gun confiscation
WASHINGTON ? A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing ?military-style semiautomatic assault weapons? and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.
In a USA Today op-ed entitled ?Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,? Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons ?would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.?
Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons ? and ?criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/dem-congressman-force-gun-owners-sell-assault-weapons-n871066
In a USA Today op-ed entitled ?Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,? Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons ?would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.?
Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons ? and ?criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/dem-congressman-force-gun-owners-sell-assault-weapons-n871066
0
-
Why in heaven's name do you need TWO of those 30-06 guns? Those are high powered rifles that can kill a man a thousand yards away. Airplanes have been shot down with that cartridge- and loaded with AP rounds will shoot through TRUCKS! That 1903 Springfield is easily converted to a 40 shot semi-auto rifle. I find this is MOST irresponsible of you.
And I can't remember how to find the green font on this computer.0 -
If the SHTF in this country the AR's and AK's will level the playing field at a distance. If you discount all the other armament and oh yes I forgot the congressman that wants to use nukes against us. 0 -
I'm surprised it took them this long. 0 -
The sooner we get back to clubbing, stabbing, and burning each other the better. It'll be a gun grabber's wet dream. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by US Military Guy
I'm just going to throw this out here.
In Before The Lock.
[:D]
Is that still a thing on here where the inmates are running amok in the asylum [:D]?0 -
quote:Originally posted by GreatGuns
quote:Originally posted by Sparty_76
Well I am a Democrat and I like guns. I know to have guns I must know how to use them and REPECT them. I have no problem registering my guns and being asked to learn how to use them. I believe owning a gun is my right, but as a right that carries responsibility. If I am NOT a responsible gun owner I lose the right to have them! Although I do have an AR-15, I do not really need one. I enjoy shooting my M1 Garand or 03 Springfield much more. I do not need a 30-Round magazine to protect myself. My 870 Rem with 00 and the slug barrel is the gun I am grabbing in an emergency!
Not all Democrats are Communists nor are all Republicans Fascists! 95% of us Democrats believe in REPONSIBLE gun ownership! However, are bump stocks on AR-15s with 30-Round clips necessary? Is it OK for a NUT to have such power to kill scores of people? Both sides need to compromise because we just cannot sit back and watch others walk in to Churches, Schools, or snipe from Hotel Rooms with guns they should not have. We better compromise, for to do nothing is not doing the trick! As much as I love guns, I think it is an utter shame we have to think about carrying a gun to Mass, or arm my grandkid's teachers! Something and someone has to give!
Now you've done it, introduced logic where logic is rarely used, at least here. Since you have clearly let the cat out of the bag as to your political party stance, be prepared for a multi-point attack by the complete whack job nut cases here that believe they are more American than our founding fathers, know all there is to know about today's politics, and they are mind readers (so wrap your head in tin foil to block your thoughts). This will be an interesting and very short ride. [;)]
Not seeing the logic, GreatGuns.
Suggesting that at some point a given amount of lethality is no longer necessary and therefore can be made illegal gives to government the power ensure that the armed citizen will always be at a disadvantage to government.
The stated purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the security of a free State. Ensuring that the populace cannot arm itself to the level of those that would impose upon their freedom is obviously counter to the intent of the second.
Be it an invading foreign force or an oppressive domestic force, ensuring that citizen resistance to tyranny cannot compete with the forces of that tyranny renders the 2nd Amendment meaningless.
If we as a society have determined that the ability to resist tyranny by force is no longer necessary, Article 5 of the Constitution provides two avenues for redress. If you and Sparty wish to amend the 2nd Amendment to bestow upon governments the power to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, let us go forward along that path. To do so, however, will by necessity include specific limits upon what those powers should be.
In the long run, this may be the best hope for actual gun rights. As you and I have seen over even these past few decades, the advocates for government control over the individual have fewer and fewer reservations upon what they deem within their purview to control.
Most of you accept infringements upon what used to be our right under the 2nd Amendment. With the growing number of magazine capacity bans, semi-auto rifle bans and restricted access to both handguns and semi-auto rifles, it has become apparent to the rest of us that you view the power of infringement to be limitless. A crisis begets a restriction; the next crisis begets the next restriction, etc.
