PDA

View Full Version : So no one gives a **** that the GOP blocked background checks for gun owners?


Chris
04-18-2013, 02:51 AM
90% national support. Doesn't pass because of a republican minority.

Doggcow
04-18-2013, 03:15 AM
This **** is so ****ing dumb. Really. I'm not pro-gun or anything but seriously, how will gun control laws stop criminals that don't obey them anyway? Can we just make shooting people illegal and call it good?

cutthemdown
04-18-2013, 03:21 AM
I'm trying to figure out what the big deal is CA already has this type of gun control. Just do it at the state level in the states that want it. CA stricter then what feds propose anyways.

besides Dems should be more pissed at the 5 of their own party that went against their leaders, their president. But they won't attack them because they don't want to lose them in the Senate.

Why would you be pissed? Its not like the law would make people safer. Look at CA our laws strict we have plenty of shootings still.

Crack down on straw purchases. Buy a gun for felon get 10 yrs in prison and a 100 thousand dollar fine. Do public service messages aimed at women in the hood explaining to them the risk of buying for boyfriends, make friends etc.

peacepipe
04-18-2013, 04:10 AM
This **** is so ****ing dumb. Really. I'm not pro-gun or anything but seriously, how will gun control laws stop criminals that don't obey them anyway? Can we just make shooting people illegal and call it good?

How ****ing stupid are you. This is the dumbest argument that has been made on this issue but don't feel bad you're not the only idiot out there making this pathetic argument.

peacepipe
04-18-2013, 04:22 AM
I'm trying to figure out what the big deal is CA already has this type of gun control. Just do it at the state level in the states that want it. CA stricter then what feds propose anyways.

besides Dems should be more pissed at the 5 of their own party that went against their leaders, their president. But they won't attack them because they don't want to lose them in the Senate.

Why would you be pissed? Its not like the law would make people safer. Look at CA our laws strict we have plenty of shootings still.

Crack down on straw purchases. Buy a gun for felon get 10 yrs in prison and a 100 thousand dollar fine. Do public service messages aimed at women in the hood explaining to them the risk of buying for boyfriends, make friends etc.actually 4, but again a clear majority,54,which according to our founding fathers is suppose to be enough to pass a bill. Yet again,a REPUBLICAN filibuster forcing 60 votes stopped it from passing.

cutthemdown
04-18-2013, 04:55 AM
actually 4, but again a clear majority,54,which according to our founding fathers is suppose to be enough to pass a bill. Yet again,a REPUBLICAN filibuster forcing 60 votes stopped it from passing.

You do realize that was put in place by the Democrats right? It's not a fillibuster its cloture and is used so the majority doesnt get derailed by a fillibuster. The majority can just sideline the legislation for later and move on. Reid pushes republicans around with how he won't add their amendments etc etc. The precedent is set peace and it was set with the help of liberals. Don't be upset now because sometimes it doesn't work out like you hoped.

For controversial legislation you need more then just a majority, you need 61, and the Senate has known that and operated that way for years.

Crushaholic
04-18-2013, 04:58 AM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/04/17/177638177/senate-rejects-expanded-background-checks-for-gun-sales

The expanded background checks were aimed at closing loopholes and keeping criminals and the seriously mentally ill from getting firearms. Currently, the checks only apply to purchases handled by licensed firearms dealers.

This paragraph says it all. If a firearms dealer is selling them, unlicensed, they are illegally selling them. Do you think they would give a rat's derrierre about background checks? This bill, apparently, does absolutely NOTHING. I commend the (Democrat-controlled) Senate for eliminating this fraud...

Rohirrim
04-18-2013, 06:59 AM
Like Howard Smith wrote this morning, "The US Senate is where change goes to die."

Pony Boy
04-18-2013, 08:19 AM
Exempts many sales from background checks:

The bill doesn't alter current laws exempting background checks for gun transfers between friends and families. (Think about it anyone that was caught with a hand gun would say, "I got it from my daddy or uncle").

It also wouldn't require checks for other private sales if the guns weren't advertised.

Leaves open a gun-show loophole, someone looking to buy a gun could find a private seller and "agree to meet after the show in the parking lot or at a convenient location and make the sale, with no background check."

Exempt background checks in some rural area that would allow dealers who live more than 100 miles away from a licensee to skip background checks.

