....he may be just stupid enough to run. I hope he does because it will make the whole thing funnier.

cutthemdown
04-24-2013, 03:16 PM
Susana Martinez is a strong VP choice IMO and would not be seen as pandering as long as repubs keep helping to pass immigration. Obviously not all of them will support it but if enough do then it could work.

cutthemdown
04-24-2013, 03:17 PM
Hell you get a latino and a woman on to the same ticket. Put Christie at the lead spot and then you get the fat vote. Could be a very hard ticket to beat. :) A few bad fat jokes and all those obese Americans might vote like the blacks did for Obama. You know 99.999999999 %

peacepipe
04-24-2013, 03:27 PM
I disagree. I think Christie matches up very well with any candidate the democrats can put up, including Clinton.

Completely ridiculous to think Clinton wouldn't walk away with the woman vote, but of course it's supported by "because I feel" statements instead of facts. My biggest concern with Clinton is she'll be 70. I'm not sure she's running.

The biggest mistake the Republicans could make would be running a minority as the presidential candidate. It would come off as pandering, especially with a strong candidate like Christie available. If they don't run Christie, they're sealing their own fate.
She's not McCain, Christie may match up better against Clinton,as opposed to rubio but that isn't saying much.
If age is an issue,so will Christies weight be an issue. The guys a Hamburger away from a heart attack. I'm not sure she's running,but there's no guarantee Christie is running either. Christie will have problems getting out of the primaries,considering the circumstances leading to the '12 elections.

houghtam
04-24-2013, 03:28 PM
I agree that Clinton just seems too old and tired. i don't feel she wants to run but of course people get a 2nd wind sometimes and maybe 2 yrs off with Bill egging her on would get her fired up. i was just surprised someone told me Obama did better with women then Hilliary was doing and thats why she lost. Maybe that wasn't true. I believe most women like a man more just an opinion but politics is all about opinions and hunches, not everything is spelled out in a graph.

Clinton too old and couldnt get the nomination last time. She knows hell some young democrat with new ideas and less baggage could just come in and Obama her again. Also she barely got out of debt from the last campaign. Not sure she wants to go through it all again at 70, in fact i think its a huge long shot.

Biden.....he may be just stupid enough to run. I hope he does because it will make the whole thing funnier.

I don't think it's a longshot...if I were taking bets I'd say she's 70% likely to run. She won't likely get Obama'ed by some young guy because there's really no Obama to pull it off. We all knew after the 04 DNC speech Obama was going to be hard to bring down. IMO the democrats don't have someone like that yet. Julian Castro gave an amazing speech, but he's not quite big enough yet. When Clinton realizes that she's got an easy road to the nomination, it'll be hard to convince her NOT to run.

If I had to guess this far out the D nominee will go to Clinton and someone like Deval Patrick, someone else who shone at the DNC.

Another one that is getting buzz is Elizabeth Warren, but if Clinton were to run she wouldn't have a chance against her.

peacepipe
04-24-2013, 03:35 PM
Obama had a far superior ground game over Clinton,Clintons mistake was counting her eggs before they hatch.

BroncoBeavis
04-24-2013, 03:42 PM
LOL she looked damn strong during the benghazi witch hunt hearing.

Yeah, like when she called in sick instead of testifying. But otherwise, I think you're right. I mean enduring all that sniper fire as first lady probably really stiffened her disposition. LOL

houghtam
04-24-2013, 03:46 PM
Obama had a far superior ground game over Clinton,Clintons mistake was counting her eggs before they hatch.

Agree, and thi is another huge thing the Rs will have to overcome. News flash: Obama isn't going away after his term is up. He kept his ground game infrastructure intact, and IMO will continue to work in that area after he's done. That's a huge advantage, as we saw in both of the last elections.

peacepipe
04-24-2013, 03:47 PM
Yeah, like when she called in sick instead of testifying. But otherwise, I think you're right. I mean enduring all that sniper fire as first lady probably really stiffened her disposition. LOL

Yeah, comeback when you got a legitimate point.

cutthemdown
04-24-2013, 03:49 PM
Agree, and thi is another huge thing the Rs will have to overcome. News flash: Obama isn't going away after his term is up. He kept his ground game infrastructure intact, and IMO will continue to work in that area after he's done. That's a huge advantage, as we saw in both of the last elections.

he's only going to be an asset if Obamacare working well and the economy is growing/unemployment down.

I just read that even state govt are cutting part time employees from 34 hours to 29 so they don't have to give insurance. That send a lot more people to the exchanges then Obama counted on. The costs are skyrocketing and whether or not Obamacare can work is still undecided.

cutthemdown
04-24-2013, 03:51 PM
I don't think it's a longshot...if I were taking bets I'd say she's 70% likely to run. She won't likely get Obama'ed by some young guy because there's really no Obama to pull it off. We all knew after the 04 DNC speech Obama was going to be hard to bring down. IMO the democrats don't have someone like that yet. Julian Castro gave an amazing speech, but he's not quite big enough yet. When Clinton realizes that she's got an easy road to the nomination, it'll be hard to convince her NOT to run.

If I had to guess this far out the D nominee will go to Clinton and someone like Deval Patrick, someone else who shone at the DNC.

Another one that is getting buzz is Elizabeth Warren, but if Clinton were to run she wouldn't have a chance against her.

what about Biden? The VP usually gets a shot.

cutthemdown
04-24-2013, 03:53 PM
I really wish Clinton would have won. I think she would have done a better job the Obama. You could see here first thought in Egypt was calm down, no reason to oust mubarek, lets try and start an orderly progression to free elections. Obama? HEY MUBARAK GET THE **** OUT!

houghtam
04-24-2013, 03:54 PM
he's only going to be an asset if Obamacare working well and the economy is growing/unemployment down.

I just read that even state govt are cutting part time employees from 34 hours to 29 so they don't have to give insurance. That send a lot more people to the exchanges then Obama counted on. The costs are skyrocketing and whether or not Obamacare can work is still undecided.

The infrastructure he already built will help them no matter what people think of Obamacare. We're not talking about name recognition and association here, we're talking about networking. Another way of putting it: community organization.

BroncoBeavis
04-24-2013, 03:56 PM
Obama had a far superior ground game over Clinton,Clintons mistake was counting her eggs before they hatch.

Clinton's problem was she was the inferior media candidate. And that vulnerability only gets worse with age. She'll be damn near 70 by 2016. "You Kids Get off my effin lawn!" doesn't energize the low-info swing voters quite so much as "hope" and "change" :)

houghtam
04-24-2013, 03:59 PM
what about Biden? The VP usually gets a shot.

I don't think he's interested. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see it. And he'll be 71 I think? If he does put his name in he won't last long unless Clinton isn't in. If Clinton is not in the Ds will panic thinking they need someone with a ton of experience and go with Biden, which will only work if the Rs run a weak candidate like Romney, or an embarrassment like Palin.

TonyR
04-24-2013, 05:54 PM
Clinton's problem was...

She also had a far inferior campaign staff. Mark Penn in particular was completely incompetent. With better people running things she probably would have beat Obama.

cutthemdown
04-24-2013, 06:05 PM
I don't think he's interested. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see it. And he'll be 71 I think? If he does put his name in he won't last long unless Clinton isn't in. If Clinton is not in the Ds will panic thinking they need someone with a ton of experience and go with Biden, which will only work if the Rs run a weak candidate like Romney, or an embarrassment like Palin.

Basically the same age as Hilliary though.

errand
04-24-2013, 07:46 PM
Yeah, comeback when you got a legitimate point.

His point is that Hillary is a liar.......

[] she lied about taking sniper fire ......

[] she lied about having a concussion.....

[] she lied about Whitewater.....oh, sorry she didn't "recall"...same ****.

[] she lied about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary.....

She lies about damn near everything.....

errand
04-24-2013, 07:49 PM
She also had a far inferior campaign staff. Mark Penn in particular was completely incompetent. With better people running things she probably would have beat Obama.


