Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:

for jank:

If you think that making guns readily available to criminals who in the past have used guns in the commission of a crime, or just bat chet crazy people is a good thing, you are the one who is a special kind of stupid.


Explain to me how our laws allow guns to be made readily available to criminals.  Last check, there are thousands of laws on the books to prevent such crimes.  Stick that in your bat crazy pipe and smoke it till you're numb with dumb.

Last edited by Mr. Hooberbloob
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:

I have no problem with background checks. They should be conducted.

 

However, I do have a problem with govt trying to limit magazine size and other things.


It's not background checks they are pushing, it's a gun registry they want.  We are seeing how they are now using said registry against gun owners in the nanny states to the north. 

 

With the exception of private individual sales, all gun sales require a background check; even at gun shows.  The only way to enforce background checks on private sales is to create a gun registry, which again, is being used against law abiding gun owners in nanny states.

 

MIndless sheeple like jank and company believe another law added to a long list of other laws not being enforced will suddenly fix the problem.  The problem is law breakers, not law abiders.  A gun registry only punishes those who obey the law, the criminals will not participate.

Last edited by Mr. Hooberbloob
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:

I have no problem with background checks. They should be conducted.

 

However, I do have a problem with govt trying to limit magazine size and other things.


It's not background checks they are pushing, it's a gun registry they want.  We are seeing how they are now using said registry against gun owners in the nanny states to the north. 

 

With the exception of private individual sales, all gun sales require a background check; even at gun shows.  The only way to enforce background checks on private sales is to create a gun registry, which again, is being used against law abiding gun owners in nanny states.

 

MIndless sheeple like jank and company believe another law added to a long list of other laws not being enforced will suddenly fix the problem.  The problem is law breakers, not law abiders.  A gun registry only punishes those who obey the law, the criminals will not participate.

There should be no gun registries.

 

Barack has already shown that he will stop at nothing to restrict our civil liberties. Warrantless wiretapping have quadrupled under him, he signed NDAA giving him the right to be executioner of American citizens, and his admin has used the IRS to go after political enemies.

 

Freedom and civil liberties mean nothing to Barack and his cronies.

No Hoob, I am not a mindless sheep. I have sense enough to know that MORE guns and LESS regulation will not bring about less CRIME. If that were so then why not just do away with all laws. The crimminals aren't going to follow them anyway, so whats the point? Why do we have laws against murder, stealing, assault, speeding...? People like you are the idiots. So afraid and paranoid that you can't even think logically anymore. Grow a pair and start thinking for yourself. 

 

How bout you give some credible examples of your claims instead of just parroting the things you have been told and have mindlessly believed. 

 

 

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:

I have no problem with background checks. They should be conducted.

 

However, I do have a problem with govt trying to limit magazine size and other things.


It's not background checks they are pushing, it's a gun registry they want.  We are seeing how they are now using said registry against gun owners in the nanny states to the north. 

 

With the exception of private individual sales, all gun sales require a background check; even at gun shows.  The only way to enforce background checks on private sales is to create a gun registry, which again, is being used against law abiding gun owners in nanny states.

 

MIndless sheeple like jank and company believe another law added to a long list of other laws not being enforced will suddenly fix the problem.  The problem is law breakers, not law abiders.  A gun registry only punishes those who obey the law, the criminals will not participate.

There should be no gun registries.

 

Barack has already shown that he will stop at nothing to restrict our civil liberties. Warrantless wiretapping have quadrupled under him, he signed NDAA giving him the right to be executioner of American citizens, and his admin has used the IRS to go after political enemies.

 

Freedom and civil liberties mean nothing to Barack and his cronies.

___________________

 

I hold both parties responsible for these things. You do realize that the NDAA was a Republican backed bill and that the President threatened to veto but after the House voted (majority of the yea votes were Republican) to pass it and then the Senate almost unanimously passed it he relented but added a side note that said he didn't like the provision that didn't make clear how the military could possibly detain those suspected of terrorism. 

 

His note on the signing...

 

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. 

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. 

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are "captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa'ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics...#YpmBRW2sxfuvUicy.99

 

I agree that the government has trampled all over our civil liberties, but it started way before President Obama took office. To lay it at his feet alone shows your bias. If you are going to be taken seriously then you should stop pointing your finger at one side while not taking those that actually implemented these changes to our rights to task. 