Exempts background checks for concealed-carry permit holders

Allows the interstate sale of handguns

Nearly 80 percent of inmates arrested for handgun crimes got their gun from someone other than a licensed dealer, according to a recent Johns Hopkins survey.

baja
04-18-2013, 08:55 AM
90% national support. Doesn't pass because of a republican minority.


I give a shiit


I appreciate greatly they blocked a bad law that would do nothing to stop events like Sandy Hook

nyuk nyuk
04-18-2013, 08:59 AM
90% national support. Doesn't pass because of a republican minority.

My GOD stop acting like a progressive blogger and blindly parroting a single old poll.

Poll: Americans don’t think gun control is important (http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/17/poll-americans-dont-think-gun-control-is-important/)

In New Poll, Support For Stricter Gun Control Law Drops Since Newtown Shootings (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/26/175377122/in-new-poll-support-for-stricter-gun-control-law-drops-since-newtown-shootings)

The emotional tidal wave is over, people are returning to their senses, heaven forbid!!



In the months following the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., polls showed greater support for stricter gun control laws.

A new CBS News poll released today, however, finds that growth has deflated back to pre-Newtown levels. CBS reports:

"Currently, support for stricter gun control laws stands at 47 percent today, down from a high of 57 percent just after the shootings. Thirty-nine percent want those laws kept as they are, and another 11 percent want them made less strict.

"Partisans hold different views on gun control laws: 52 percent of Republicans want the laws kept as they are, while 66 percent of Democrats want stricter laws (down from 78 percent in February). Half of gun owners themselves want gun laws overall kept as they are, but a quarter call for stricter laws."

nyuk nyuk
04-18-2013, 09:00 AM
I give a shiit


I appreciate greatly they blocked a bad law that would do nothing to stop events like Sandy Hook

They admitted at the time it wouldn't have stopped Holmes or Lanza.

I find it extremely suspicious that they'd want to ban one type of weapon in the name of "saving lives" and tell us to use instead for defense a different type of weapon which kills more people each year instead.

peacepipe
04-18-2013, 09:06 AM
They admitted at the time it wouldn't have stopped Holmes or Lanza.

I find it extremely suspicious that they'd want to ban one type of weapon in the name of "saving lives" and tell us to use instead for defense a different type of weapon which kills more people each year instead.

The bill that got killed was a expanded BG check,not any ban on ARs. Everyone understood that no ban on any AR was going to happen.

TonyR
04-18-2013, 09:12 AM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LORVfnFtcH0?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dukes
04-18-2013, 09:13 AM
The bill that got killed was a expanded BG check,not any ban on ARs. Everyone understood that no ban on any AR was going to happen.

Only because we fight so hard. If you ****ers had your way they would already be banned.

Rigs11
04-18-2013, 09:20 AM
as usual the righties dont want to do anything. Global warming? do nothing.bad economy? do nothing.gun massacres? do nothing!gays? do everything to stop them! Fret not though, the american public will vote these clowns out next year.

errand
04-18-2013, 09:23 AM
The bill that got killed was a expanded BG check,not any ban on ARs. Everyone understood that no ban on any AR was going to happen.

...and yet the sun still rose and not one responsible law abiding gun owner shot and killed an innocent person.

Dukes
04-18-2013, 09:23 AM
as usual the righties dont want to do anything. Global warming? do nothing.bad economy? do nothing.gun massacres? do nothing!gays? do everything to stop them! Fret not though, the american public will vote these clowns out next year.

Don't cream your panties too soon.

peacepipe
04-18-2013, 09:25 AM
...and yet the sun still rose and not one responsible law abiding gun owner shot and killed an innocent person.

This was never about law abiding citizens. As I have asked before..what law abiding citizen can't pass a BG check?

Dukes
04-18-2013, 09:26 AM
as usual the righties dont want to do anything. Global warming? do nothing.bad economy? do nothing.gun massacres? do nothing!gays? do everything to stop them! Fret not though, the american public will vote these clowns out next year.

Nothing says America like "feel good" legislation.

Pony Boy
04-18-2013, 09:31 AM
The bill that got killed was a expanded BG check,not any ban on ARs. Everyone understood that no ban on any AR was going to happen.

