DescentBB

Post 200!!!

wtg!! Vulcan!!

So at what point do we start defending our rights, with these weapons? As I pointed out before in this thread, the government is “already” stomping on peoples rights.

The unlawful use of Eminent Domain is already being used to steal peoples property. So I’m getting the feeling the usefulness of weapons to protect ones rights is greatly overrated anything short of full scale revolution. They sure didn’t help the MOVE members here in Philadelphia.

Will Robinson wrote: It's not that the army would suddenly take up positions and we would have to face the tanks with our rifles. It's that a corrupt Sheriff or Mayor can't just bully his way around taking peoples property for himself or locking up any dissidents...

(Shortened by Bettina)

Just like we pro gunners always say 'the gun doesn't kill people' it is also true that the gun doesn't free the people...
it's the underlying foundation, the principle behind the legality of the citizen to be armed that keeps us safer. Remove that foundation and the house crumbles.

In the case of a corupt sheriff and his corupt local government do you really think there would be a shooting war? There has never been one yet... although I can't be sure. A lot of crooked police and politicians have been removed from power without any civilian ever brandishing a weapon because it was the media, not the NRA.

In school, I remember reading about Gov. George Wallace of Alabama who, along with a good number of his weapon carrying civilian supporters, defied the U.S. government and tried to stop desegregation.

From Wiki.. (Wallace)

In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever

President John F. Kennedy threatened to send in government troops, like he did in Mississippi, and quess what. Gov. Wallace decided to back off and no pro Wallace civilians ever fired a shot... at least not in public view. So, whe didn't they shoot?

I'm not taking away your gun. Just your right to own tanks, grenades, assault rifles, and machine guns. The kind that a person can take into a mall or school and kill a lot of people in the shortest time possible because he had a bad day.

Kilarin wrote:It was the primary reason for the 2nd amendment according to Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and James Madison. So I'm in good company.

(Shortened by Bettina)

And, again, please note, I don't think its LIKELY that we will get into a shooting war with our government. But one of the main reasons I think it's not likely is that we ARE armed.

The 2nd ammendment was put in place so local militias could protect their people from government tyranny. The thought process at that time warranted such an ammendment. But today?????? You think the MAIN reason there is no shooting war is because the civilians are armed?. God, your argument is so uncharacteristically weak that I don't believe you're the real Kilarin. Or maybe you're smoking something you shouldn't be. I hope not.


To anyone...

Fact is, I am near-sighted but my contacts give me crystal clear vision and I would like to know, from anyone, where in the last 100 years was it ever neccessary for civilians to arm themselves against our government. No one has answered that for me yet... And, just in case someone mentions terrorists parachuting in, I can buy that if that's your argument and not the one that's been pushed around. But, I rather put my trust in the U.S. military, the national guard, and the police, rather than a bunch of civilians running around with AK-47's, grenades, and rocket launchers thinking they see some terrorists.

The government and the civilian population are homogeneous. We are one nation consisting of one people and we will live or die as one. That's my belief.

Bee

Lol, I still find it amusing that people see the 2nd amendment as the right to have a militia, and the right for them to have guns.

...............

I doubt the founding fathers were so inelegant*…

Here’s some more Dumb ass stating the obvious…

You have the right to own a tank, and it can have a turret.
You can own a house, and it can have a roof.
You can own a car, and it can have wheels.

I do believe the right to bear arms would be implied in the term “militia”.

Therefore…The first part must be a individual right, and the second a collective right. As the Supreme Court has decided…so the point is moot. Get over it.

*2. lacking precision: unnecessarily complicated or long

Bettina wrote:President John F. Kennedy threatened to send in government troops, like he did in Mississippi, and quess what. Gov. Wallace decided to back off and no pro Wallace civilians ever fired a shot... at least not in public view. So, whe didn't they shoot?

Because, thank goodness, they did NOT have enough support to take it to open warfare. As I've said before, unless it is a SERIOUSLY supported POPULAR uprising, it SHOULD fail.

Bettina wrote:You think the MAIN reason there is no shooting war is because the civilians are armed?.

ONE of the main reasons that it is not likely to be necessary. Not the ONLY reason.

If you'll look at the history of nations, there is a consistent and regular trend of them becoming abusive to their own citizens. When the citizenry is armed, there is an inherit speed bump that slows down the abuse. The government's efforts to control and manipulate its people will become extraordinarily expensive, and risky, if they rile them up beyond a certain point.