Perhaps it is time we discuss our desire for limits placed upon government in conjunction with your desire for additional limits placed upon the individual.0 -
quote:Originally posted by GreatGuns
quote:Originally posted by Sparty_76
Well I am a Democrat and I like guns. I know to have guns I must know how to use them and REPECT them. I have no problem registering my guns and being asked to learn how to use them. I believe owning a gun is my right, but as a right that carries responsibility. If I am NOT a responsible gun owner I lose the right to have them! Although I do have an AR-15, I do not really need one. I enjoy shooting my M1 Garand or 03 Springfield much more. I do not need a 30-Round magazine to protect myself. My 870 Rem with 00 and the slug barrel is the gun I am grabbing in an emergency!
Not all Democrats are Communists nor are all Republicans Fascists! 95% of us Democrats believe in REPONSIBLE gun ownership! However, are bump stocks on AR-15s with 30-Round clips necessary? Is it OK for a NUT to have such power to kill scores of people? Both sides need to compromise because we just cannot sit back and watch others walk in to Churches, Schools, or snipe from Hotel Rooms with guns they should not have. We better compromise, for to do nothing is not doing the trick! As much as I love guns, I think it is an utter shame we have to think about carrying a gun to Mass, or arm my grandkid's teachers! Something and someone has to give!
Sorry Don, the highlited above was what I was referring to. Sorry you can't read my mind to know exactly what I was thinking as to this post. I found it refreshing that someone can speak their opinion without having to "represent" the gun community as a whole. I believe Horse Plains Drifter also suggested this point. [;)]
You are so full of crap, I have to put my boots on here in Tucson.
Typical lib bs. I don't buy it.
Don McManus read you the riot act and quite politely I may add, and now you have selective amnesia, and blaming it on mind reading.
Go pedal your communism elseware. [:(!][:(!][:(!]0 -
There is always a person or group that forget the reason for our 2A.
I, for one, do not want to be less armed than those that have the power to restrict my liberties if not held in check.0 -
quote:Originally posted by GreatGuns
quote:Originally posted by Sparty_76
Well I am a Democrat and I like guns. I know to have guns I must know how to use them and REPECT them. I have no problem registering my guns and being asked to learn how to use them. I believe owning a gun is my right, but as a right that carries responsibility. If I am NOT a responsible gun owner I lose the right to have them! Although I do have an AR-15, I do not really need one. I enjoy shooting my M1 Garand or 03 Springfield much more. I do not need a 30-Round magazine to protect myself. My 870 Rem with 00 and the slug barrel is the gun I am grabbing in an emergency!
Not all Democrats are Communists nor are all Republicans Fascists! 95% of us Democrats believe in REPONSIBLE gun ownership! However, are bump stocks on AR-15s with 30-Round clips necessary? Is it OK for a NUT to have such power to kill scores of people? Both sides need to compromise because we just cannot sit back and watch others walk in to Churches, Schools, or snipe from Hotel Rooms with guns they should not have. We better compromise, for to do nothing is not doing the trick! As much as I love guns, I think it is an utter shame we have to think about carrying a gun to Mass, or arm my grandkid's teachers! Something and someone has to give!
Sorry Don, the highlited above was what I was referring to. Sorry you can't read my mind to know exactly what I was thinking as to this post. I found it refreshing that someone can speak their opinion without having to "represent" the gun community as a whole. I believe Horse Plains Drifter also suggested this point. [;)]
You suggested that the post introduced logic.
I pointed out how, if that was logic, it was counter to our 2nd Amendment guarantee and I then offered a proper method for the compromise that Sparty_76 noted.
That logical compromise being that since those of us who support the unlimited 2nd as written are forced to compromise our position (something that has already been done in 10s of thousands of laws that are on the books today), those of you who support controls placed upon the citizens must accept a limit to those controls.
To the points you highlighted:
1. I believe owning a gun is my right, but as a right that carries responsibility.
I fully agree. If someone behaves badly with a firearm, that person should be punished; should be held responsible. This is what we do when someone is irresponsible with the 1st Amendment right to free speech in the form of inciting violence, damaging a person through libel, etc. These irresponsible speakers are held responsible for their actions. Irresponsible firearms owners should be treated in the same manner.