Democrats had quite the conflict that year....did they want to be labelled a sexist (vote Obama) or a racist (vote Hillary)...I'm guessing sexist is further down the liberal totem pole than racist is.

houghtam
04-24-2013, 07:56 PM
Democrats had quite the conflict that year....did they want to be labelled a sexist (vote Obama) or a racist (vote Hillary)...I'm guessing sexist is further down the liberal totem pole than racist is.

Yeah because we all know minorities couldn't possibly be just plain old good candidates. Certainly not when put up against a crazy old man and his simpleton hick running mate.

TonyR
04-26-2013, 09:48 AM
So why is a pressure cooker bomb a "weapon of mass destruction", but an AR-15 isn't?

...why is a version of an AR-15, as used by Adam Lanza, that killed 28 human beings, not treated the same way? Why was that act not treated as a suicide bombing would be? If something that kills three people is responsible for “mass destruction”, why not a military weapon that can kill 28 and end in suicide? The AR-15 can be adapted to have a hundred bullets in a Beta C-Mag magazine. ...
You could kill dozens of people with those large, bullet-packed balls – and a terrorist could murder and maim many more human beings than were killed and injured in Boston. But it isn’t legally or technically a weapon of “mass” destruction. In fact, having one is a constitutional right.

Is this a great country, or what? http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/04/26/why-is-this-not-a-weapon-of-mass-destruction/

BroncoBeavis
04-26-2013, 10:03 AM
So why is a pressure cooker bomb a "weapon of mass destruction", but an AR-15 isn't?

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/04/26/why-is-this-not-a-weapon-of-mass-destruction/

Because the government's absurd definition of WMD's somehow includes even the crudest IEDs.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/tsarnaev-charged/

Good news is, I guess our boys did find plenty of WMD's in Iraq after all. Awaiting media corrections. :)

cutthemdown
04-27-2013, 09:25 PM
Well I am on my 10 day waiting period going to rebuild my collection. I sold the 2 guns i used to have a few years ago when i went through my I don't need guns phase. First up will just be a basic shotgun probably like a remington pump with an 18 inch and a 28 inch barrel. Then after that if i can find one a mean and nasty AR that will make Diane Fientsien cry like a little bitch.

defenseman
04-27-2013, 10:04 PM
The infrastructure he already built will help them no matter what people think of Obamacare. We're not talking about name recognition and association here, we're talking about networking. Another way of putting it: community organization.

An organized con-job.....I understand now......ahh for an american voter that had the intelligence to see through obama's big con....very sad.

TonyR
05-02-2013, 01:16 PM
Another great story of the benefits of gun ownership!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/authorities-2-year-old-kentucky-girl-accidentally-shot-killed-by-5-year-old-brother/2013/04/30/c1832fee-b206-11e2-9fb1-62de9581c946_story.html

houghtam
05-02-2013, 01:48 PM
Another great story of the benefits of gun ownership!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/authorities-2-year-old-kentucky-girl-accidentally-shot-killed-by-5-year-old-brother/2013/04/30/c1832fee-b206-11e2-9fb1-62de9581c946_story.html

This at least the fifth incident in less than a month where a toddler has shot someone.

http://www.wbbjtv.com/news/local/Woman-Reportedly-Shot-by-her-2-Year-Old--202025261.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/09/child-shooting-deputy-wife/2066289/

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_jersey&id=9057965

http://www.wbtw.com/story/21920755/3-year-old-sc-child-dead-after-shooting-self-in-home

Responsible gun owners, all of em.

I stand by my statement that if you have kids, you shouldn't be able to keep a gun on your property.

Fedaykin
05-02-2013, 02:35 PM
Well I am on my 10 day waiting period going to rebuild my collection. I sold the 2 guns i used to have a few years ago when i went through my I don't need guns phase. First up will just be a basic shotgun probably like a remington pump with an 18 inch and a 28 inch barrel. Then after that if i can find one a mean and nasty AR that will make Diane Fientsien cry like a little b****.


I think this is what you are looking for:

http://www.amazon.com/Master-mamba-cock-sheath-flesh/dp/B009Q90A10/ref=pd_sim_sbs_hpc_5

Rohirrim
05-02-2013, 03:43 PM
They sell that stuff on Amazon? I must be naive. :pity:

Pony Boy
05-02-2013, 05:29 PM
I stand by my statement that if you have kids, you shouldn't be able to keep a gun on your property.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yJtMNSZ5ZfY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

ant1999e
05-02-2013, 06:54 PM
I stand by my statement that if you have kids, you shouldn't be able to keep a gun on your property.
1

houghtam
05-02-2013, 07:03 PM
1

I'm glad you and I both agree that abortion should be banned in most cases.

Pony Boy
05-02-2013, 07:35 PM
I stand by my statement that if you have kids, you shouldn't be able to keep a gun on your property.

So Comrade Houghtam how would this be enforced, would you have the National Guard move through the neighborhoods and demand all families with children to surrender their firearms. It might be more effective if they just kick down the door and search the homes, it would make a bigger statement that we mean business.

houghtam
05-02-2013, 07:59 PM
So Comrade Houghtam how would this be enforced, would you have the National Guard move through the neighborhoods and demand all families with children to surrender their firearms. It might be more effective if they just kick down the door and search the homes, it would make a bigger statement that we mean business.

It's not enforceable. It's just my belief. Just like you believe abortion should be banned, yet you know it never will.

As I have said before, in my experience, gun owners are just not responsible people. Maybe it's that I'm from Michigan and the responsibility you gun owners always talk about hasn't made it there yet, I dunno.

I realize that you can't come and take people's guns. That is why we are teaching our children that if they see someone with a gun who is not an identified member of law enforcement, to leave immediately. Removing yourself from the situation is the only 100% sure way to prevent an accident. Think of it as abstinence from guns.

BroncoBeavis
05-03-2013, 05:27 AM
It's not enforceable. It's just my belief. Just like you believe abortion should be banned, yet you know it never will.

As I have said before, in my experience, gun owners are just not responsible people. Maybe it's that I'm from Michigan and the responsibility you gun owners always talk about hasn't made it there yet, I dunno.

I realize that you can't come and take people's guns. That is why we are teaching our children that if they see someone with a gun who is not an identified member of law enforcement, to leave immediately. Removing yourself from the situation is the only 100% sure way to prevent an accident. Think of it as abstinence from guns.

Abstinence never works. Universal gun education is the only answer. :)

houghtam
05-03-2013, 07:50 AM
Abstinence never works. Universal gun education is the only answer. :)

Abstinence ONLY doesn't work. :)

Pony Boy
05-03-2013, 07:52 AM
Another great story of the benefits of gun ownership!

Cool Story Bro ............. I agree 5 year olds should not be in possession of a firearm and I also believe 5 year olds should not drive a car, fly an airplane or drink alcohol. Come to think about, all knives and any thing sharp should be removed from the house if a 5 year old is living there.

Let's make sure to remove everything that could be a hazard, oh except those morning after pills for our 15 year old daughters.

nyuk nyuk
05-03-2013, 08:42 AM
It's just my belief. Just like you believe abortion should be banned, yet you know it never will.

Which is why any time abortion is mentioned in politics, it is a 100% non-issue. You may as well bicker over which candidate prefers quiche over fried eggs.

As I have said before, in my experience, gun owners are just not responsible people. Maybe it's that I'm from Michigan and the responsibility you gun owners always talk about hasn't made it there yet, I dunno.

I'm sure there are relevant statistics to show this - outside of Detroit, of course.

nyuk nyuk
05-03-2013, 08:43 AM
I stand by my statement that if you have kids, you shouldn't be able to keep a gun on your property.

Do you need some matches to help you burn the Constitution?

nyuk nyuk
05-03-2013, 08:45 AM
Another great story of the benefits of gun ownership!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/authorities-2-year-old-kentucky-girl-accidentally-shot-killed-by-5-year-old-brother/2013/04/30/c1832fee-b206-11e2-9fb1-62de9581c946_story.html

Because it has everything to do with the gun and nothing to do with poor parental supervision.

So you also blame kids run over by cars on the car and not the person driving it. Suuuuure you do.