Again, look at Tienanmen square. If the population of China had been armed, Tienanmen square could not have happened the way it did.

You keep saying that the fact that it is 2009 instead of 1776 makes a big difference in whether we need guns to defend ourselves against the tyranny of government. What exactly is the difference? The government has bigger better weapons, but then, so does the population. And I'm not talking about "assault weapons". Today's hunting rifle, hand gun, and shot guns are incredibly more powerful than the muskets we fought the British with. And the British had bigger and better guns and equipment than the colonist. In fighting a guerrilla uprising among your own population, planes, bombs, and nukes are counter productive. They damage your OWN land, while enraging the population even more.

And I DO hope you aren't trying to argue that government is simply more trustworthy now than it was two centries ago.

Bettina wrote:Or maybe you're smoking something you shouldn't be. Wink I hope not.

Heh! Not likely. I don't even do caffeine. I DO have a weakness for chocolate, but that's not a controlled substance yet. At least, not controlled by anyone other than my wife.

Bettina wrote:The government and the civilian population are homogeneous. We are one nation consisting of one people and we will live or die as one. That's my belief.

For right now, but right now is a very precarious balance. Lets jump back to your example of Gov. Wallace, because I think he is an EXCELLENT example of why the population needs to be armed. All the way up into the 1950's, lynchings were still occurring in the south. They were REALLY bad in the 30's, and even worse in the 1890's. The whites would bring their kids and throw PICNICS as they watched some poor black man who never had a trial being mutilated, tortured, burned, and eventually, hung. They gathered their families around and took pictures with the bodies. I won't give you links, you can find them if you really WANT to. As for the police and the military, they were white, and they were often in charge of the festivities.

Things DID turn around without a violent uprising. But I consider that a shame. Yes, you didn't misunderstand me. When the government is helping to torture and murder part of the population, because of their race; when this is considered a form of ENTERTAINMENT; It's time to fight back and defend yourselves.

Of course, one of the reasons they COULDN'T fight back, was the continual effort by the government to keep black people disarmed.
http://www.old-yankee.com/rkba/racial_laws.html

That was less than a hundred years ago. Right now, things aren't that bad. Thank God! But things change. And if and when they change, we'll ALL be better off and safer if the population as a whole has the right to bear arms.

Bet, you keep saying you only want to take away grenades and AK47's etc.
Well the simple truth is those are already illegal and many of the guns you say you wouldn't take away have been targeted by the anti-gun groups proposed \"assault weapon\" legislation....

So who's side are you on?

Maybe a better question is which group is on your side even though they don't know you and don't expect anything from you?

Bett I see now your an elitist. You think America rocks and there's no other place on earth like it. We are the best. None of the things that happen in the Whole rest of the world Throughout history could ever happen here. We are better than that and those other people.

Now I'm not going to do all the research for you, but just look over the last 100 years at all the rest of the world, and see how they've treated each other. Then tell me how we are any different and why we are different.

Then take into account that America is less than 250 years old and there has never been another nation in history FOUNDED on the principals of \"life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.\"

How does a place like that continue to exist, when history has proven, that every government that has ever been setup has eventually ended up severely restricting their rights to be an individual and free expression.

SilverFJ wrote:woodchip,

I think it's fair to say that both of these men learned how to snipe in the Marine Corps, they weren't just some random joes with guns.

Of the three men I listed, only Carlos Hathaway was trained as a sniper. Whitman and Oswald, while both having served in the USMC, had no training in shooting other than what basic training offered. Any squirrel hunter or large game hunter could shoot at least as well as Whitman or Oswald.

The whole point here was that banning assault style weapons would not prevent large scale killing by a lone individual.

*Sigh* Ok, well I guess I will just chalk it up to a difference of opinion as to whether the government is “already” oppressing the people.

Bet51987 wrote:...
The 2nd ammendment was put in place so local militias could protect their people from government tyranny. The thought process at that time warranted such an ammendment. But today??????...
Bee

No, the 2nd amendment was put in place to specify an inalienable right of the individual citizen to arm himself and the reason mentioned was that it was necessary for the citizen to be armed so that a well regulated militia (read: a pool of already armed volunteers) could be called up in short notice to act against tyranny or all out war.

