Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by monsterdawg, Dec 5, 2015.
I saw that and read a lot of the comments. Truly unbelievable. Do these people really think that if all guns are gotten rid of that everything is going to be rainbows and unicorns with everybody holding hands, eating smores, and singing around the campfire? Or, will they just move on to the next thing to take away?
I'm not even gonna read that, cuz I'm in a good mood and don't need the
How U doing lately?
Doing well, thank you. This is the first time since 1920 that an editorial was put on the front page of the times.
They seem to think the criminals will start obeying the NEXT law they pass. One commenter said something about money talking when it comes to laws being passed. That's true, in a way, just ask Leeland Yee how well he got paid for the gun laws he helped pass. "I'm for the banning of these guns, but if you still want them, meet me out back, and bring cash."
Anyone familiar with the prohibition era and the associated criminal activity?
How about the war on drugs?
Anyone care to take a shot at explaining how prohibiting guns would work any better than those two glowing examples?
Idiots, hypocrites, and fools, that's all they are.
Those sh1t heads should come to the Midwest and live a while. They could tell us all about how evil guns are right before they get kicked out.
It's the NY Times. A liberal rag in a liberal State. Nothing stated that was a surprise.
It's not about gun control, it's about people control, New World Order. That way, only the filthy rich will be in charge. Lib Utopia. They honestly think it would work. Trouble is, hundreds of politicians that are now voting for that crap think they would fit in to the elite class. Boy, are they in for a cultural shock. I see stupid people :foilhat:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Anyone with a basic knowledge of chemistry could cause untold amounts of damage with just what's purchased at Walmart.
Read the Survivalist BLog.com comment from JWR on yesterdays post. He doesn't seem to happy about the NY times front page editorial. Kind of calls them out and says come get them!
Best response to this article?
The Peace of Versailles, Buck v. Bell, the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor,* the Hitler-Stalin Pact, the Ukrainian famine, the internment of Japanese-Americans, the Tuskegee experiments, the Holocaust, McCarthyism, the Marshall Plan, Jim Crow, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Kennedy Assassination, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Kent State, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Watergate, withdrawal from Vietnam, the Killing Fields, the Iran hostage crisis, the Contras, AIDS, gay marriage, the Iran nuclear deal: These are just a few of the things the New York Times chose not to run front page editorials on.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/NYT-Epic-Gun-Fail
The ISIS suicide belts are 'Walmart' grade. I have good reason to believe that a bullet will set them off.
Bad deal. Once they get close enough, even shooting them could/would still end in casualties.
They will just move on to the next thing on their pointless little list.
B2S - Nailed It! But, as we know, logic and reason are useless in this argument. So often said here - criminals by definition ignore and/or break laws. Even in "gun free" countries they manage to get guns, commit crimes and kill people. I'm now hearing that the 2 terrorists got their ASS-salt rifles from a friend? So, there's another law that didn't work?
Problem is, that "list" HAS a Point!
Stuff on about 50 pounds(or however much they can carry) of already mixed tanerite in that vest
From what I've read they use a primary explosive.
Don't encourage them, Guys!
They are already doing around the world and know much more about than the 2 of us.
Go to Liveleaks and watch the Kurd films how ISIS attacks.