TonyR
05-03-2013, 12:32 PM
How stupid does the Senate background-check vote look now, I ask the pundits and others who thought it was dumb politics for Obama and the Democrats to push for a vote that they obviously knew they were going to lose. I’d say not very stupid at all. The nosedive taken in the polls by a number of senators who voted against the bill, most of them in red states, makes public sentiment here crystal clear. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/02/next-time-the-nra-will-lose.html

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/05/hagan-landrieu-gun-voters-could-help-in-2014.html

TonyR
05-03-2013, 12:39 PM
Here's an article about the gun industry's efforts to create a new generation of gun owners. Get them while they're young!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/us/selling-a-new-generation-on-guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Pony Boy
05-03-2013, 12:46 PM
How stupid does the Senate background-check vote look now, I ask the pundits and others who thought it was dumb politics for Obama and the Democrats to push for a vote that they obviously knew they were going to lose. I’d say not very stupid at all. The nosedive taken in the polls by a number of senators who voted against the bill, most of them in red states, makes public sentiment here crystal clear.

Very smart and I bet all the red states will replace those congressman with liberal gun hating democrats, but you are on the right track, if we would have had a background check on the 5 year old that accident would not have happened.

peacepipe
05-03-2013, 01:14 PM
This isn't over,let's not forget the procedural move ried made in voting no. This bill will come up again.

BroncoBeavis
05-03-2013, 02:03 PM
This isn't over,let's not forget the procedural move ried made in voting no. This bill will come up again.

That would be awesome, just to further prove how full of BS Senate leadership is. They've told us for the last several years that they couldn't bother to pass a budget (as the law requires) because it would be a waste of time since they'd never agree on something that could pass the house.

But then enter gun control, and suddenly the Senate becomes a virtual fount of symbolic votes and maneuvers that have 0 chance of ever being ratified by the house. Just goes to show that political posturing is definitely Job 1 in Washington these days.

Rohirrim
05-03-2013, 03:06 PM
This has a whole lot more to do with gun sales than it does with gun rights.

Dr. Broncenstein
05-03-2013, 09:27 PM
If you have kids, you should not be allowed to have access to:

1. A motor vehicle
2. Anything that might possibly form an airway obstruction
3. Water
4. Substances that are potentially toxic after ingestion
5. Any source of flame or flammable material
6. Any sort of elevated platform

Year after year of "accidental injuries" leading to the needless, predictable, and preventable deaths of innocent children. Won't somebody think of the children?

Dr. Broncenstein
05-03-2013, 09:53 PM
Kid, if you are ever over at a friend's house and you notice they have a car / food / marbles / running water / medicine / cleaning supplies / stairs / anything flammable:

You must immediately close the hatch on your hermetically sealed bubble, activate the emergency air supply, and pray for your life. Resist the urge to call for help, because the cell signal will bombard your central nervous system and thyroid gland with ionizing radiation.

houghtam
05-03-2013, 10:05 PM
Kid, if you are ever over at a friend's house and you notice they have a car / food / marbles / running water / medicine / cleaning supplies / stairs / anything flammable:

You must immediately close the hatch on your hermetically sealed bubble, activate the emergency air supply, and pray for your life. Resist the urge to call for help, because the cell signal will bombard your central nervous system and thyroid gland with ionizing radiation.

Way to overreact, ****heel. If a gun is stored properly like you responsible gun owners always claim to do, my kids aren't going to see it, are they?

There's no reason anyone needs to have a gun out of storage while my child is there.

Dr. Broncenstein
05-03-2013, 10:11 PM
Way to overreact, ****heel. If a gun is stored properly like you responsible gun owners always claim to do, my kids aren't going to see it, are they?

Depends on if we are out target shooting or hunting. Or if they happen to see the decorative unloaded guns on the wall. I'm going to let my five year old shoot his .22 rifle tomorrow at some targets. Try not to shiat your pants.

houghtam
05-03-2013, 10:26 PM
Depends on if we are out target shooting or hunting. Or if they happen to see the decorative unloaded guns on the wall. I'm going to let my five year old shoot his .22 rifle tomorrow at some targets. Try not to shiat your pants.

Why would I send my child over to someone's house who is going to be hunting or target shooting? Why would I care about unloaded decorative firearms when most people don't keep ammunition around for decorative pieces? I know I don't with mine, and no one in my group does, either.

Now let me ask you this...is it common practice for you to get your guns out when another parent whose child is visiting isn't aware? Is that your idea of responsible parenting?

Dr. Broncenstein
05-03-2013, 10:35 PM
Why would I send my child over to someone's house who is going to be hunting or target shooting? Why would I care about unloaded decorative firearms when most people don't keep ammunition around for decorative pieces?

Now let me ask you this...is it common practice for you to get your guns out when another parent whose child is visiting isn't aware? Is that your idea of responsible parenting?

We typically put on the Deer Hunter and place my entire arsenal in the living room floor, and tell the kids to have fun as the wife and I head out to the bar. Usually they are too busy trying to drown themselves in the pool to have any interest in the guns.

houghtam
05-03-2013, 10:47 PM
We typically put on the Deer Hunter and place my entire arsenal in the living room floor, and tell the kids to have fun as the wife and I head out to the bar. Usually they are too busy trying to drown themselves in the pool to have any interest in the guns.

About what I figured.

Good recovery on your overreaction though. A redirect and an attempt at absurd sarcasm is probably about the best you can hope for when you misread or misunderstand what someone says and then jump on them and look a fool.

Dr. Broncenstein
05-03-2013, 10:49 PM
Cool Story Bro ............. I agree 5 year olds should not be in possession of a firearm and I also believe 5 year olds should not drive a car, fly an airplane or drink alcohol. Come to think about, all knives and any thing sharp should be removed from the house if a 5 year old is living there.

Let's make sure to remove everything that could be a hazard, oh except those morning after pills for our 15 year old daughters.

When I was five, my dad bought me an air rifle and a motorcycle. Or maybe I was six. Either way, it wasn't until I was seven that he actually let me shoot the pellet gun while riding... and that was only if I wore a helmet. He was such a stickler for safety.

Dr. Broncenstein
05-03-2013, 10:54 PM
About what I figured.

Good recovery on your overreaction though. A redirect and an attempt at absurd sarcasm is probably about the best you can hope for when you misread or misunderstand what someone says and then jump on them and look a fool.

Your child would never be allowed over to our house anyway. The last time a kid came over in a bubble we were sent a bill for cleaning the combination of urine and feces that were produced when my kids started showing off their gun collections. No more kids in bubbles allowed.

houghtam
05-03-2013, 10:56 PM
Your child would never be allowed over to our house anyway. The last time a kid came over in a bubble we were sent a bill for cleaning the combination of urine and feces that were produced when my kids started showing off their gun collections. No more kids in bubbles allowed.

Hilarious!

Look at how much face I'm saving everyone! Lookit me! Lookit me!

Dr. Broncenstein
05-03-2013, 11:01 PM
Hilarious!

Look at how much face I'm saving everyone! Lookit me! Lookit me!

I stand by my statement that if you have kids, you shouldn't be able to keep a gun on your property.


Lol.

houghtam
05-03-2013, 11:05 PM
Guns are comparable to cars, marbles and water. What? I didn't think your post through and realize that responsible gun owners shouldn't have their guns out of storage when a kid is over whose parents aren't aware? Man I look dumb now. Maybe if I make a joke ill look less dumb. Nope that didn't work either. What now? Another joke?

Lol.

Dr. Broncenstein
05-03-2013, 11:15 PM
I stand by my statement that if you have kids, you shouldn't be able to keep a gun on your property.

See, all I have to do is just quote your honest opinion to highlight your stupidity. Bless your little heart.

houghtam
05-03-2013, 11:26 PM
See, all I have to do is just quote your honest opinion to highlight your stupidity. Bless your little heart.

Stupidity? Stupidity is claiming you need a gun to protect your home when statistics say it has no effect whatsoever. Stupidity is demeaning the parenting methods of people you don't know simply because they don't agree with you. Stupidity is comparing guns to water and marbles. Stupidity is...well, you.