You ask "But today??????" as if the fact that advancement in technology would surely now cancel out the intent of the 2nd amendment and I say that your assumption is illogical.

I seriously doubt the founders intended the citizens to surrender their right if the government ever became better equipped than the citizens!
After all, at the time the 2nd amendment was written, they were in the wake of promoting an uprising of under armed citizens fighting against a better equipped government! The exact scenario you want us to believe makes the 2nd amendment useless!!
The 2nd amendment was written to ensure we could always take on that challenge again in the future if necessary!

Your assumptions and logic don't serve your position at all they only serve your emotional response to gun violence.

Bettina wrote:I'm not taking away your gun. Just your right to own tanks, grenades, assault rifles, and machine guns. The kind that a person can take into a mall or school and kill a lot of people in the shortest time possible because he had a bad day.

Heck, I could take a baseball bat into a mall and kill a whole lot of people. Or even just a knife or a machete. Are you going to outlaw getting really good at kung-fu?

Bettina wrote:President John F. Kennedy threatened to send in government troops, like he did in Mississippi, and quess what. Gov. Wallace decided to back off and no pro Wallace civilians ever fired a shot... at least not in public view. So, whe didn't they shoot?

Probably because their local history with trying to go against the U.S. Government revealed a lack of success in any given attempt, but at least it WAS tried before:

flip wrote:Bett I see now your an elitist. You think America rocks and there's no other place on earth like it. We are the best. None of the things that happen in the Whole rest of the world Throughout history could ever happen here. We are better than that and those other people.

Well man, while other stuff that happens in the world might very well happen here, we do rest our heads and dust our feet in the greatest nation on Earth, no mistake about that.

woodchip wrote:Of the three men I listed, only Carlos Hathaway was trained as a sniper. Whitman and Oswald, while both having served in the USMC, had no training in shooting other than what basic training offered. Any squirrel hunter or large game hunter could shoot at least as well as Whitman or Oswald.

Ah, forgive me, my entire source for my statement was a few lines in "Full Metal Jacket".

Kilarin wrote:

Bettina wrote:As Kilarin stated above, it appears to me you don't pay attention to the points of the pro gun arguments.

Important clarification here; I wasn't saying that Bettina wasn't paying attention. I was saying that she throws her ideas out into the shark pool to be attacked, just like the rest of us do.

Sorry, I must have worded that badly, I was using your points to describe MY impression of Bettina's arguments. I in no way meant to infer you thought that way Kilarin.

VonVulcan wrote: I in no way meant to infer you thought that way Kilarin.

No apology necessary! I wasn't angry, just clarifying.

Kilarin.... I don't see what you see so I think we've reached an impasse. I'm letting you have the last word here.

Will Robinson wrote:Bet, you keep saying you only want to take away grenades and AK47's etc.
Well the simple truth is those are already illegal and many of the guns you say you wouldn't take away have been targeted by the

anti-gun groups proposed "assault weapon" legislation....

So who's side are you on?

Maybe a better question is which group is on your side even though they don't know you and don't expect anything from you?

The assault weapons ban has expired which makes them legal to own and use like the one's that have killed the last six policeman. That, and what Drakona posted, was the basis of my entire argument. Who's on my side? My friends are but it doesn't matter anyway because the largest terrorist group already owns this country so the killings will continue unabated on a greater level than before. Have you seen the news lately?

flip wrote:Bett I see now your an elitist. You think America rocks and there's no other place on earth like it. We are the best. None of the things that happen in the Whole rest of the world Throughout history could ever happen here. We are better than that and those other people.

Now I'm not going to do all the research for you, but just look over the last 100 years at all the rest of the world, and see how they've treated each other. Then tell me how we are any different and why we are different.

Then take into account that America is less than 250 years old and there has never been another nation in history FOUNDED on the principals of "life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Flip, I'm not really an elitist, well maybe a little, but I certainly don't think this country rocks but I want it to. That's whay I argue the way I do. Truth is, I think the U.S. is a very dangerous place to live and guns are the main culprit. I don't have time to get an accurate count of how many homicides in this country were gun related compared to comparable countries but I quickly found out that we are at the top of the list. We should not be. And, when you say "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", I see it as "liberty, pursuit of happiness, at the cost of life". I can think of quite a few countries where I would feel much safer than here.