"Baby Steps" ...... "Give an Inch and Take a Mile" ..............

nyuk nyuk
04-18-2013, 09:39 AM
The bill that got killed was a expanded BG check,not any ban on ARs. Everyone understood that no ban on any AR was going to happen.

People are against background checks in general because like here in Colorado, they're being abused to register guns on the sly. Gun registration is illegal in the Colorado constitution, yet the Colorado Bureau of Investigation demands to know now only everything but your personal measurements but also the type of gun you're buying. Why? I decided to switch from buying a pistol to a rifle and the gun shop had to call the CBI mid-background check to tell them I changed my mind on my purchase so they could update the record.

Why?!?!

Pelosi basically wants to ban all semiautomatic rifles, period. To say that's unconstitutional is an understatement. We already have unconstitutional laws on the books as it is, such as magazine size limits. The Heller decision stated that it's illegal to outlaw common-use defensive handguns. How can it then be OK to outlaw common-use accessories for those handguns?

Bull****.

nyuk nyuk
04-18-2013, 09:40 AM
actually 4, but again a clear majority,54,which according to our founding fathers is suppose to be enough to pass a bill. Yet again,a REPUBLICAN filibuster forcing 60 votes stopped it from passing.

THANK GOD FOR THE REPUBLICANS!!!!!

:yayaya::~ohyah!:

errand
04-18-2013, 09:44 AM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LORVfnFtcH0?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hardy har har..... but our gun laws have changed back in the days when all you had was a musket you did not have to go through a background check..... made tougher laws on how people can acquire guns. they banned the sale of automatic machine guns like the Tommy gun etc..

our gun laws have changed they went from 0 to many

peacepipe
04-18-2013, 09:44 AM
People are against background checks in general because like here in Colorado, they're being abused to register guns on the sly. Gun registration is illegal in the Colorado constitution, yet the Colorado Bureau of Investigation demands to know now only everything but your personal measurements but also the type of gun you're buying. Why? I decided to switch from buying a pistol to a rifle and the gun shop had to call the CBI mid-background check to tell them I changed my mind on my purchase so they could update the record.

Why?!?!

Pelosi basically wants to ban all semiautomatic rifles, period. To say that's unconstitutional is an understatement. We already have unconstitutional laws on the books as it is, such as magazine size limits. The Heller decision stated that it's illegal to outlaw common-use defensive handguns. How can it then be OK to outlaw common-use accessories for those handguns?

Bull****.
BS. People support BG checks by wide margins.

Heller also stated that guns can be regulated & that Machine guns and the like can be banned.
It's funny how you continue to ignore that part of the ruling.

Rigs11
04-18-2013, 09:59 AM
Don't cream your panties too soon.

the GOP are toast. you know it too.

nyuk nyuk
04-18-2013, 10:06 AM
the GOP are toast. you know it too.

Weren't you one of the ones saying gun control was going to pass and we know it, too?

peacepipe
04-18-2013, 10:09 AM
Weren't you one of the ones saying gun control was going to pass and we know it, too?

It's not a matter of if,but when. This isn't going away.

nyuk nyuk
04-18-2013, 10:11 AM
BS. People support BG checks by wide margins.

Heller also stated that guns can be regulated & that Machine guns and the like can be banned.
It's funny how you continue to ignore that part of the ruling.

I've already showed polling data which shows the 90% figure has gone to hell and support for gun control is back down to its pre-Sandy Hook levels.

I've ignored nothing. Dangerous and unusual guns can indeed be banned, and the ruling mentioned sawed off shotguns and machine guns in specific.

YOU however are ignoring that ruling and trying to add in common semiautomatic sporting rifles when they were not categorized with sawed off shotguns and automatic machine guns.

I've already posted a simple explanation of Heller by a Senator involved in litigating that case in the Supreme Court. For some odd reason none of you libs have responded. Here is the simple explanation yet again --

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UNUhWoIdFb4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

nyuk nyuk
04-18-2013, 10:13 AM
It's not a matter of if,but when. This isn't going away.

No, liberal arrogance and stupidity linger more aggressively than herpes.

But you all have been engaging in grotesque acts of public masturbation over the "inevitability" of gun control. Get over it, you lost, as you've been telling Republicans since November.

peacepipe
04-18-2013, 10:14 AM
I've already showed polling data which shows the 90% figure has gone to hell and support for gun control is back down to its pre-Sandy Hook levels.

