UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
learn english, you three tooth having, inbred hick.
Just to be clear....
- Thread starter bde0001
- Start date
learn english, you three tooth having, inbred hick.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Asked and answered. Try to keep up.
nontheist
Well-Known Member
This some up about everything being printed in the nation right now, this thing is a joke as are you
On the left, the response has been somewhat more muted and disjointed. President Obamaestablished a commission chaired by Vice President Joe Biden to look into the issue of gun control and promised action. On the congressional side, California Senator Dianne Feinstein committed to bringing a new assault weapon ban to the Senate at the start of the next Congress.
Senator Feinstein has posted a preview of the bill on her website. If the final language of the law actually says what that summary claims, the Democrats are in for a political blowout that will do nothing to advance the ball on meaningful gun control while costing them untold political capital.
The bill promises to stop the 1) sale, 2) transfer, 3) importation and 4) manufacturing of military-style assault weapons, handguns, and shotguns as well as high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. It also allegedly calls for a ban on all weapons capable of holding a magazine with a greater than 10 round capacity (which includes many standard issue police handguns).
The bill, as it stands, is an exemplary demonstration of what political suicide looks like.
In one sweeping stroke, Feinstein intends to instigate the pro-gun lobby, alienate the majority of Americans who oppose re-instating a federal assault weapons ban, and run head long into a constitutional battle, all without even the faintest hope of bill passage.
While the bill sounds great on paper if you’re playing to a politically progressive base, it will do little if anything to actually address gun violence in this country.
In 1994, Congress passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The ban outlawed the new manufacture and sale of specific models of semiautomatic weapons and high capacity magazines.
After a decade in existence, the bill did little more than cost Democrats the control of Congress.
A 2004 study by the National Research Council found that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence.” A report from the Department of Justice and the National Institute for Justice concluded that the ban had “no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury.”
On the left, the response has been somewhat more muted and disjointed. President Obamaestablished a commission chaired by Vice President Joe Biden to look into the issue of gun control and promised action. On the congressional side, California Senator Dianne Feinstein committed to bringing a new assault weapon ban to the Senate at the start of the next Congress.
Senator Feinstein has posted a preview of the bill on her website. If the final language of the law actually says what that summary claims, the Democrats are in for a political blowout that will do nothing to advance the ball on meaningful gun control while costing them untold political capital.
The bill promises to stop the 1) sale, 2) transfer, 3) importation and 4) manufacturing of military-style assault weapons, handguns, and shotguns as well as high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. It also allegedly calls for a ban on all weapons capable of holding a magazine with a greater than 10 round capacity (which includes many standard issue police handguns).
The bill, as it stands, is an exemplary demonstration of what political suicide looks like.
In one sweeping stroke, Feinstein intends to instigate the pro-gun lobby, alienate the majority of Americans who oppose re-instating a federal assault weapons ban, and run head long into a constitutional battle, all without even the faintest hope of bill passage.
While the bill sounds great on paper if you’re playing to a politically progressive base, it will do little if anything to actually address gun violence in this country.
In 1994, Congress passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The ban outlawed the new manufacture and sale of specific models of semiautomatic weapons and high capacity magazines.
After a decade in existence, the bill did little more than cost Democrats the control of Congress.
A 2004 study by the National Research Council found that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence.” A report from the Department of Justice and the National Institute for Justice concluded that the ban had “no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury.”
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Brilliant counter-argument. We expected nothing less (or more) from you.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
are you defending his abuse of the english language?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
why would my pussy hurt because you suck at english?
that amuses me, actually.
your abuse of the language is perfectly consistent with how an inbred hick southerner would speak, too. i LOL hard!
nontheist
Well-Known Member
what amuses me for someone insulting others intellect you are incorrect so often. In fact rarely are you accurate on anything
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
"Bear" to carry about on one's person.
"Bare" to reveal or expose in nakedness.
get it straight.
further, the MOST illegal weapons (arms) are nunchucks switchblades and "jimmy sticks"
these laws are also unconstitutional but are untested by the courts, and are prosecuted under the figleaf that they are somehow "More Dangerous" than similar arms.
switchblades ( a regular part of military hardware) "gravity knives" (which we used to call "pocket knives") and "swords daggers dirks and stillettoes" are prohibited in nearly every state in the union, but machetes bayonets, and pretty much any blade you can imagine are not restricted at all.
"nunchucks" (rice harvesting flails) are particularly dangerous because they are "assault sticks" with DOUBLE the magazine size of ordinary sticks.
and "jimmy sticks" (weighted sticks, otherwise recognized as a broken off pool cue) are super deadly, while baseball bats are of course completely harmless.
stupid people accept the story they are given and submit to idiocy, because stupid people are mentally lazy. actually thinking things through is hard work. it's so much easier to simply aaccept the restrictions and prohibitions as givven than to resist.
why is it "illegal" to own hand grenades? it was NOT illegal to own explosive devices of any description up till the 1920's, and if you work on a farm you can still own and use explosives without much bother at all.
likewise, machine guns were merely taxed up till the 1960's, and completely uncontrolled before 1924. is a thompson submachine gun less hazardous than a mac10? or did WE become more dangerous? neither is true, the government simply desired more control, and slowly but surely they are getting more control.
and YOU are helping them with dipshit comments like the one above.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Well, no, they never tell you what their real intentions are. Any ban they get won't be the one they want, but they seek incremental reductions in liberty, because they know they will be found out if they attempt to remove all our rights at once. You've got the playbook, didn't you read it? Oh. I forgot. Your duties as internet spell checker leave you little time for reading.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you just got done destroying your own claim that most democrats are turning their back on gun control by presenting an article showing that 49 out of 55 hadn't, and you're accusing me (in broken, inbred hick english, no less) of being inaccurate?
add "irony" to your list of amusing failures, along with command of the english language.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Didn't stop me from buying an AR15, so I guess it worked!
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
well now we have some closure on what happened to your wife and kids, may the rest in peace.
nontheist
Well-Known Member
I didn't point to shit the words out and the democrats put the word out, it isn't going to happen but apparently you know the numbers no one else does.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
was it an impossibility to get the votes (no one said it was impossible )? or did they simply not get the votes (couldn't get the votes)? You think you can change the meaning of words by coming up with your own definitions?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
You "never made any false claims"? Really?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
No. But I wouldn't call it "abuse". Misuse maybe, but not abuse. Words coming out of your lying mouth could be consider "abusing" the language, tho.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
are you sure that the opposing party to the president doesn't traditionally pick up gains in the midterm?
who signed the AWB and won reelection, by the way?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so does the president's party not traditionally lose seats at the midterm?
or can you not answer that without destroying your false narrative?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
they* (you inbred hick) Bought it 4 weeks ago. Try again.