How does a place like that continue to exist, when history has proven, that every government that has ever been setup has eventually ended up severely restricting their rights to be an individual and free expression.

So, you're saying that banning military style weapons from the general population would somehow cause this republic to collapse? you make it sound that ALL freedoms would be eliminated if assault rifles were eliminated.

Will Robinson wrote: No, the 2nd amendment was put in place to specify an inalienable right of the individual citizen to arm himself and the reason mentioned was that it was necessary for the citizen to be armed so that a well regulated militia (read: a pool of already armed volunteers) could be called up in short notice to act against tyranny or all out war.

You ask "But today??????" as if the fact that advancement in technology would surely now cancel out the intent of the 2nd amendment and I say that your assumption is illogical.

I seriously doubt the founders intended the citizens to surrender their right if the government ever became better equipped than the citizens!
After all, at the time the 2nd amendment was written, they were in the wake of promoting an uprising of under armed citizens fighting against a better equipped government! The exact scenario you want us to believe makes the 2nd amendment useless!!
The 2nd amendment was written to ensure we could always take on that challenge again in the future if necessary!

Your assumptions and logic don't serve your position at all they only serve your emotional response to gun violence.

First, no one is taking all your guns away and I've made that pretty clear so the founding fathers argument doesn't work for you. Second, I'm sorry you feel my logic has failed. I try to make myself clear but sometimes I either don't, or the people I'm talking too have built a wall that I can't knock down. I know it can be, and it should be, but I'm just not smart enough to do it.
As far as emotions...you should know me by now but lets be clear. Emotions have been my guide throughout life. They've been instrumental in my decision making and I'm able to see clearly because of them. Emotion always reveals truth.

Bee

Bee:
\"The assault weapons ban has expired which makes them legal to own and use like the one's that have killed the last six policeman. That, and what Drakona posted, was the basis of my entire argument. Who's on my side? My friends are but it doesn't matter anyway because the largest terrorist group already owns this country so the killings will continue unabated on a greater level than before. Have you seen the news lately?\"

I would really suggest Bee that you start researching your reply's so you do not look truly ignorant. For your information AK-47s could be legally bought and owned even while the Assault Weapon ban was in effect, just as Ar-15's could be legally bought and owned. You normally have a good mind and will give a well reasoned reply in areas of science but for some reason when it comes to firearms you totally lose your cognitive ability.

So here's the challenge Bee, research why your reply was baseless emoraging and post here your findings. Who knows, you may wind up walking down the path of enlightenment.

Unbelievable... I am textless. Almost.
Bee, Emotion is what is causing your logic, your reason, to fail.

Bet51987 wrote:....
First, no one is taking all your guns away and I've made that pretty clear so the founding fathers argument doesn't work for you....

You suggested the premise that the 2nd amendment once enabled the citizen to fight against a government but with the weapons the government has today it no longer applies...
I tried to show you it does apply today just as it did then. That is the founding father component of my argument and I think it works...maybe you don't understand it so it didn't work for you....but it seems to be quite relevant to your point.

As to your repeatedly telling me you don't want to ban all guns just the scary high capacity ones...look back on all the tragic shootings over the decades and you'll see that your ban of only those particular guns would have only stopped a tiny fraction of the shootings!
And of that tiny fraction many of those motivated killers would have simply used less scary guns that you don't want to ban!
So even less than a tiny fraction of the deaths would be stopped by your efforts.

Only logic clouded by emotion could enable a smart person to cling to such a non-solution to a problem.
The only gun ban that will help would be a complete ban that truly removed all guns.

Will wrote:The only gun ban that will help would be a complete ban that truly removed all guns.

...which would be, at least for me, the catalyst for a reasonable uprising.

But prohibition of anything in America has proven to always fail.

Bettina wrote: I don't see what you see so I think we've reached an impasse. I'm letting you have the last word here.

Thats fine! You've been defending this one almost alone for a long time now, and that gets VERY tiring. I KNOW, I've been there. Take a break.

That just goes to show that 2nd Amendment supporters by far outweigh the detractors.

Bet51987 wrote:...

The assault weapons ban has expired which makes them legal to own and use like the one's that have killed the last six policeman....