Likewise, until a speaker crosses the line, there is no pre-emptive interference. This is how firearms owners should be treated as well.
2.I do not need a 30-Round magazine to protect myself.
Is it logical to assume this? Is it logical to assume you will know from what you need protection? To date, I have never needed a firearm to protect myself. It is logical for me to state that I do not need a firearm to protect myself?
FWIW, my great-grandfather was murdered by the Zapatistas in early part of the last century. He had a couple of 30-40 Krag rifles with which he fought them, yet was found with approximately 100 bullet holes in his body. A few 30 round magazines would have been very helpful.
Is it logical for me to assume that our species has evolved sufficiently in these intervening 100 years that such things are impossible today?
3.Not all Democrats are Communists nor are all Republicans Fascists
While there are a number of now-significant Democrats that openly espouse s.o.c.i.a.l.i.s.m, there are few that support communism.
I then challenge you to name one Republican of significance that can accurately be labeled a fascist.
Therefore this statement contains little logic at all, rather is a throw away line in the same vein as 'I support the 2nd Amendment, but...'.0 -
Well....this is a discussion forum. It is not much of a discussion if there is no disagreement.
IMO, Mr. McManus is one of the more accepting folks on the forum. Seems that I learn or reaffirm something every time he posts.0 -
People right of center can not be fascist. Fascisms is a left wing ideology, to the right of communists, but left of center. The leftists in this country have been trying to attach fascism to the right for decades, and that is factually inaccurate. It amazes me how many people fail to understand the political spectrum, fascism is a form s-o-cialism. Leftists in the media would like for the masses to believe Trump is a fascist because of his nationalism, well they are conflating nationalism with fascism. Trump's nationalism is a direct response to the left's globalism, and collectivist agenda. Nationalism has little to do with political affiliation, one can be a communist and nationalist, while a capitalist could be a nationalist aswell. 
0 -
quote:Originally posted by GreatGuns
In my opinion Don, you don't believe a person has a right to their own choices or opinions. That's all I was suggesting about Sparty_76 posting and I'm not going to exchange opinions with you. You wasted your time with your challenge. Generalizing clearly doesn't appeal to you and nobody owes you an explanation for anything, especially me. [;)]
From your original post:
'Now you've done it, introduced logic where logic is rarely used, at least here. Since you have clearly let the cat out of the bag as to your political party stance, be prepared for a multi-point attack by the complete whack job nut cases here that believe they are more American than our founding fathers, know all there is to know about today's politics, and they are mind readers (so wrap your head in tin foil to block your thoughts). This will be an interesting and very short ride.'
Interesting that someone would post this and then accuse someone else of not believing a person has the right to their own choices or opinions.
I was attempting to have a civil conversation regarding what you referred to as logic.
That said, I guess it is fine that you wish to post your opinions and refuse to accept a challenge to them or a discussion of them.
Don't see the fun in that or understand what a person would get out of that, but we all approach life differently.
To be accurate, with such phrases as 'introduce logic' and your generalization of those who start with the literal meaning of the 2nd Amendment as 'Whack Jobs', you were suggesting a whole lot more than Sparty_76 simply having a right to his opinions.
Had you actually stated what you now say you stated, you would not have heard a peep from me.0 -
quote:Originally posted by guntech59
There is always a person or group that forget the reason for our 2A.
I, for one, do not want to be less armed than those that have the power to restrict my liberties if not held in check.
+100 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by GreatGuns
quote:Originally posted by Sparty_76
Well I am a Democrat and I like guns. I know to have guns I must know how to use them and REPECT them. I have no problem registering my guns and being asked to learn how to use them. I believe owning a gun is my right, but as a right that carries responsibility. If I am NOT a responsible gun owner I lose the right to have them! Although I do have an AR-15, I do not really need one. I enjoy shooting my M1 Garand or 03 Springfield much more. I do not need a 30-Round magazine to protect myself. My 870 Rem with 00 and the slug barrel is the gun I am grabbing in an emergency!