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

No Hoob, I am not a mindless sheep. I have sense enough to know that MORE guns and LESS regulation will not bring about less CRIME. If that were so then why not just do away with all laws. The crimminals aren't going to follow them anyway, so whats the point? Why do we have laws against murder, stealing, assault, speeding...? People like you are the idiots. So afraid and paranoid that you can't even think logically anymore. Grow a pair and start thinking for yourself. 

 

How bout you give some credible examples of your claims instead of just parroting the things you have been told and have mindlessly believed. 

 

 

Who said anything about doing away with all laws?

 

I live in Chicago and the bulk of handguns used in all of the gang shootings are not obtained legally. Are MORE laws going to stop that? Of course not.

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:

I have no problem with background checks. They should be conducted.

 

However, I do have a problem with govt trying to limit magazine size and other things.


It's not background checks they are pushing, it's a gun registry they want.  We are seeing how they are now using said registry against gun owners in the nanny states to the north. 

 

With the exception of private individual sales, all gun sales require a background check; even at gun shows.  The only way to enforce background checks on private sales is to create a gun registry, which again, is being used against law abiding gun owners in nanny states.

 

MIndless sheeple like jank and company believe another law added to a long list of other laws not being enforced will suddenly fix the problem.  The problem is law breakers, not law abiders.  A gun registry only punishes those who obey the law, the criminals will not participate.

There should be no gun registries.

 

Barack has already shown that he will stop at nothing to restrict our civil liberties. Warrantless wiretapping have quadrupled under him, he signed NDAA giving him the right to be executioner of American citizens, and his admin has used the IRS to go after political enemies.

 

Freedom and civil liberties mean nothing to Barack and his cronies.

___________________

 

I hold both parties responsible for these things. You do realize that the NDAA was a Republican backed bill and that the President threatened to veto but after the House voted (majority of the yea votes were Republican) to pass it and then the Senate almost unanimously passed it he relented but added a side note that said he didn't like the provision that didn't make clear how the military could possibly detain those suspected of terrorism. 

 

His note on the signing...

 

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. 

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. 

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are "captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa'ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics...#YpmBRW2sxfuvUicy.99

 

I agree that the government has trampled all over our civil liberties, but it started way before President Obama took office. To lay it at his feet alone shows your bias. If you are going to be taken seriously then you should stop pointing your finger at one side while not taking those that actually implemented these changes to our rights to task. 

Jank, I have blamed Bush for the Patriot Act and was against the wars. You refuse to hold Barack accountable for his actions. 

 

Barack is in charge right now. It is his admin and "the buck stops with him". He ran on a campaign of increased transparency and decreasing govt surveillance of citizens. HE LIED!

 

Drone strikes have increased exponentially under his regime. Countless numbers of innocent civilians have been killed as a result thus creating more enemies of the US in the middle east.

 

Warrantless wiretappings have QUADRUPLED under his regimen. You cannot blame that on Bush. That is all Barack. 

 

The difference between Barack and W is not as great as most of you would like to think. Both have proven themselves to be war mongering zealots that have little to no regard for civil liberties. 

Last edited by Kenny Powers
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:

I have no problem with background checks. They should be conducted.

 

However, I do have a problem with govt trying to limit magazine size and other things.


It's not background checks they are pushing, it's a gun registry they want.  We are seeing how they are now using said registry against gun owners in the nanny states to the north. 

 

With the exception of private individual sales, all gun sales require a background check; even at gun shows.  The only way to enforce background checks on private sales is to create a gun registry, which again, is being used against law abiding gun owners in nanny states.

 

MIndless sheeple like jank and company believe another law added to a long list of other laws not being enforced will suddenly fix the problem.  The problem is law breakers, not law abiders.  A gun registry only punishes those who obey the law, the criminals will not participate.

There should be no gun registries.

 

Barack has already shown that he will stop at nothing to restrict our civil liberties. Warrantless wiretapping have quadrupled under him, he signed NDAA giving him the right to be executioner of American citizens, and his admin has used the IRS to go after political enemies.

 

Freedom and civil liberties mean nothing to Barack and his cronies.

___________________

 

I hold both parties responsible for these things. You do realize that the NDAA was a Republican backed bill and that the President threatened to veto but after the House voted (majority of the yea votes were Republican) to pass it and then the Senate almost unanimously passed it he relented but added a side note that said he didn't like the provision that didn't make clear how the military could possibly detain those suspected of terrorism. 