Grenades have never been legal, AK-47's are fully automatic rifles which were illegal before the assault weapons ban and are still illegal with the exception of people with special permits usually law enforcement types.
So if the last six cops were killed by AK-47's or grenades then obviously the law doesn't stop criminals and crazy people from using them anyway.....

Bettina wrote:I don't see what you see so I think we've reached an impasse. I'm letting you have the last word here.

Aww, don't give up!
What if Obama gave up? He'd make all democrats look bad.

Bet51987 wrote: but it doesn't matter anyway because the largest terrorist group already owns this country

Damn Democrats and its only going to get worse too

“And, of course, the main point is that as long as the citizenry is armed, they won't NEED to rebel against the government. Tienanmen square can only happen in a disarmed nation.”

“Four dead in O..Hi…O”

I’m going to keep pointing out the flaws in this concept, until someone addresses it.

you make it sound that ALL freedoms would be eliminated if assault rifles were eliminated.

YES. Maybe not in my lifetime, or even in my children's life but in the not so distant future, as soon as the general population has been disarmed, time has proved countless and innumerable times, that ALL governments eventually oppress their constituents. Just look at the most ancient of cultures still around, China, Iraq, Iran. These have developed into full scale dictatorships in the time they've existed.

I don't know about you, but I feel the need not only to protect my own life and the ability to form my own \"village\" but also the same thing for my offspring, no matter how long down the road it goes.

One of the best things that got driven in my head when I was younger, was to always look ahead when considering anything. Look far ahead and you can see the end of it, maybe, but for sure you will see enough to know whether its Good or Bad.

I forgot to address Spidey. That is beating a dead horse for sure. To take such things as that into account would call for immediate action, and we KNOW that's not gonna happen. I'm not even sure their is an action to be taken right now except to write your congressmen and voice your opinion and diligently try and judge those that we put into Authority. Aside from that I just try and point out the things that are obvious and let the reader or hearer judge it for themselves. I know in my case, it would be very hard to change my views on ANYTHING, so someone disagrees with me does not hurt my feelings at all.

The Kent State shootings, also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre,occurred at Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of students by members of the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. Four students were killed and nine others were wounded, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.

You mean this shooting, that took place the year I was born, in a trying and adverse time? Heh. Where the U.S Government started firing on UNARMED student protesters, killing 4 and wounding nine.

So that’s a “dead horse” huh? Well you just go on living your pipe dream that your AK-47 will keep you safe from the government.

MOVE
Ruby Ridge
Branch Davidians…

flip….context…context…context!

Read the quote above the event I mentioned…

Eh Spidey? I thought I was agreeing with you.

Ok I mean a dead horse in this way. All the guns the Branch Davidians had bought they bought legally. They had committed no crimes. They were no doubt a bunch of whack jobs who put to much confidence in a real whack job, but, in a land of religious freedom that's ok as long as they all consent. Point is they were law abiding. Then the Government comes in because they notice a real threat and I don't know about the rest of you, but I distinctly remember seeing flames come out of the building right when the tank broke through. What did anybody do about it except watch on TV and shake their heads. So yes, a dead horse because if it doesn't happen to you, we just pass the Samaritan on the other side of the road.

Point is whether they set themselves all on fire, even the own loved ones, or things went horribly awry, at that point their only crime was one of resistence and just wanting to be left alone.

flip wrote:... All the guns the Branch Davidians had bought they bought legally. They had committed no crimes. They were no doubt a bunch of whack jobs who put to much confidence in a real whack job, but, in a land of religious freedom that's ok as long as they all consent. Point is they were law abiding.

You mean raping women and 12 year old girls was ok with you because owning weapons legally can't make him all that bad?

Bee

Will Robinson wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:...

The assault weapons ban has expired which makes them legal to own and use like the one's that have killed the last six policeman....

Grenades have never been legal, AK-47's are fully automatic rifles which were illegal before the assault weapons ban and are still illegal with the exception of people with special permits usually law enforcement types.
So if the last six cops were killed by AK-47's or grenades then obviously the law doesn't stop criminals and crazy people from using them anyway.....

Would someone please tell me the truth for once? Ten million? How are they illegal?

http://asymptoticlife.com/2009/03/20/panic-ii.aspx

https://www.cogunsales.com/index.php?pa ... t&Itemid=1

How to make it more lethal by changing to to fully automatic.