Not all Democrats are Communists nor are all Republicans Fascists! 95% of us Democrats believe in REPONSIBLE gun ownership! However, are bump stocks on AR-15s with 30-Round clips necessary? Is it OK for a NUT to have such power to kill scores of people? Both sides need to compromise because we just cannot sit back and watch others walk in to Churches, Schools, or snipe from Hotel Rooms with guns they should not have. We better compromise, for to do nothing is not doing the trick! As much as I love guns, I think it is an utter shame we have to think about carrying a gun to Mass, or arm my grandkid's teachers! Something and someone has to give!
Now you've done it, introduced logic where logic is rarely used, at least here. Since you have clearly let the cat out of the bag as to your political party stance, be prepared for a multi-point attack by the complete whack job nut cases here that believe they are more American than our founding fathers, know all there is to know about today's politics, and they are mind readers (so wrap your head in tin foil to block your thoughts). This will be an interesting and very short ride. [;)]
Not seeing the logic, GreatGuns.
Suggesting that at some point a given amount of lethality is no longer necessary and therefore can be made illegal gives to government the power ensure that the armed citizen will always be at a disadvantage to government.
The stated purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the security of a free State. Ensuring that the populace cannot arm itself to the level of those that would impose upon their freedom is obviously counter to the intent of the second.
Be it an invading foreign force or an oppressive domestic force, ensuring that citizen resistance to tyranny cannot compete with the forces of that tyranny renders the 2nd Amendment meaningless.
If we as a society have determined that the ability to resist tyranny by force is no longer necessary, Article 5 of the Constitution provides two avenues for redress. If you and Sparty wish to amend the 2nd Amendment to bestow upon governments the power to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, let us go forward along that path. To do so, however, will by necessity include specific limits upon what those powers should be.
In the long run, this may be the best hope for actual gun rights. As you and I have seen over even these past few decades, the advocates for government control over the individual have fewer and fewer reservations upon what they deem within their purview to control.
Most of you accept infringements upon what used to be our right under the 2nd Amendment. With the growing number of magazine capacity bans, semi-auto rifle bans and restricted access to both handguns and semi-auto rifles, it has become apparent to the rest of us that you view the power of infringement to be limitless. A crisis begets a restriction; the next crisis begets the next restriction, etc.
Perhaps it is time we discuss our desire for limits placed upon government in conjunction with your desire for additional limits placed upon the individual.
In an earlier post you say that the time for compromise is over, but here you seem to say that perhaps we need limits on individuals and government. Soon limits will become more infringement and the death blow of the 2A. Smarter folks than me have said with the death of the 2A comes the end of "The Bill of Rights" My 75 years tells me that my Uncle can give much but he can take them away in a heart beat.0 -
quote:Originally posted by 4205raymond
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by GreatGuns
quote:Originally posted by Sparty_76
Well I am a Democrat and I like guns. I know to have guns I must know how to use them and REPECT them. I have no problem registering my guns and being asked to learn how to use them. I believe owning a gun is my right, but as a right that carries responsibility. If I am NOT a responsible gun owner I lose the right to have them! Although I do have an AR-15, I do not really need one. I enjoy shooting my M1 Garand or 03 Springfield much more. I do not need a 30-Round magazine to protect myself. My 870 Rem with 00 and the slug barrel is the gun I am grabbing in an emergency!
Not all Democrats are Communists nor are all Republicans Fascists! 95% of us Democrats believe in REPONSIBLE gun ownership! However, are bump stocks on AR-15s with 30-Round clips necessary? Is it OK for a NUT to have such power to kill scores of people? Both sides need to compromise because we just cannot sit back and watch others walk in to Churches, Schools, or snipe from Hotel Rooms with guns they should not have. We better compromise, for to do nothing is not doing the trick! As much as I love guns, I think it is an utter shame we have to think about carrying a gun to Mass, or arm my grandkid's teachers! Something and someone has to give!
Now you've done it, introduced logic where logic is rarely used, at least here. Since you have clearly let the cat out of the bag as to your political party stance, be prepared for a multi-point attack by the complete whack job nut cases here that believe they are more American than our founding fathers, know all there is to know about today's politics, and they are mind readers (so wrap your head in tin foil to block your thoughts). This will be an interesting and very short ride. [;)]
Not seeing the logic, GreatGuns.
Suggesting that at some point a given amount of lethality is no longer necessary and therefore can be made illegal gives to government the power ensure that the armed citizen will always be at a disadvantage to government.