There, there. There, there. Hush now, child. Hush now.

Dr. Broncenstein
05-03-2013, 11:39 PM
Stupidity? Stupidity is claiming you need a gun to protect your home when statistics say it has no effect whatsoever. Stupidity is demeaning the parenting methods of people you don't know simply because they don't agree with you. Stupidity is comparing guns to water and marbles. Stupidity is...well, you.

There, there. There, there. Hush now, child. Hush now.


https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-EB_fnQV8m9A/UYSsmkHpUHI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/FEBJeJhHfNA/s720/10LCID_Unintentional_Deaths_2010-a.jpg

Airway obstructions vs accidental gun deaths? No contest. Lol.

houghtam
05-03-2013, 11:50 PM
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-EB_fnQV8m9A/UYSsmkHpUHI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/FEBJeJhHfNA/s720/10LCID_Unintentional_Deaths_2010-a.jpg

Airway obstructions vs accidental gun deaths? No contest. Lol.

They teach you intellectual dishonesty at medical school? They sure as hell didn't teach you logic or critical thought. Ha!

When the National Marble Association recommends you keep your marbles locked up, we can talk.

Dr. Broncenstein
05-04-2013, 12:01 AM
They teach you intellectual dishonesty at medical school? They sure as hell didn't teach you logic or critical thought. Ha!

When the National Marble Association recommends you keep your marbles locked up, we can talk.

See those purple squares? They say "unintentional suffocation." That's fancy-talk for choking. Marbles are small, round, and conforming... thus they represent a typical choking hazard. Study it out. I realize that you fit this description as well, so don't get confused.

houghtam
05-04-2013, 06:41 AM
See those purple squares? They say "unintentional suffocation." That's fancy-talk for choking. Marbles are small, round, and conforming... thus they represent a typical choking hazard. Study it out. I realize that you fit this description as well, so don't get confused.

Ha!

What a dunce.

http://www.floridachildinjurylawyer.com/firearm_gun_injuries_firearm_g/

I wonder why lawmakers charge people with crimes when someone dies as a result of an unsecured firearm, but not for playing with marbles. Must be a plot devised by the ABA and the librul justice system to come take your guns, of course.

Dr. Broncenstein
05-04-2013, 07:22 AM
Ha!

What a dunce.

http://www.floridachildinjurylawyer.com/firearm_gun_injuries_firearm_g/

I wonder why lawmakers charge people with crimes when someone dies as a result of an unsecured firearm, but not for playing with marbles. Must be a plot devised by the ABA and the librul justice system to come take your guns, of course.

Definitely should take away the right to keep and bear arms when children are present. They would be completely safe if only we could eliminate the risk of accidental shootings. In the meantime, keep calm and bubble up for safety.

W*GS
05-04-2013, 02:46 PM
The National Rifle Association is holding its 142nd annual meeting in downtown Houston this weekend. Here are the scheduled events:

FRIDAY, May 3

12 p.m.: Welcoming introduction video from President Obama
12:30 p.m.: Security forced to hold back squealing teenage girls in attendance as Wayne LaPierre takes stage
12:35 p.m.: Quick joke about how everyone in attendance must have passed a background check to warm up the crowd
1 p.m.: Most unconscionable words you could ever imagine met with enthusiastic cheers from thousands of people
3 p.m.: Remembrance of the victims of Sandy Hook with an extended moment of loud, scrambling excuse-making
6 p.m.: Reasoned, level-headed debate on whether the Second Amendment continues to hold relevance
SATURDAY, May 4

11:40 a.m.: Man whose face and name will someday be plastered across news websites and televisions across the nation approaches convention registration table
12 p.m.: Performance of “God Bless America” using guns with variously pitched discharges
4 p.m.: The 46 senators who voted against last month’s defeated gun control bill collect their winnings
5 p.m.: One-hour triage break to treat afternoon gun wounds
6:30 p.m.: Beaten, tied-up gun control advocates Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) lowered from roof into ravenous audience
8 p.m.: NRA/anti-NRA protest groups mixer
SUNDAY, May 5

10 a.m.: Psychological counseling booths open to let gun enthusiasts talk out their deep-seated emotional problems
11 a.m.: Kids Korner workshop featuring popular Decorate Your Own Human Silhouette Target station
12 p.m.: Crowd treated to free T-shirts fired from fully automatic T-shirt cannon with high-capacity magazine
1 p.m.: Intensive five-hour town hall discussion on mental health reform
6:30 p.m.: Man who threatened to murder the President of the United States gives rousing speech to attendees
7 p.m.: Attendees leave convention knowing they have done their duty to protect the freedom of the American people

http://www.theonion.com/articles/2013-nra-convention-schedule-of-events,32305/

TonyR
05-04-2013, 03:32 PM
Classy new president of the NRA. Sounds a little bit like some of the goofballs in this thread!

Alabama lawyer Jim Porter has called U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder “rabidly un-American” and proudly spews the Confederate line on the Civil War.

In a June speech, Porter noted the NRA was “started by some Yankee generals who didn’t like the way my Southern boys had the ability to shoot in what we call the ‘War of Northern Aggression.’ ” “Now y’all might call it the Civil War, but we call it the ‘War of Northern Aggression’ down South,” Porter said to the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association. He also advocates training all U.S. civilians to use standard military firearms so “they’re ready to fight tyranny.” http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nutty-new-nra-president-jim-porter-war-guns-article-1.1333864#ixzz2SFEEiyZv

Hilarious!

Dr. Broncenstein
05-04-2013, 04:52 PM
The National Rifle Association is holding its 142nd annual meeting in downtown Houston this weekend. Here are the scheduled events:

FRIDAY, May 3

12 p.m.: Welcoming introduction video from President Obama
12:30 p.m.: Security forced to hold back squealing teenage girls in attendance as Wayne LaPierre takes stage
12:35 p.m.: Quick joke about how everyone in attendance must have passed a background check to warm up the crowd
1 p.m.: Most unconscionable words you could ever imagine met with enthusiastic cheers from thousands of people
3 p.m.: Remembrance of the victims of Sandy Hook with an extended moment of loud, scrambling excuse-making
6 p.m.: Reasoned, level-headed debate on whether the Second Amendment continues to hold relevance
SATURDAY, May 4

11:40 a.m.: Man whose face and name will someday be plastered across news websites and televisions across the nation approaches convention registration table
12 p.m.: Performance of “God Bless America” using guns with variously pitched discharges
4 p.m.: The 46 senators who voted against last month’s defeated gun control bill collect their winnings
5 p.m.: One-hour triage break to treat afternoon gun wounds
6:30 p.m.: Beaten, tied-up gun control advocates Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) lowered from roof into ravenous audience
8 p.m.: NRA/anti-NRA protest groups mixer
SUNDAY, May 5

10 a.m.: Psychological counseling booths open to let gun enthusiasts talk out their deep-seated emotional problems
11 a.m.: Kids Korner workshop featuring popular Decorate Your Own Human Silhouette Target station
12 p.m.: Crowd treated to free T-shirts fired from fully automatic T-shirt cannon with high-capacity magazine
1 p.m.: Intensive five-hour town hall discussion on mental health reform
6:30 p.m.: Man who threatened to murder the President of the United States gives rousing speech to attendees
7 p.m.: Attendees leave convention knowing they have done their duty to protect the freedom of the American people

http://www.theonion.com/articles/2013-nra-convention-schedule-of-events,32305/

The Onion.

houghtam
05-04-2013, 04:58 PM
Classy new president of the NRA. Sounds a little bit like some of the goofballs in this thread!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nutty-new-nra-president-jim-porter-war-guns-article-1.1333864#ixzz2SFEEiyZv

Hilarious!

I always loved when people called it that when I lived down there and the look on their face when I asked who fired the first shot.

Fedaykin
05-04-2013, 05:02 PM
I always loved when people called it that when I lived down there and the look on their face when I asked who fired the first shot.

Gotta love people proclaiming others to be anti-American whilst proudly talking about actual treason against the U.S.

W*GS
05-04-2013, 05:11 PM
The Onion.