 

His note on the signing...

 

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. 

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. 

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are "captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa'ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics...#YpmBRW2sxfuvUicy.99

 

I agree that the government has trampled all over our civil liberties, but it started way before President Obama took office. To lay it at his feet alone shows your bias. If you are going to be taken seriously then you should stop pointing your finger at one side while not taking those that actually implemented these changes to our rights to task. 

Jank, I have blamed Bush for the Patriot Act and was against the wars. You refuse to hold Barack accountable for his actions. 

 

Barack is in charge right now. It is his admin and "the buck stops with him". He ran on a campaign of increased transparency and decreasing govt surveillance of citizens. HE LIED!

 

Drone strikes have increased exponentially under his regime. Countless numbers of innocent civilians have been killed as a result thus creating more enemies of the US in the middle east.

 

Warrantless wiretappings have QUADRUPLED under his regimen. You cannot blame that on Bush. That is all Barack. 

 

The difference between Barack and W is not as great as most of you would like to think. Both have proven themselves to be war mongering zealots that have little to no regard for civil liberties. 

_______________________

 

Did you conveniently overlook where I said "I hold both parties responsible"? 

 

I've been ****ed off at President Obama since he signed the bill to renew the Patriot Act. I just have sense enough to see all sides and I don't hold him and his "cronies" solely responsible. I also know that the only people in DC that are actually fighting against these over reaches are Democrats. Roy Wydan and Mark Udall are both Democrats that have been trying their best to rein in the abuse of power granted to government by the Patriot Act. I give credit and criticism where it is due. How bout you?

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:

I have no problem with background checks. They should be conducted.

 

However, I do have a problem with govt trying to limit magazine size and other things.


It's not background checks they are pushing, it's a gun registry they want.  We are seeing how they are now using said registry against gun owners in the nanny states to the north. 

 

With the exception of private individual sales, all gun sales require a background check; even at gun shows.  The only way to enforce background checks on private sales is to create a gun registry, which again, is being used against law abiding gun owners in nanny states.

 

MIndless sheeple like jank and company believe another law added to a long list of other laws not being enforced will suddenly fix the problem.  The problem is law breakers, not law abiders.  A gun registry only punishes those who obey the law, the criminals will not participate.

There should be no gun registries.

 

Barack has already shown that he will stop at nothing to restrict our civil liberties. Warrantless wiretapping have quadrupled under him, he signed NDAA giving him the right to be executioner of American citizens, and his admin has used the IRS to go after political enemies.

 

Freedom and civil liberties mean nothing to Barack and his cronies.

___________________

 

I hold both parties responsible for these things. You do realize that the NDAA was a Republican backed bill and that the President threatened to veto but after the House voted (majority of the yea votes were Republican) to pass it and then the Senate almost unanimously passed it he relented but added a side note that said he didn't like the provision that didn't make clear how the military could possibly detain those suspected of terrorism. 

 

His note on the signing...

 

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. 

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. 

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are "captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa'ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics...#YpmBRW2sxfuvUicy.99

 

I agree that the government has trampled all over our civil liberties, but it started way before President Obama took office. To lay it at his feet alone shows your bias. If you are going to be taken seriously then you should stop pointing your finger at one side while not taking those that actually implemented these changes to our rights to task. 

Jank, I have blamed Bush for the Patriot Act and was against the wars. You refuse to hold Barack accountable for his actions. 

 

Barack is in charge right now. It is his admin and "the buck stops with him". He ran on a campaign of increased transparency and decreasing govt surveillance of citizens. HE LIED!

 

Drone strikes have increased exponentially under his regime. Countless numbers of innocent civilians have been killed as a result thus creating more enemies of the US in the middle east.

 

Warrantless wiretappings have QUADRUPLED under his regimen. You cannot blame that on Bush. That is all Barack. 

 

The difference between Barack and W is not as great as most of you would like to think. Both have proven themselves to be war mongering zealots that have little to no regard for civil liberties. 

_______________________

 

Did you conveniently overlook where I said "I hold both parties responsible"? 

 

I've been ****ed off at President Obama since he signed the bill to renew the Patriot Act. I just have sense enough to see all sides and I don't hold him and his "cronies" solely responsible. I also know that the only people in DC that are actually fighting against these over reaches are Democrats. Roy Wydan and Mark Udall are both Democrats that have been trying their best to rein in the abuse of power granted to government by the Patriot Act. I give credit and criticism where it is due. How bout you?