The stated purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the security of a free State. Ensuring that the populace cannot arm itself to the level of those that would impose upon their freedom is obviously counter to the intent of the second.
Be it an invading foreign force or an oppressive domestic force, ensuring that citizen resistance to tyranny cannot compete with the forces of that tyranny renders the 2nd Amendment meaningless.
If we as a society have determined that the ability to resist tyranny by force is no longer necessary, Article 5 of the Constitution provides two avenues for redress. If you and Sparty wish to amend the 2nd Amendment to bestow upon governments the power to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, let us go forward along that path. To do so, however, will by necessity include specific limits upon what those powers should be.
In the long run, this may be the best hope for actual gun rights. As you and I have seen over even these past few decades, the advocates for government control over the individual have fewer and fewer reservations upon what they deem within their purview to control.
Most of you accept infringements upon what used to be our right under the 2nd Amendment. With the growing number of magazine capacity bans, semi-auto rifle bans and restricted access to both handguns and semi-auto rifles, it has become apparent to the rest of us that you view the power of infringement to be limitless. A crisis begets a restriction; the next crisis begets the next restriction, etc.
Perhaps it is time we discuss our desire for limits placed upon government in conjunction with your desire for additional limits placed upon the individual.
In an earlier post you say that the time for compromise is over, but here you seem to say that perhaps we need limits on individuals and government. Soon limits will become more infringement and the death blow of the 2A. Smarter folks than me have said with the death of the 2A comes the end of "The Bill of Rights" My 75 years tells me that my Uncle can give much but he can take them away in a heart beat.
The time for additional compromise is long over, 4205raymond.
My belief is that we should be rolling back existing restrictions, not discussing new ones.
That said, I am enough of a realist to know that this is not going to happen to any significant degree. What was being addressed was the statement that 'both sides must compromise'. At present, we have only one side compromising. Every year additional restrictions are put into place by governments across the nation, and there is no evidence that there is a hard upper limit to the restrictions that are assumed to be available. The compromise I suggested was that those who wish to implement more restrictions should be forced to accept hard limits to the power of government through an Article 5 modification of the 2nd.
The 2nd Amendment is being ignored by local governments, county governments, state governments, the Federal Government (including SCOTUS as evidenced by the language used in the Heller and McDonald decisions). If, as was stated, it is time for both sides to compromise, we should recognize that supporters of individual rights have compromised for over 80 years, and those groups and individuals who have pushed these 1,000s of compromises need to recognize that there are limits to governmental powers and need we need to establish precisely what those limits are.0 -
quote:Originally posted by GreatGuns
In my opinion Don, you don't believe a person has a right to their own choices or opinions. That's all I was suggesting about Sparty_76 posting and I'm not going to exchange opinions with you. You wasted your time with your challenge. Generalizing clearly doesn't appeal to you and nobody owes you an explanation for anything, especially me. [;)]
Yet another loser response. [xx(][xx(][xx(]
Are you the love child of Hillary and Obama?0 -
quote:Originally posted by mag00
quote:Originally posted by GreatGuns
In my opinion Don, you don't believe a person has a right to their own choices or opinions. That's all I was suggesting about Sparty_76 posting and I'm not going to exchange opinions with you. You wasted your time with your challenge. Generalizing clearly doesn't appeal to you and nobody owes you an explanation for anything, especially me. [;)]
Yet another loser response. [xx(][xx(][xx(]
Are you the love child of Hillary and Obama?
Well.
This is not helpful, Mr. Magoo.0 -
0 -
quote:Originally posted by Sparty_76
Well I am a Democrat and I like guns. I know to have guns I must know how to use them and REPECT them. I have no problem registering my guns and being asked to learn how to use them. I believe owning a gun is my right, but as a right that carries responsibility. If I am NOT a responsible gun owner I lose the right to have them! Although I do have an AR-15, I do not really need one. I enjoy shooting my M1 Garand or 03 Springfield much more. I do not need a 30-Round magazine to protect myself. My 870 Rem with 00 and the slug barrel is the gun I am grabbing in an emergency!