Bee

SilverFJ wrote:

Bettina wrote:I don't see what you see so I think we've reached an impasse. I'm letting you have the last word here.

Aww, don't give up!
What if Obama gave up? He'd make all democrats look bad.

I'm not giving up but I've been seriously toying with the idea of .com. I like ethics and commentary, I'm 21 now, I can handle myself, and it will give me a better chance of not arguing alone all the time. The frustration here is awful. I have friends that think like I do, but no one here does. I just don't fit in. I've seen no valid argument yet for citizens to own military weapons yet people here convince themselves that it's neccessary to protect ourselves from a possible invasion from our own government. It's stupid.

I haven't learned anything here for a long time.

Bee

You mean raping women and 12 year old girls was ok with you because owning weapons legally can't make him all that bad?

That's the rumor. That's also why there are courts to find out the Truth. Yet I agree, If they were child molesters, its real hard to sympathize. Yet since I've decided to base my thoughts and decisions on things I'm sure of, I've got no reason to believe that or not. All the people there, every last one of them? The molesters and the molestees, all dead. Not even Jim Jones accomplished that. Since there is no way to ask any of them, seeing as every last one of them is dead,
There's no way to know the truth unless you know someone that was there. Then it's still just one side of it.

The only thing I ever learned on any BB is that text is the worst format for discussion ever invented.

Oh, and people, especially liberals can’t deal with the truth.

Bet51987 wrote: I'm not giving up but I've been seriously toying with the idea of .com. I like ethics and commentary, I'm 21 now, I can handle myself, and it will give me a better chance of not arguing alone all the time. The frustration here is awful. I have friends that think like I do, but no one here does. I just don't fit in. I've seen no valid argument yet for citizens to own military weapons yet people here convince themselves that it's neccessary to protect ourselves from a possible invasion from our own government. It's stupid.

I haven't learned anything here for a long time.

Bee

I probably think more like you then I do most of the other posters here.

I do believe that you flush out your beliefs alot more in a group that disagrees with you. Alot of times (not always) on .com I will just skim and go...'yup'...

…. some people get a kick out of that affirmation, (It's why talk radio is so popular!). I’m much more interested in how the other side ticks.

The exponential increase in counterpoints when you are outnumbered in an argument can get frustrating however.

And Spidy's first point is dead on, his second point is almost there.

Well said Goob and Spidey.

and Goob, yeah, i used to like fishsticks but not so much any more.

Bet51987 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:...

The assault weapons ban has expired which makes them legal to own and use like the one's that have killed the last six policeman....

Grenades have never been legal, AK-47's are fully automatic rifles which were illegal before the assault weapons ban and are still illegal with the exception of people with special permits usually law enforcement types.
So if the last six cops were killed by AK-47's or grenades then obviously the law doesn't stop criminals and crazy people from using them anyway.....

Would someone please tell me the truth for once? Ten million? How are they illegal?

http://asymptoticlife.com/2009/03/20/panic-ii.aspx

https://www.cogunsales.com/index.php?pa ... t&Itemid=1

How to make it more lethal by changing to to fully automatic.



Bee

Bee, here is the long and the short of it. While I am heartened that you took the time to at least look into assault weapons here is what you missed.

First off you should of looked at what the politico's came up with as a definition of a assault firearm and when you read what I am going to explain you will see how useless the law was when the ban went into effect.

First off a assault rifle was defined by having any three of the following 4 characteristics:

1) a flash suppressor
2) a bayonet lug
3) a box magazine
4) a pistol grip

So what manufacturers did was make a AK-47 or a AR-15 without a flash suppressor and with no bayonet lug. I suspect Bee, if I didn't point this out you, you and your friends would never see the difference yet it made all the difference between what was legal and what wasn't.

But more disturbing is the unintended consequences by Obama talking about re-enacting the ban. By opening his highly educated, well modulated and entirely stupid yap, he is the single reason why there are 10 million more "assault" style firearms in circulation. Do you yet see the enormous incompetence of the man who is now our president? In one utterance he alone created 10 million more possibilities for mass murder to happen. The sad part Bee, is you and your like minded friends won't see this and you will keep thinking Alfred E is a truly wonderful president.

Oh and good luck over at .com If you have trouble here, then don't think it will be any easier just because a few people may agree in part with your ideals over there.