Fair enough.

 

FYI, Mr. Ron Paul has been against all of this nonsense from the get go.

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by Ubu:

No Jank I don't feel safe. I am sooooooo very frightened!!!

 

Hold Me..............  

LOL

 

Don't worry...I will protect you. I own a gun!!! 

 

_________________________________

That's good to know..........seeing as how I don't (ahem) own one.......

 

So I can count on you to hold...........huhhhhhh, I mean protect me??? 

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
 

Fair enough.

 

FYI, Mr. Ron Paul has been against all of this nonsense from the get go.

___________________

 

Ron Paul is one of those guys that ****es me off. Sort of like Ross Perot did. They say so many things that are right on the money and make more sense than anyone else in DC....then they turn around and say the craziest *hit I have ever heard and ruin everything. They **** me off because I want to vote for them and then they pull the rug out from under me.

 

You and I probably agree on more things than we would disagree on. 

Originally Posted by Ubu:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by Ubu:

No Jank I don't feel safe. I am sooooooo very frightened!!!

 

Hold Me..............  

LOL

 

Don't worry...I will protect you. I own a gun!!! 

 

_________________________________

That's good to know..........seeing as how I don't (ahem) own one.......

 

So I can count on you to hold...........huhhhhhh, I mean protect me??? 

__________________

 

You know I would hold....I mean protect you when ever you need it. I don't even need a stinkin gun...I'm a woman....I'm scary enough without a weapon.

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
 

Fair enough.

 

FYI, Mr. Ron Paul has been against all of this nonsense from the get go.

___________________

 

Ron Paul is one of those guys that ****es me off. Sort of like Ross Perot did. They say so many things that are right on the money and make more sense than anyone else in DC....then they turn around and say the craziest *hit I have ever heard and ruin everything. They **** me off because I want to vote for them and then they pull the rug out from under me.

 

You and I probably agree on more things than we would disagree on. 

I'm pretty sure we agree on most every social and civil liberty issue.

 

I'm also pretty sure we disagree on most every fiscal/economic related issue. LOL

The Brits banned almost all private handguns, severely regulated long arms, in London installed more cameras (many with microphones) than any city on earth.  The result -- London is now the most violent city in western Europe.

 

Canada established a central firearms registry. The cost originally estimated to be $2 million, is reported to be $2 billion. Before the registry was abandoned, crimes involving firearms did not decrease significantly. 

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by Ubu:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by Ubu:

No Jank I don't feel safe. I am sooooooo very frightened!!!

 

Hold Me..............  

LOL

 

Don't worry...I will protect you. I own a gun!!! 

 

_________________________________

That's good to know..........seeing as how I don't (ahem) own one.......

 

So I can count on you to hold...........huhhhhhh, I mean protect me??? 

__________________

 

You know I would hold....I mean protect you when ever you need it. I don't even need a stinkin gun...I'm a woman....I'm scary enough without a weapon.

_________________________________________________

Jank,

 

For the sake of all mankind, cutoff your computer camera before logging on.

 

cartoon woman

Attachments

Images (1)
  • cartoon woman
Last edited by direstraits
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

now i understand why dire wants to go back to the roaring 20s.. he actually thinks he's humphry bogart! hahahahahaha! it all makes perfect sense, now! i'll tell you what dire.. get your best girl.. go on a date.. tell me where you're going.. and i'll come take her away from you.. and bet you a fresh new benny, i can do it.

-------------------------------------------

Word......

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

now i understand why dire wants to go back to the roaring 20s.. he actually thinks he's humphry bogart! hahahahahaha! it all makes perfect sense, now! i'll tell you what dire.. get your best girl.. go on a date.. tell me where you're going.. and i'll come take her away from you.. and bet you a fresh new benny, i can do it.

WTH is a benny?? I never know what you old codgers are talking about. LOL

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

now i understand why dire wants to go back to the roaring 20s.. he actually thinks he's humphry bogart! hahahahahaha! it all makes perfect sense, now! i'll tell you what dire.. get your best girl.. go on a date.. tell me where you're going.. and i'll come take her away from you.. and bet you a fresh new benny, i can do it.

`___________________________________________________

Crash,

 

Just one who appreciates film noir, of the 1930s. and happens to look like a taller version of Bogart.  Most talkies were made after The Jazz Singer in 1927. 

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×