Not as satirical as one might think. Has more than a little truth to it.

cutthemdown
05-04-2013, 06:17 PM
I think this is what you are looking for:

http://www.amazon.com/Master-mamba-cock-sheath-flesh/dp/B009Q90A10/ref=pd_sim_sbs_hpc_5

How is that working out for you and your gay lover? Do you recommend them?

cutthemdown
05-04-2013, 06:18 PM
They sell that stuff on Amazon? I must be naive. :pity:

Most of us are but obviously Fed knew right where to find them huh? I guess his wife bought that for him.

cutthemdown
05-04-2013, 06:20 PM
It's not enforceable. It's just my belief. Just like you believe abortion should be banned, yet you know it never will.

As I have said before, in my experience, gun owners are just not responsible people. Maybe it's that I'm from Michigan and the responsibility you gun owners always talk about hasn't made it there yet, I dunno.

I realize that you can't come and take people's guns. That is why we are teaching our children that if they see someone with a gun who is not an identified member of law enforcement, to leave immediately. Removing yourself from the situation is the only 100% sure way to prevent an accident. Think of it as abstinence from guns.

Best way for you to protect kids would be to cut off your dick so you can't have any.

Pony Boy
05-04-2013, 07:41 PM
I stand by my statement that if you have kids, you shouldn't be able to keep a gun on your property.

I wonder how well this idea would go over for families that live in Alaska or Montana where grizzly bears are the top of the food chain and kids are on the bottom.

Fedaykin
05-04-2013, 08:22 PM
How is that working out for you and your gay lover? Do you recommend them?
...
Most of us are but obviously Fed knew right where to find them huh? I guess his wife bought that for him.


LMAO... weak sauce there bub. Are you even trying?

cutthemdown
05-04-2013, 10:31 PM
LMAO... weak sauce there bub. Are you even trying?

I will try and be more creative like your small dick jokes. Ummm because you know none of us have heard those before. And no I am not really trying it just sort of spews out in a stream. You know like semen into your mouth most nights when you shower at the gym.

Fedaykin
05-05-2013, 01:34 PM
I will try and be more creative like your small dick jokes. Ummm because you know none of us have heard those before. And no I am not really trying it just sort of spews out in a stream. You know like semen into your mouth most nights when you shower at the gym.

Apparently my joke was more accurate than I surmised.

cutthemdown
05-05-2013, 05:03 PM
Fedaykin = The Seer Of Mens Cocks. Only he can surmise dick size before he even goes down on it. Fedaykin do yourself a favor and get a new talent that isn't so gay.

Fedaykin
05-05-2013, 05:04 PM
Fedaykin = The Seer Of Mens Cocks. Only he can surmise dick size before he even goes down on it. Fedaykin do yourself a favor and get a new talent that isn't so gay.

I really struck a nerve, didn't I?

cutthemdown
05-05-2013, 06:58 PM
I really struck a nerve, didn't I?

The only thing you ever strike is your boyfriends ass nerves. Hilarious!

errand
05-05-2013, 09:07 PM
Originally Posted by houghtam

I stand by my statement that if you have kids, you shouldn't be able to keep a gun on your property.



'Sup bi tch?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LQcoNr6ZIEc?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


'Sup beotch?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VPfz7ENFUB0?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


'Sup beotch?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tiiQQP4-Ijw?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

'Sup bi tch?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Oz3VX1ZAqoA?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

errand
05-05-2013, 09:43 PM
Sup beotch!

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LhB0G-k3Y2k?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Sup beotch?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IrESAKfGmmM?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Sup beotch?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-el_BlWWEFc?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dr. Broncenstein
05-05-2013, 09:47 PM
If you can't own a gun without children accidentally killing themselves with said gun, you shouldn't be having children.

errand
05-05-2013, 09:58 PM
If you can't own a gun without children accidentally killing themselves with said gun, you shouldn't be having children.

he can't help himself..... liberals always think they know more than anyone else... they believe their way is the only way.... they believe that people are just too stupid.... and they want to rule over others by claiming that they are trying to save people from themselves

cutthemdown
05-05-2013, 10:27 PM
People who let kids kill themselves with their guns should be punished for child abuse and neglect. The bad news is you can't police things like that before the fact. It's just not going to happen where they take away a right because you have kids. Or say you have kids we can inspect your gun and house to make sure its safe. You can to a point with child services but not some widespread attack on gun owners. That will never fly.

cutthemdown
05-05-2013, 10:30 PM
Keep your guns away from kids and under 18 only with adult supervision. If you can't enforce that as a parent, and your kid kills someone or themselves with guy you should be punished for it. If they kill you with guns then i guess that your punishement. :)

houghtam
05-05-2013, 10:39 PM
Keep your guns away from kids and under 18 only with adult supervision. If you can't enforce that as a parent, and your kid kills someone or themselves with guy you should be punished for it. If they kill you with guns then i guess that your punishement. :)

Punished how? Also...who should be required to pay for the medical bills if your child injures or kills someone?

cutthemdown
05-05-2013, 10:42 PM
Punished how? Also...who should be required to pay for the medical bills if your child injures or kills someone?

Well you can sue people Houghtam. We have that mechanism already in place. We worked on a case where the insurance company we defended was being sued because a kid took a car and killed someone. So there is that. But obviously I don't feel the taxpayers should have to pay for it.

What if your kid got drunk, took the car and killed someone. Do you think you deserve to lose everything for that. Like be sued for 10 million lose house, everything and have to pay your salary for the rest of your life? Or do you think they should only be able to sue you if you let kid drive, if you didn't do what you needed to do to make sure drunk kid didn't take car.

Same with guns the facts will determine what the courts do. Thats how it works.

cutthemdown
05-05-2013, 10:44 PM
Houghtam you can't legislate the world fair and safe. Sorry to say.

houghtam
05-05-2013, 11:09 PM
Well you can sue people Houghtam. We have that mechanism already in place. We worked on a case where the insurance company we defended was being sued because a kid took a car and killed someone. So there is that. But obviously I don't feel the taxpayers should have to pay for it.

What if your kid got drunk, took the car and killed someone. Do you think you deserve to lose everything for that. Like be sued for 10 million lose house, everything and have to pay your salary for the rest of your life? Or do you think they should only be able to sue you if you let kid drive, if you didn't do what you needed to do to make sure drunk kid didn't take car.

Same with guns the facts will determine what the courts do. Thats how it works.

So let's say the person who owns the gun which shot your child is unable to afford your medical bills.

I would be in favor of compromise in this situation. We are required to insure our automobiles for that very reason. How about we just say that if you own a gun, you should be required to pay insurance on it for just those reasons. If it is determined you were negligent, you (your insurance) should be required to pay damages. If you lose your gun or have it stolen and it is used to commit a crime, you (your insurance) should be required to pay damages.

Gun "enthusiasts" like to bring up the comparison to automobiles all the time...you know, the old "more people are killed by automobiles than guns" routine? Great. We require people to insure their automobiles. Let's require them to insure their firearms, as well.

E'rrybody happy?

Pony Boy
05-06-2013, 08:04 AM
If you can't own a gun without children accidentally killing themselves with said gun, you shouldn't be having children.

Strange that this story of an accidental shooting gets liberal gun haters all riled up but on the other hand it's ok for a guy to sever the spinal cord of a newborn baby with a pair of scissors........ Go figure.

TonyR
05-06-2013, 08:22 AM
Today, a minority of senators can kill bipartisan legislation that is supported by a majority of their colleagues. And they frequently do. In the House, the speaker alone can kill bipartisan legislation that is supported by a majority of his colleagues. And he frequently does. Following some of this country’s worst mass shootings, a Republican senator and a Democratic senator with A ratings from the National Rifle Association authored a gun safety bill requiring criminal background checks that was supported by 90 percent of the American people. If I were a reporter, I’d be more interested in what was wrong with the Congress that refused to pass that bill than the man at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue who relentlessly campaigned for it at more than a dozen events around the country.