I've ignored nothing. Dangerous and unusual guns can indeed be banned, and the ruling mentioned sawed off shotguns and machine guns in specific.

YOU however are ignoring that ruling and trying to add in common semiautomatic sporting rifles when they were not categorized with sawed off shotguns and automatic machine guns.

I've already posted a simple explanation of Heller by a Senator involved in litigating that case in the Supreme Court. For some odd reason none of you libs have responded. Here is the simple explanation yet again --

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UNUhWoIdFb4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Cruz is a pathological liar. You know how much credibility liars have.

nyuk nyuk
04-18-2013, 10:18 AM
Cruz is a pathological liar. You know how much credibility liars have.

You're ignoring the points of the ruling and that he participated in litigating it by a drive-by insult with no substantiation to support the insult.

Here we go again.

peacepipe
04-18-2013, 10:21 AM
You're ignoring the points of the ruling and that he participated in litigating it by a drive-by insult with no substantiation to support the insult.

Here we go again.

I acknowledge the entirety of the Heller ruling,I'm just pointing out a part of it.

nyuk nyuk
04-18-2013, 10:25 AM
I acknowledge the entirety of the Heller ruling,I'm just pointing out a part of it.

You're pointing out a part of it out of context to support a constitutionally-questionable gun ban. I posted a video of a more in-depth explanation of the ruling by someone who was involved in litigation, and all you could was label him a liar without further explanation.

Sounds like a cop-out to me.

peacepipe
04-18-2013, 10:25 AM
I've already showed polling data which shows the 90% figure has gone to hell and support for gun control is back down to its pre-Sandy Hook levels.

I've ignored nothing. Dangerous and unusual guns can indeed be banned, and the ruling mentioned sawed off shotguns and machine guns in specific.

YOU however are ignoring that ruling and trying to add in common semiautomatic sporting rifles when they were not categorized with sawed off shotguns and automatic machine guns.

I've already posted a simple explanation of Heller by a Senator involved in litigating that case in the Supreme Court. For some odd reason none of you libs have responded. Here is the simple explanation yet again --

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UNUhWoIdFb4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/cnn-poll-popular-background-checks-also-cause-worry/

Eighty-six percent of those questioned in the survey say they support some form of background checks that are not currently required by law for gun sales.

"Some of the proposed additions to the current gun laws are more popular than others," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland, "although every new background check tested in the poll wins support from a majority of the American public."

The 86% figure from the CNN/ORC poll is in line with just about every other national survey released over the past couple of months, which found support for increased background checks hovering around the 90% level. And the CNN survey, along with the previous polls, found no real partisan divide, with very strong support for the checks from Democrats, Republicans, and independents.

The CNN survey's release comes as the Senate plans to vote on Thursday on whether to open debate on gun control legislation that some Republicans have pledged to filibuster.

peacepipe
04-18-2013, 10:28 AM
You're pointing out a part of it out of context to support a constitutionally-questionable gun ban. I posted a video of a more in-depth explanation of the ruling by someone who was involved in litigation, and all you could was label him a liar without further explanation.

Sounds like a cop-out to me.
A video from a guy that doesn't know his ass from a hole the ground.

nyuk nyuk
04-18-2013, 10:29 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/cnn-poll-popular-background-checks-also-cause-worry/

Multiple polls say otherwise. (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3830452#post3830452)

nyuk nyuk
04-18-2013, 10:32 AM
A video from a guy that doesn't know his ass from a hole the ground.

Yet more vague, unsubstantiated ad hominem.

So he was personally involved litigating the Heller case, yet he knows nothing while YOU on the other hand are privy to amazing details of the case and think that semiautomatic rifles equals weapons such as sawed off shotguns and machine guns that the Heller ruling said can be outlawed... Yet you can't support your view in the least.

Well that makes a ****load of sense.

Let's face it. You didn't even watch that short Cruz explanation of Heller. You don't like him, you don't like what he has to say about the case regardless of how accurate it is, and thus you shield your eyes from that information like a flat-earther.

Dukes
04-18-2013, 10:35 AM
A video from a guy that doesn't know his ass from a hole the ground.