Not all Democrats are Communists nor are all Republicans Fascists! 95% of us Democrats believe in REPONSIBLE gun ownership! However, are bump stocks on AR-15s with 30-Round clips necessary? Is it OK for a NUT to have such power to kill scores of people? Both sides need to compromise because we just cannot sit back and watch others walk in to Churches, Schools, or snipe from Hotel Rooms with guns they should not have. We better compromise, for to do nothing is not doing the trick! As much as I love guns, I think it is an utter shame we have to think about carrying a gun to Mass, or arm my grandkid's teachers! Something and someone has to give!
Your thought patterns are incongruent and, when taken to their ultimate conclusion end up with you being entirely disarmed. Or are you suggesting the police and military lay down their "30-round clips" and full auto weapons as part of your desired compromise?
If you register your arms and are asked "to learn how to use them" by a government authority, what happens if you're denied because "oh sorry, you didn't meet our standards"? Oopsie. You're completely disarmed. And then what? Guess it's "Sorry, Sparty, ya shoulda been a bit more molon labe."0 -
quote:Originally posted by shilowar
Self fulfilling prophecy. As they squeeze harder on guns they will force the committed to fight back. The more the committed fight back , the more the lefties will be justified in their draconian desire for seizure. Each individual defense against their tyranny will be framed as a wacko going on a killing spree rather than a patriot defending their natural rights. Organized resistance is a crime, will necessitate secrecy, but they will use agents to infiltrate each regional effort to resist. They only need to look at how the Soviet Union and Nazis developed and enforced their disarming of the population.
You're exactly right. And the demonization of any group (in this case constitutional gun owners) is how you get the public support to infringe that group's rights.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mag00
quote:Originally posted by Sparty_76
Well I am a Democrat and I like guns. I know to have guns I must know how to use them and REPECT them. I have no problem registering my guns and being asked to learn how to use them. I believe owning a gun is my right, but as a right that carries responsibility. If I am NOT a responsible gun owner I lose the right to have them! Although I do have an AR-15, I do not really need one. I enjoy shooting my M1 Garand or 03 Springfield much more. I do not need a 30-Round magazine to protect myself. My 870 Rem with 00 and the slug barrel is the gun I am grabbing in an emergency!
Not all Democrats are Communists nor are all Republicans Fascists! 95% of us Democrats believe in REPONSIBLE gun ownership! However, are bump stocks on AR-15s with 30-Round clips necessary? Is it OK for a NUT to have such power to kill scores of people? Both sides need to compromise because we just cannot sit back and watch others walk in to Churches, Schools, or snipe from Hotel Rooms with guns they should not have. We better compromise, for to do nothing is not doing the trick! As much as I love guns, I think it is an utter shame we have to think about carrying a gun to Mass, or arm my grandkid's teachers! Something and someone has to give!
In the highlighted red. This is the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals. The conservative is for personal responsibility, and the liberal is all about blaming the wrong thing.
The gun or bump stock or hi cap magazine is not the problem. It is the social behavior that is, and that whacked behavior is "protected" by the liberals instead of dealt with. The liberal camp is too worried about protecting the deviants rights, but have no problem denying the law abiding persons rights.
Well said magoo and one of the first times I can remember agreeing with you.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by mag00
quote:Originally posted by GreatGuns
In my opinion Don, you don't believe a person has a right to their own choices or opinions. That's all I was suggesting about Sparty_76 posting and I'm not going to exchange opinions with you. You wasted your time with your challenge. Generalizing clearly doesn't appeal to you and nobody owes you an explanation for anything, especially me. [;)]
Yet another loser response. [xx(][xx(][xx(]
Are you the love child of Hillary and Obama?
Well.
This is not helpful, Mr. Magoo.
[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]0 -
Yep, that was a short ride.
I just don't find it very interesting when people say they want to infringe/restrict/strip my rights because they are afraid of inanimate objects.
But I guess it's ok, I'm just a whack job nut case who believes in personal liberty, freedom of choice, and the Bill of Rights.0 -
quote:Originally posted by badchris
Yep, that was a short ride.
I just don't find it very interesting when people say they want to infringe/restrict/strip my rights because they are afraid of inanimate objects.
But I guess it's ok, I'm just a whack job nut case who believes in personal liberty, freedom of choice, and the Bill of Rights.
You're not alone.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
54 comments