But that’s just me. This Congress has so profoundly disappointed the American people that I suppose the real news would be if they ever did anything that even remotely reflected popular will. At this point, getting angry with Congress for failing to legislate seems as useful as yelling at a puppy for peeing on the floor: neither of them knows any better. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/03/leading-from-below.html

Pony Boy
05-06-2013, 08:27 AM
So let's say the person who owns the gun which shot your child is unable to afford your medical bills.

I would be in favor of compromise in this situation. We are required to insure our automobiles for that very reason.


Yes that works in a perfect world where all drivers have insurance. How many accidents occur on a daily basis where the driver at fault has no insurance coverage? One in seven drivers have no insurance. I would guess the percentage of gun owners without insurance would be quite a bit higher.

TonyR
05-06-2013, 08:29 AM
We need all of you gun kooks to stop worrying about "keeping your homes safe" (lol) and "fighting tyranny" (double lol) and get this wild pig epidemic under control! Do something useful with those guns for goodness sake!

http://modernfarmer.com/2013/04/who-can-stop-these-adorable-pigs/

Pony Boy
05-06-2013, 02:04 PM
We need all of you gun kooks to stop worrying about "keeping your homes safe" (lol) and "fighting tyranny" (double lol) and get this wild pig epidemic under control! Do something useful with those guns for goodness sake!
http://modernfarmer.com/2013/04/who-can-stop-these-adorable-pigs/

Pig meat for the homeless, what did you do for the homeless today TonyR?


Ted Nugent recently bragged about killing 455 feral pigs in Texas using an M-4 rifle.

Associated Press file Ted Nugent recently wasted more than 450 wild pigs in Texas, and says by doing so, helped the environment, saved taxpayers money and helped feed the homeless. “I took my machine gun in the helicopter – in the Texas hill country – me and my buddy ‘Pigman.' His name is ‘Pigman’; I’m the swine czar," Nugent told Winterble. "I killed 455 hogs with my machine gun. I did it for Bill Maher and all those other animal rights freaks out there."

http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2013/03/ted_nugent_dedicates_killing_4.html

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 10:13 AM
Houghtam you can't legislate the world fair and safe. Sorry to say.

Liberals want an ouchie-free world and they think the way is by force-feeding legislation, social engineering, and draining the treasury. The majority of them will never learn.

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 10:15 AM
We need all of you gun kooks to stop worrying about "keeping your homes safe" (lol) and "fighting tyranny" (double lol) and get this wild pig epidemic under control! Do something useful with those guns for goodness sake!

http://modernfarmer.com/2013/04/who-can-stop-these-adorable-pigs/

Tony lives in a world without home break-ins and government tyranny. Must be nice there. Probably lots of unicorns and rainbows there, as well.

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 10:16 AM
Punished how? Also...who should be required to pay for the medical bills if your child injures or kills someone?

There are already laws in place for that type of thing, regardless of what is used to cause the injury or death. What exactly is your point here? Why fixate on injury by guns only?

TonyR
05-09-2013, 10:29 AM
Tony lives in a world without home break-ins and government tyranny. Must be nice there. Probably lots of unicorns and rainbows there, as well.

Re "home break-ins"... Do you own a gun? Do you have children living in your home? If both are yes, do you keep those guns out and at the ready? If you do, you're endangering your children. If you don't, they won't really help much during a break in.

Re "government tyranny"... When/where/how have you experienced it lately? And to the extent you have, how would owning a gun have helped your situation?

And yes, it is nice here. I'm not filled with fear and hatred as your online persona would suggest you do.

houghtam
05-09-2013, 10:37 AM
There are already laws in place for that type of thing, regardless of what is used to cause the injury or death. What exactly is your point here? Why fixate on injury by guns only?

Do explain.

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 10:46 AM
Re "home break-ins"... Do you own a gun? Do you have children living in your home? If both are yes, do you keep those guns out and at the ready? If you do, you're endangering your children. If you don't, they won't really help much during a break in.

Re "government tyranny"... When/where/how have you experienced it lately? And to the extent you have, how would owning a gun have helped your situation?

And yes, it is nice here. I'm not filled with fear and hatred as your online persona would suggest you do.

If you want anything banned over the actions of 2 people - namely Holmes and Lanza - you're filled with fear and hatred. If you fixate on gun murders even though more people are killed by drunken drivers every year, you're filled with fear and hatred. If you want "assault weapons" banned even though shotguns are used in more murders each year, you are filled with fear and hatred.

Railing about guns like an emotional lactating female when alcohol kills far more people each year is not rational and is a sign that you are filled with fear and hatred.

You act as if home break-ins aren't a realistic concern, and you obviously haven't considered that our right to own guns might have something to do with the political stability in this country. As far as storage of guns, there are expectations as far as safe handling. There are also child endangerment laws. There are also limits of gun legislation such as laid out in Heller. Nobody needs to justify how they store their guns any more than anyone needs to justify how they store their prescription medications or their alcohol.

Which do you think kills more kids: booze or guns? Here's a hint (http://www.teenalcoholabuse.us/content/teen-alcohol-related-deaths.html). Where is your outrage?

You can hate on guns all you want, but you can't ban them.

I'm amused at how those who want to ban guns refuse to consider bringing back prohibition. Amused, but not surprised.

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 10:47 AM
Do explain.

They're called liability laws, dear. They apply to EVERYTHING.

houghtam
05-09-2013, 10:52 AM
They're called liability laws, dear. They apply to EVERYTHING.

I love it when you come back and do a mindless drive-by post. Another llama-ism.

Yes, if your child shoots another child, you are liable. My question was (if you had bothered to continue reading instead of posting to each point as you read it), who pays for the victim's medical bills if you are unable to pay?

TonyR
05-09-2013, 10:52 AM
If you want anything banned over the actions of 2 people...

Where did I state what, if anything, I want banned? Particularly in relation to what happened in Boston?

And I noticed you completely dodged answering my questions. And we all know why you did this: you can't.

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 11:09 AM
Where did I state what, if anything, I want banned? Particularly in relation to what happened in Boston?

And I noticed you completely dodged answering my questions. And we all know why you did this: you can't.

I dodged nothing. You're going off on an emotional tangent fixating on guns. If you don't want guns banned, why ask odd leading questions? Gun owners need not justify their gun ownership to you no more than they are obligated to answer deceitful, loaded questions.

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 11:13 AM
I love it when you come back and do a mindless drive-by post. Another llama-ism.

Yes, if your child shoots another child, you are liable. My question was (if you had bothered to continue reading instead of posting to each point as you read it), who pays for the victim's medical bills if you are unable to pay?

This is all a matter of liability laws as with any other incidence of injury or death. I did no "drive-by." Apparently you want me to post Colorado Revised Statutes on personal liability? Gimme a break. The same laws apply everywhere.

TonyR
05-09-2013, 11:15 AM
I dodged nothing...

LOL You did, and you just did again! You're a coward and a fraud!

houghtam
05-09-2013, 11:16 AM
This is all a matter of liability laws as with any other incidence of injury or death. I did no "drive-by." Apparently you want me to post Colorado Revised Statutes on personal liability? Gimme a break. The same laws apply everywhere.

I don't live in Colorado.

If you are found liable, but can't pay for the victim's medical bills, who pays in Colorado? I'm genuinely curious.

Why is this so difficult to answer?

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 11:22 AM
I don't live in Colorado.

If you are found liable, but can't pay for the victim's medical bills, who pays in Colorado? I'm genuinely curious.

Why is this so difficult to answer?

I'm not a lawyer and if you wish to have answers on CRS, there are online databases to do so. You seem to be demanding that I do research for you to answer your question, which is clearly a leading question of some sort in relation to your hostility toward gun ownership in some manner or another.

I think the question here is really, why is it so difficult for you to do your own research?

houghtam
05-09-2013, 11:31 AM
I'm not a lawyer and if you wish to have answers on CRS, there are online databases to do so. You seem to be demanding that I do research for you to answer your question, which is clearly a leading question of some sort in relation to your hostility toward gun ownership in some manner or another.

I think the question here is really, why is it so difficult for you to do your own research?

LOL thought so.