:rofl: This coming from the party who doesn't know magazines are reloadable.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fbel4SASUPQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

nyuk nyuk
04-18-2013, 10:36 AM
:rofl: This coming from the party who doesn't know magazines are reloadable.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fbel4SASUPQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'd laugh if I didn't live in that bitch's district.

Dr. Broncenstein
04-18-2013, 11:37 AM
Democrat controlled senate can't pass background check expasion despite 5 republicans voting in favor. Why is that?

nyuk nyuk
04-18-2013, 12:11 PM
Democrat controlled senate can't pass background check expasion despite 5 republicans voting in favor. Why is that?

An all-encompassing NRA plot.

nyuk nyuk
04-19-2013, 07:43 AM
Can someone tell me how this was "blocked by the GOP" other than that Obama & Pelosi said so?

Apparently the Democratic party is on puppet strings controlled by the NRA. Ain't that a bitch!

Drunken.Broncoholic
04-19-2013, 07:59 AM
The GOP? Really?? More like DEMOCRATS from MONTANA who are afraid to lose their votes! Man people are stupid.

TonyR
04-19-2013, 08:06 AM
Man people are stupid.

For example:

Those guys are long gone out of the country by now.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-10-2013, 04:32 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/994161_667794379901008_1032605918_n.jpg

baja
06-10-2013, 04:55 PM
Disarm the people and watch the tyranny spread like a wild fire in a wind storm.

cutthemdown
06-10-2013, 06:17 PM
Disarm the people and watch the tyranny spread like a wild fire in a wind storm.

LOL the way govt watching us anyone who thinks the govt not already knowledgable about who owns guns is kidding themselves. Anyone stockpiling already on the radar.

baja
06-10-2013, 06:34 PM
LOL the way govt watching us anyone who thinks the govt not already knowledgable about who owns guns is kidding themselves. Anyone stockpiling already on the radar.


That's funny to you?

El Minion
06-10-2013, 07:22 PM
LOL the way govt watching us anyone who thinks the govt not already knowledgable about who owns guns is kidding themselves. Anyone stockpiling already on the radar.

Riiiggghhhtttt:

http://www.trbimg.com/img-51b66d06/turbine/la-john-zawahri-20130610/600 http://media.heavy.com/media/2013/06/Guns-2.jpg

John Zawahri had about 40 magazines each capable of holding 30 bullets. Authorities believe he may have fired more than 1,000 rounds in the Santa Monica rampage. (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-santa-monica-gunman-had-over-3-dozen-30round-ammunition-clips-20130610,0,2494779.story)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/09/article-0-1A37E0F2000005DC-480_634x434.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/09/article-0-1A37D7DC000005DC-456_306x423.jpg

cutthemdown
06-10-2013, 07:54 PM
Riiiggghhhtttt:

http://www.trbimg.com/img-51b66d06/turbine/la-john-zawahri-20130610/600 http://media.heavy.com/media/2013/06/Guns-2.jpg

John Zawahri had about 40 magazines each capable of holding 30 bullets. Authorities believe he may have fired more than 1,000 rounds in the Santa Monica rampage. (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-santa-monica-gunman-had-over-3-dozen-30round-ammunition-clips-20130610,0,2494779.story)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/09/article-0-1A37E0F2000005DC-480_634x434.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/09/article-0-1A37D7DC000005DC-456_306x423.jpg

He was probably on some list somewhere just like the Boston bombing guys. You can have all the lists you want being able to watch them all is another story. The fact is though the govt doesn't need permission to watch us, make a list, track gun purchases however they can. They have the ability to watch us regardless.

Missouribronc
06-10-2013, 08:53 PM
This law did nothing.

Literally.

All of the background checks are already in place. That's the funny part.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-10-2013, 09:47 PM
I thought California long ago banned assault weapons and mags > 10 rounds.

cutthemdown
06-10-2013, 11:13 PM
Yep Dr Bronco some of the most restrictive laws on the books. Best thing is to make prisons that are farms that grow food. make prisoners work on the farms. Then make using a gun in the commission of a crime like 25 yrs hard labor of the work farms.

Then we make prisons start working for us reducing cost, and we clean up the streets. Make it so ridiculous to use a gun in a crime that criminals think twice. Right now prisoners have the egde because govt cant afford to house them. We need to change that into we can keep you as along as we need to.

