You might tell the folks here that you do not think yourself "A legend in your own, playing FB without a helmet mind".Quote:
Originally Posted by dnf777
Your post is the biggest bunch of hoya hoya I've seen on this forum in quite some time.
Printable View
You might tell the folks here that you do not think yourself "A legend in your own, playing FB without a helmet mind".Quote:
Originally Posted by dnf777
Your post is the biggest bunch of hoya hoya I've seen on this forum in quite some time.
Nice posts guys. Good to see you again!
Geez, I was trying to make nice, and seemed to stir you guy's passions more than ever!
Maybe MK should take notes, I seem to do a better job of setting off fuses when I'm not even trying!?
Have a nice weekend gents.....
Well, you got that going for ya'. Perhaps you might want to think about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by dnf777
Which one are YOU???:shock:Quote:
Originally Posted by JDogger
RK
Your problem, not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by M&K's Retrievers
Have a good one.
Off to work now.
Just FYIQuote:
Originally Posted by duckheads
NRA-ILA GRASSROOTS ALERT
Vol. 18, No. 4 01/28/11
Obama To Push Gun Control Soon
To the dismay of the Brady Campaign and other gun ban groups, President Barack Obama didn’t address gun control during his State of the Union address on January 25th. However, Newsweek reports that “in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort,” and that the White House confirms, “Obama will address the gun issue in a separate speech, likely early next month.” According to Newsweek, Obama believes that gun laws have been “too loose for much longer than just the past few weeks” following the murders in Tucson, Arizona.
Precisely what President Obama might have in mind is uncertain. His post-election transition website advocated reimposing the expired federal “assault weapon” ban, but that ban would clearly be irrelevant in the wake of a shooting that involved a firearm not covered by the old ban.
The President, a long-time gun control supporter, has been conspicuously silent on gun control restrictions since taking office. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the anti-gun groups prodding him to support their agendas. Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which sent the President a long list of gun control recommendations in August of 2009, is proposing that all private sales of firearms be subject to checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)—which would have been irrelevant in Tucson, since the accused killer acquired his guns from a dealer. MAIG is also calling for “fixing” NICS. Among the many “fixes” the group has in mind is that “people who have been suspended or expelled from a federally funded college or university because of mental illness” and “people who are compelled by a court to take medication for mental illness or to get other mental health care” would be prohibited from possessing firearms. MAIG also proposes to extend the prohibition to anyone who has had a drug-related arrest, a failed drug test, an admission of drug use, or a drug-related conviction within the previous five years.
Concurrently, the Brady Campaign is throwing its support behind H.R. 308—the “more than 10 round” magazine ban introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.)—and asks the group’s supporters to sign a petition urging “a few basic steps,” with neither the “steps” nor the intended recipient of the petition disclosed (to read a detailed fact sheet on H.R. 308, please click here).
The Violence Policy Center, which guided McCarthy in crafting her magazine ban bill, is supporting it with yet another of its countless “analyses”-- Accessories to Murder: High-Capacity Magazines—and a similar effort directed against the type of pistol used in Tucson. The VPC uses the opportunity to suggest, as it often does, that gun ownership is fading, by referring to standard magazines for self-defense handguns as a marketing tool the firearm industry uses to appeal to “its shrinking customer base.” That's an interesting argument to hear from a group that has no members, while the number of guns possessed by Americans increases year after year.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence—VPC leader Josh Sugarmann’s employer back when the group was known as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns—advocates not merely running NICS checks on gun buyers, but “investigating” them as well. The group also insists that the Tucson shooting was the result of “insurrectionist rhetoric” the group blames on conservatives, various politicians, and the five justices who joined the Supreme Court’s Heller decision—rather than being the act of one deranged individual, as all available evidence suggests.
And, in a return to his modus operandi of vilifying gun shows and the purchase of firearms by show attendees, this week anti-gun Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), introduced legislation to “establish background check procedures for gun shows.” As usual, this bill is not about gun shows. Rather, S. 35 is the latest rendition in a long line of Lautenberg-introduced bills that are nothing more than “solutions” in search of a problem. Numerous government studies have determined that gun shows are an insignificant source of firearms misused in crime.
Which, if any, of these proposals and theories will get the president’s endorsement remains to be seen. But gun owners should be prepared: The second two years of President Obama’s term may be tougher than the first.
From the link in my previous post:
STATEMENT OF CSGV ON TUCSON SHOOTING RAMPAGE
Washington, DC—Those of us at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence are deeply dismayed at the horrific shooting rampage that occurred in Tucson this weekend. Our thoughts and prayers—and the thoughts and prayers of all our member organizations—are with the victims and survivors of this terrible tragedy. We hope for a full recovery for all of those who lie wounded today.
Sadly, Saturday’s tragedy was both predictable and inevitable. Insurrectionist rhetoric—which posits that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to take violent action when they believe that our government has become “tyrannical”—was once confined to the dark corners of gun shows and the Internet. In today’s America, however, it has become a “mainstream” idea that is widely promoted by movement conservatives, high-profile media figures, and even elected officials and candidates. Tucson was not unique—since the conservative wing of the Supreme Court embraced the insurrectionist idea :shock: in the D.C. v. Heller decision in 2008, there have been numerous threats and acts of violence against government officials.
Additionally, America’s weak gun laws continue to allow individuals who are obviously deranged to legally purchase semiautomatic firearms with high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Jared Lee Loughner’s history of mental illness, substance abuse and violent threats was well-known to law enforcement, the U.S. Army and his educators at Pima Community College. None of this, however, was detected by an instant, computerized background check that takes just a few minutes and involves no actual investigation of the gun purchasers.
If we are to avoid future massacres, our elected officials must institute policies that prioritize public safety and human life over gun industry profits. And they must speak out in no uncertain terms against poisonous insurrectionist ideology that threatens the integrity of our democracy itself.
And the lefty's think the NRA is "whacked"?
Now the SCOTUS is "insurrectionist, along with those that believe in our guaranteed rights? :rolleyes:
Never mind That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,...
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Damn that pesky DoI and those irritating "insurrectionist" Founders
Anybody remember when the hoplophobes said that BC's would be the answer and we caved thinking that was "reasonable"?
Here's more proof that all they want to do is push the agenda bit by bit.
What, BATFE agents are going to have to interview your friends, neighbors, co-workers, school mates, fellow church goers etc if you want to exercise your God given right to protect yourself?
??????????????:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by dnf777
This response of yours is total BS as proven by your constant use of one word for the purpose of the very thing you decry in the above response: Teabagger... Holier than thou regards...Quote:
Originally Posted by dnf777
Sorry if that offends you. I'm just using a word that the tea-party itself has used to describe itself. But really, its just faster to type than having to look down and find the "hyphen" key. And if that's the most offensive reference I use, I'd say that's pretty mild!Quote:
Originally Posted by huntinman