The answer is that the money has to come from somewhere. If it is coming from anywhere other than the person found liable, then it's coming from the wrong source. And since we already established that the hypothetically liable person doesn't have the money to pay, it's not coming from them.

Requiem
05-09-2013, 11:56 AM
Well that escalated quickly!

houghtam
05-09-2013, 12:05 PM
Well that escalated quickly!

He's frantically searching LexisNexis for an answer.

Ha!

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 12:06 PM
LOL thought so.

The answer is that the money has to come from somewhere. If it is coming from anywhere other than the person found liable, then it's coming from the wrong source. And since we already established that the hypothetically liable person doesn't have the money to pay, it's not coming from them.

This is relevant to what besides nothing?

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 12:07 PM
He's frantically searching LexisNexis for an answer.

Ha!

Why would I lift a finger for you?

houghtam
05-09-2013, 12:16 PM
This is relevant to what besides nothing?

It's perfectly relevant. If you are liable for death or injury due to an accident with a firearm, but cannot pay, the financial burden is shifted to the victim, the hospital and the taxpayers, none of whom should have any responsibility to pay for YOUR mistake.

That is why gun owners should be required to purchase liability insurance for their firearms.

Requiem
05-09-2013, 12:16 PM
He's frantically searching LexisNexis for an answer.

Ha!

Putting that English degree of her/his to work! :thanku:

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 12:33 PM
It's perfectly relevant. If you are liable for death or injury due to an accident with a firearm, but cannot pay, the financial burden is shifted to the victim, the hospital and the taxpayers, none of whom should have any responsibility to pay for YOUR mistake.

That is why gun owners should be required to purchase liability insurance for their firearms.

If that's the case then apply it everywhere: Alcohol purchases, pets, children, knife ownership, gas stoves, electricity.

This is more anti-gun hypocrisy, which is what I smelled to begin with with your line of questioning.

Odd how asking someone to spend $5 on a state ID to verify their identity before voting is a disenfranchisement of constitutional rights but forcing gun insurance isn't.

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 12:37 PM
Putting that English degree of her/his to work! :thanku:

It must be rough being an eternal sore ass.

houghtam
05-09-2013, 12:40 PM
If that's the case then apply it everywhere: Alcohol purchases, pets, children, knife ownership, gas stoves, electricity.

This is more anti-gun hypocrisy, which is what I smelled to begin with with your line of questioning.

Odd how asking someone to spend $5 on a state ID to verify their identity before voting is a disenfranchisement of constitutional rights but forcing gun insurance isn't.

This is funny on two levels. Actually three, since we're also talking about gun legislation.

:rofl:

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 12:42 PM
This is funny on two levels. Actually three, since we're also talking about gun legislation.

:rofl:

Weren't you just whining about drive-bys?

peacepipe
05-09-2013, 12:43 PM
If that's the case then apply it everywhere: Alcohol purchases, pets, children, knife ownership, gas stoves, electricity.

This is more anti-gun hypocrisy, which is what I smelled to begin with with your line of questioning.

Odd how asking someone to spend $5 on a state ID to verify their identity before voting is a disenfranchisement of constitutional rights but forcing gun insurance isn't.

That's probably because the right to vote is absolute,the 2nd amendment is not absolute & can be regulated.

TonyR
05-09-2013, 12:48 PM
Hey nyuk, have you come up with responses to the questions in the post linked below? Or are you going to keep pretending you're not dodging?

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3845112&postcount=167

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 01:05 PM
Already answered. Not playing games. Loaded, irrelevant political questions.

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 01:05 PM
That's probably because the right to vote is absolute,the 2nd amendment is not absolute & can be regulated.

If the right to vote was absolute, we couldn't bar felons from voting.

Still misquoting Heller?

BroncoBeavis
05-09-2013, 01:11 PM
That's probably because the right to vote is absolute,the 2nd amendment is not absolute & can be regulated.

Hilarious. Voting is the only really and truly fundamental right. I guess if you believe all power and authority flow from government that makes a little bit of sense. LOL

I guess by extension, since non-citizens can't vote then, we can assume the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens. Awesome. I'm learning so much about government from these guys lately. :)

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 01:13 PM
Hilarious. Voting is the only really and truly fundamental right. I guess if you believe all power and authority flow from government that makes a little bit of sense. LOL

I guess by extension, since non-citizens can't vote then, we can assume the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens. Awesome. I'm learning so much about government from these guys lately. :)

We're not allowed to check identity to verify non-citizens can't vote, he's saying. Democrats even screamed about ID checks to vote in states like Texas that were offering free state IDs to people.

peacepipe
05-09-2013, 01:21 PM
If the right to vote was absolute, we couldn't bar felons from voting.

Still misquoting Heller?
Pointing out the parts of Heller you ignore is not misquoting.

cutthemdown
05-09-2013, 01:27 PM
You can already sue someone if they injure you. The mechanism for houghtams scenario already in place. guns no different then any other thing a person could use to injure another person. We can't have a system where you need liability insurance for every thing. If you accidently shoot someone in your home, homeowners insurance may be liable. Funny because Houghtam doesn't care illegals have no car insurance. He's worried about guns when the facts say gun crimes and violence way way down since the 1990's.

houghtam
05-09-2013, 01:31 PM
You can already sue someone if they injure you. The mechanism for houghtams scenario already in place. guns no different then any other thing a person could use to injure another person. We can't have a system where you need liability insurance for every thing. If you accidently shoot someone in your home, homeowners insurance may be liable. Funny because Houghtam doesn't care illegals have no car insurance. He's worried about guns when the facts say gun crimes and violence way way down since the 1990's.

The facts also say gun ownership is down since then too.

Pony Boy
05-09-2013, 01:33 PM
It's perfectly relevant. If you are liable for death or injury due to an accident with a firearm, but cannot pay, the financial burden is shifted to the victim, the hospital and the taxpayers, none of whom should have any responsibility to pay for YOUR mistake.

That is why gun owners should be required to purchase liability insurance for their firearms.

Great idea, if criminals are required by law to purchase liability insurance it would certainly protect citizens during a break-in or armed robbery.

houghtam
05-09-2013, 01:43 PM
Great idea, if gun owners are required by law to purchase liability insurance it would certainly help victims of accidents for which they're found liable.

Thank you for saying so, you're so nice!

BroncoBeavis
05-09-2013, 02:16 PM
Thank you for saying so, you're so nice!

Who's going to insure all those guns our government sold to Mexican cartels? LOL

Anyway, a majority of violent crimes in the US are carried out with weapons other than firearms (if any) (knives, blunt objects, etc)

Therefore we'll need knife insurance. Baseball bat insurance. Rope insurance. Lead pipe insurance. Candlestick insurance. Basically the whole weapons list in Clue... LOL

houghtam
05-09-2013, 02:31 PM
Who's going to insure all those guns our government sold to Mexican cartels? LOL

Anyway, a majority of violent crimes in the US are carried out with weapons other than firearms (if any) (knives, blunt objects, etc)

Therefore we'll need knife insurance. Baseball bat insurance. Rope insurance. Lead pipe insurance. Candlestick insurance. Basically the whole weapons list in Clue... LOL

I wasn't aware that accidental gun deaths were classified under "violent crimes". Thanks for educating me.

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 02:33 PM
Pointing out the parts of Heller you ignore is not misquoting.

You're misquoting, big time. "Guns can be regulated" specifically mentioned sawed-off shotguns and machine guns - not arbitrarily and vaguely defined "assault weapons," bans of which have been already thrown out due to their being arbitrary and vague (refer to city of Denver). Expect Heller common-use challenges on magazines for common-use defense weapons and common-use home defense rifles.

BroncoBeavis
05-09-2013, 02:43 PM
I wasn't aware that accidental gun deaths were classified under "violent crimes". Thanks for educating me.

Better take it up with your people proposing the legislation...

http://maloney.house.gov/issue/gun-safety

For too long, gun victims and society at large have borne the brunt of the costs of gun violence. My “Firearm Risk Protection Act” (H.R. 1369) would change that by shifting some of that cost back onto those who own the weapons.