Rohirrim
06-11-2013, 08:21 AM
Yep Dr Bronco some of the most restrictive laws on the books. Best thing is to make prisons that are farms that grow food. make prisoners work on the farms. Then make using a gun in the commission of a crime like 25 yrs hard labor of the work farms.

Then we make prisons start working for us reducing cost, and we clean up the streets. Make it so ridiculous to use a gun in a crime that criminals think twice. Right now prisoners have the egde because govt cant afford to house them. We need to change that into we can keep you as along as we need to.

Yeah. Because laws stop people from committing crimes. Primarily because of the War on Drugs, the U.S. is one of the biggest incarcerators on the planet. How's that working?

Dr. Broncenstein
06-11-2013, 08:32 AM
Guy had a black powder pistol, just in case the shiat got too real.

cutthemdown
06-11-2013, 11:15 AM
Yeah. Because laws stop people from committing crimes. Primarily because of the War on Drugs, the U.S. is one of the biggest incarcerators on the planet. How's that working?

Hell yeah they do. It's hard to commit a crime from prison. Also the war on drugs has nothing to do with gun violence I think we should decriminalize drug use to make room for the real criminals who actually rob, steal, assault people. Also our prisons are money drains because they prisoners don't work. My idea makes them work and therefore prisons get cheaper and more self sufficient. In fact I would go as far to say that if the prisoners can't grow and raise there own food they starve.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-11-2013, 11:26 AM
I'm just spitballing here, but i thought the vast majority of gun homicides are directly related to the illegality of certain drugs and the demand for them in spite of their illegality.

pricejj
06-11-2013, 02:28 PM
I'm just spitballing here, but i thought the vast majority of gun homicides are directly related to the illegality of certain drugs and the demand for them in spite of their illegality.

76% of gun deaths in Colorado are suicides.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-11-2013, 09:54 PM
76% of gun deaths in Colorado are suicides.

Homicide is different than suicide. Study it out.

cutthemdown
06-11-2013, 10:17 PM
The point is we can't house prisoners because we have too many and its costly. Obviously we need to make the prisons work for us by forcing the prisoners to work. I think farms make the most since. The food could feed the prison and low income familys.

Pony Boy
06-12-2013, 07:49 AM
Biden shared his distrust of two young Republican senators, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. “On the gun issue, I don’t care what your position is -- I called 17 senators out, 9 of whom were Republicans. ... Not one of offered an explanation on the merits of why they couldn’t vote for the background check. But almost to a person, they said, ‘I don’t want to take on Ted Cruz. I don’t want to take on Rand Paul. “I actually said, ‘Are you kidding? These are two freshman,’” Biden said, according to the pool report. “This is a different, party folks. They’re not bad guys, and they’re both very bright guys.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-warns-gop-led-two-young-senators-ted-cruz-and-rand-paul_735104.html

Dr. Broncenstein
06-12-2013, 08:03 AM
Dear Concerned Citizen:

Get a double barreled shotgun. Fire both rounds randomly into the air. You are now safe.

Yours Truly,

Joe Biden

nyuk nyuk
06-13-2013, 01:30 PM
I thought California long ago banned assault weapons and mags > 10 rounds.

Semiautomatic rifles are plenty legal in California. They just cannot have certain irrelevant characteristics.

Here is a California-compliant AK (http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/component/virtuemart/shipping-rifles/california-legal-arsenal-ak-74-rifle-sgl33-61-detail.html?Itemid=0), which is very much like my own rifle.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hIeS2wwGI3I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


A key lock for the magazine? Do you realize how S-T-U-P-I-D that is!! :giggle:

nyuk nyuk
06-13-2013, 01:37 PM
The point is we can't house prisoners because we have too many and its costly. Obviously we need to make the prisons work for us by forcing the prisoners to work. I think farms make the most since. The food could feed the prison and low income familys.

We can't do that, it's too logical.

Besides, liberals insist such arrangements are "demeaning."

nyuk nyuk
06-13-2013, 01:39 PM
If Zawahri were a white dude, the story would have been hyped from the rooftops for a few weeks. Arab name, brown skin? Erm... Now for today's latest gay news...

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-08-2013, 07:45 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1004619_10151531555846275_510393357_n.jpg