Lolz. "I'd like to kill this mofo. But this gun is uninsured!" LOL

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 02:44 PM
The facts also say gun ownership is down since then too.

Oh, brother.

http://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/12/FirearmFacts.png

houghtam
05-09-2013, 02:53 PM
Oh, brother.

http://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/12/FirearmFacts.png

Oh, brother, indeed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data, analyzed by The New York Times.

In 2012, the share of American households with guns was 34 percent

More guns are being owned...by an increasingly smaller percentage of the population. Gun owners are hoarding them. And you wonder why we call you nuts.

Don't like that source? Here, you can take it straight from Glenn Beck's mouth...it would be in return for all the oral favors you gun nuts and right wing crazies have given him over the years.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/how-many-people-own-guns-in-america-and-is-gun-ownership-actually-declining/

Despite the high number of guns estimated to be in the U.S., indications are that gun ownership is actually on the decline. The long-running General Social Survey, maintained at the University of Chicago, has been asking about gun ownership since its inception in the 1970s. It has found that the number of people who say they have a gun in their home is at an all time low – hovering around 30 percent, from a high of 50 percent in the 1970s.

Not only is gun ownership down, it's WAY down. Not only is gun ownership among you preppers up, it's WAY WAY WAY up.

And we're the crazy ones.

:rofl::yayaya:

BroncoBeavis
05-09-2013, 03:09 PM
Huh, Gun ownership is down. Gun crime is down.

Sounds like a prime time for Gummint Action to rein in this out of control Bill of Rights!

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 05:00 PM
Houghtam, how does "I suspect" translate to "unquestioned fact"?

“There are all these claims that gun ownership is going through the roof,” said Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. “But I suspect the increase in gun sales has been limited mostly to current gun owners. The most reputable surveys show a decline over time in the share of households with guns.”

Critics of that survey cite lack of willingness to admit gun ownership to surveyors. If I had someone ask me if I owned a gun, I'd say no. FactCheck's estimate of US gun ownership reflects conservative figures found in the 2007 Small Arms Survey.

Btw, the General Social Survey gets funded in part by the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. Perhaps next you'll give us some high quality Brady crap. Joyce openly admits to funding the survey and they also amazingly link to it on their website (http://www.joycefdn.org/search/?Keywords=general%20social%20survey). Amazin' stuff, that!

Do you have more left-wing ideologue crap to give us?

I'm sure, Houghtam, that you would embrace a pro-gun survey funded in part by the NRA?

houghtam
05-09-2013, 05:10 PM
Houghtam, how does "I suspect" translate to "unquestioned fact"?

“There are all these claims that gun ownership is going through the roof,” said Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. “But I suspect the increase in gun sales has been limited mostly to current gun owners. The most reputable surveys show a decline over time in the share of households with guns.”

Critics of that survey cite lack of willingness to admit gun ownership to surveyors. If I had someone ask me if I owned a gun, I'd say no. FactCheck's estimate of US gun ownership reflects conservative figures found in the 2007 Small Arms Survey.

Here we go again. Don't like the results? Bash the survey!

How'd that work out for you in the election?

Gun ownership is down. Face it. Fewer and fewer people are buying into the rhetoric, but those who do take it to the extreme.

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 11:04 AM
Here we go again. Don't like the results? Bash the survey!

How'd that work out for you in the election?

Gun ownership is down. Face it. Fewer and fewer people are buying into the rhetoric, but those who do take it to the extreme.

Because you accept stuff by the NRA, right? There is no "rhetoric" behind gun ownership. It's a basic American right and tradition.

Do you honestly think an anti-gun lobby is going to release a survey with results they don't like? Seriously? Perhaps next you'll tell us to take Brady Center seriously?

At least my gun source was a non-partisan fact check group; you give us gun grabbers and spike the football. Difficulty in weighing sources much?

houghtam
05-10-2013, 11:10 AM
Because you accept stuff by the NRA, right? There is no "rhetoric" behind gun ownership. It's a basic American right and tradition.

Do you honestly think an anti-gun lobby is going to release a survey with results they don't like? Seriously? Perhaps next you'll tell us to take Brady Center seriously?

At least my gun source was a non-partisan fact check group; you give us gun grabbers and spike the football. Difficulty in weighing sources much?

1) The "rhetoric" to which I'm referring is the sentiment the NRA actively foments which claims the government is coming to take away your guns and leads to gun nuts doing what gun nuts do, which is adding another 10 guns to their 100 gun collection "just in case". Nice try though.

2) Do some fact checking on "FactCheck"....they consistently change the meaning of the word "fact".

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 11:22 AM
1) The "rhetoric" to which I'm referring is the sentiment the NRA actively foments which claims the government is coming to take away your guns and leads to gun nuts doing what gun nuts do, which is adding another 10 guns to their 100 gun collection "just in case". Nice try though.

2) Do some fact checking on "FactCheck"....they consistently change the meaning of the word "fact".

If you're going to slam FactCheck, then present something. I'm not doing your work for you, like I already did with the Joyce Foundation.

Liberals always grossly exaggerate the powers and reach of the NRA, as if it were some all-encompassing bogeyman. Have you ever read a magazine of theirs, a press release? Anything? They go along with things like background checks which angers gun rights purists. The NRA doesn't even lift a finger to litigate bad gun laws nearly as often as they should.

houghtam
05-10-2013, 11:59 AM
If you're going to slam FactCheck, then present something. I'm not doing your work for you, like I already did with the Joyce Foundation.

Liberals always grossly exaggerate the powers and reach of the NRA, as if it were some all-encompassing bogeyman. Have you ever read a magazine of theirs, a press release? Anything? They go along with things like background checks which angers gun rights purists. The NRA doesn't even lift a finger to litigate bad gun laws nearly as often as they should.

My bad, it was actually PolitiFact I was thinking of.

However, on the FactCheck site, it's just a long list of statements and opinions...no conclusion is drawn, and the data doesn't really point one way or the other.

Moody, of William & Mary, makes a more general argument in favor of more guns tempering crime.

“We are awash in guns in the United States,” Moody said. “There are more every year and yet crime seems to be going down and down and down and down.”

It’s true that gun ownership is up. The Small Arms Survey, a project of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, estimated in 2007 that there were 270 million civilian-owned firearms in the U.S. In 2001, there were an estimated 230 million. So there are more guns, but are there more gun owners?

Nobody knows for sure, Hemenway said. Gun owners do not need to register simply to purchase a gun. And so, researchers are left to rely on surveys. According to yearly data from the General Social Survey, the number of households with guns is declining.

Moody doesn’t buy that. He thinks it’s a cultural issue. People today are simply more likely to tell survey-takers they do not own a gun, he said, because it is less socially acceptable. Hemenway counters that the seemingly incongruous statistics — more guns, but fewer households reporting that they have a gun — is simply a reflection of fewer gun owners purchasing more guns.

Gun manufacturing has increased in recent years, most dramatically since Obama was elected. Figures from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives show the total firearms produced in the U.S. (minus exports) at 3.5 million in 1998. That figure fluctuated, reaching 3.7 million in 2007. Then, it jumped drastically, rising 64 percent from 2007 to 2011, topping 6.1 million that year.

Background-check numbers show a similar trend. They went from 11 million background checks in 2007 to 16.8 million in 2012, with December’s numbers not yet part of that tally, according to the FBI. Background checks are not an indication of sales, however, as they’re not always required, for instance for personal sales at gun shows in some states, and one purchaser can buy more than one firearm.

There you have Carlisle Moody, an economics professor who analyzes criminal justice from an economic perspective, disagreeing with David Hemenway, Professor of Health Policy at Harvard, Director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center.

The details offered by both are far from conclusive, and are only opinions, not "facts". It all goes on who you believe.

cutthemdown
05-10-2013, 12:10 PM
Right now my friend who lives up in Humbold county says neighbors are getting together to go house to house to help check on people. There is a killer loose and the police up there just can't get to everyone. You can't even get to his place without a 4 wheel drive. He is glad to have his AK. I thought we would never need our guns liberals? you know police are always going to be there right?