January 18th, 2013 04:39 PM
Don't leave out the Pacific... hmph!
January 18th, 2013 04:43 PM
January 18th, 2013 04:54 PM
Dont get worked up over this clown. He is like OOO's more ****ed half-brother.
January 18th, 2013 06:50 PM
I wish Obama had a Monty Python sense of humor and show up at his next press conference dressed as Hitler or Stalin. Just do a John Cleese impression.
"Oh, what, the mustache? Oh, uh, I just thought I'd grow one. Just a lark. The Uniform? Saw it at a flea market. Looked right smart in it, don't ya think?"
And FOX News explodes.
January 18th, 2013 07:33 PM
I wish he would too. It would make it worth listening to him.
Last edited by oucub23; January 18th, 2013 at 08:05 PM.
January 18th, 2013 07:40 PM
Man , some people get really inspired after watching Jon Stewart. Once people starting using phrases like Murika, or painting with a large brush all gun owners, or keep telling us that government should be trusted, then we deal with people that are on the direct opposite of the birthers. But I don't think the birthers sell their bullshittery with the sense of pomp that these people do. It;s one thing to be a nutcase and know it, and it's another thing to be a nutcase and think of yourself as enlightened.
January 18th, 2013 07:52 PM
I've never watched John Stewart.
January 18th, 2013 07:55 PM
He's funny, and mostly fair. He is a New York liberal though.
The following users like this post:
January 18th, 2013 08:00 PM
The following users like this post:
January 18th, 2013 08:07 PM
January 18th, 2013 09:17 PM
January 18th, 2013 10:17 PM
January 19th, 2013 08:28 PM
January 19th, 2013 10:02 PM
That's so sad. Liberals want peace and everyone equal right......except for that kill all the babies pro death thing.
But otherwise why be glad for someone to be dead. Dissent is patriotic. Diversity is good........right.
January 19th, 2013 10:47 PM
I'm a way bigger Sammy Davis fan.
January 20th, 2013 01:58 AM
Another conspiracy to legitimize stricter gun laws!!!
January 20th, 2013 10:28 AM
Ill move to Alaska if I have too
January 20th, 2013 11:49 AM
If these mass killers had only a 6 bullet clip wouldn't some of those kids have survived while the looney was reloading? Is it worth it to limit the amount bullets that can be loaded at a time to save some child's life? Or are these basic rights to have as many bullets to shot as fast as possible more important than some little 6 year old being able to run for his or her life? Do people really shoot unlimited shots in a row at a deer or a pheasant? Doesn't sound very sporting or very edible. More like fodder for the dentist.
January 20th, 2013 12:02 PM
So at what point do you feel your freedoms are no longer worth fighting over if it makes you FEEL a little more safe?
Or at what point do you think you'd eventually say "no more"?
Would it be no guns? Cameras on every street corner? Erosion of any privacy at all? Something said as a joke in private used against you years later in a court?
Where is the line for you?
January 20th, 2013 12:23 PM
Magazines can be changed pretty damn fast.
BTW, the 2nd amendment is about ****ing hunting. Also, if it takes 5-10 minutes for the police to show up, that's a lifetime for unarmed people against an active shooter, no matter how many bullets a gun can hold.
January 20th, 2013 05:03 PM
The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting. And these bullets aren't being shot "as fast as possible." If you think that, you don't know much about guns. Stop listening to what Barry and the media are telling you and do your own research.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
January 20th, 2013 10:10 PM
Why listen to obama biden said he was the President.
January 22nd, 2013 06:21 AM
Do Gun-Control Laws Control Guns?
Nothing is easier than disarming the law-abiding and peaceful.
By Thomas Sowell
The gun-control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.
Media discussions of gun control are dominated by two factors: the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment. But the overriding factual question is whether gun-control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or murder rates in particular.
If, as gun-control advocates claim, gun-control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the Eighteenth Amendment that created Prohibition. But, if the hard facts show that gun-control laws do not actually control guns, but instead lead to more armed robberies and higher murder rates after law-abiding citizens are disarmed, then gun-control laws would be a bad idea, even if there were no Second Amendment and no National Rifle Association.
The central issue boils down to the question: What are the facts? Yet there are many zealots who seem utterly unconcerned about facts or about their own lack of knowledge of facts.
There are people who have never fired a shot in their life who do not hesitate to declare how many bullets should be the limit to put into a firearm’s clip or magazine. Some say ten bullets, but New York State’s recent gun-control law specifies seven.
Virtually all gun-control advocates say that 30 bullets in a magazine is far too many for self-defense or hunting — even if they have never gone hunting and never had to defend themselves with a gun. This uninformed and self-righteous dogmatism is what makes the gun-control debate so futile and so polarizing.
Anyone who faces three home invaders, jeopardizing himself or his family, might find 30 bullets barely adequate. After all, not every bullet hits, even at close range, and not every hit incapacitates. You can get killed by a wounded man.
These plain life-and-death realities have been ignored for years by people who go ballistic when they hear about how many shots were fired by the police in some encounter with a criminal. As someone who once taught pistol shooting in the Marine Corps, I am not the least bit surprised by the number of shots fired. I have seen people miss a stationary target at close range, even in the safety and calm of a pistol range.
We cannot expect everybody to know that. But we can expect them to know that they don’t know — and to stop spouting off about life-and-death issues when they don’t have the facts.
The central question as to whether gun-control laws save lives or cost lives has generated many factual studies over the years. But these studies have been like the proverbial tree that falls in an empty forest, and have been heard by no one — certainly not by zealots who have made up their minds and don’t want to be confused by the facts.
Most factual studies show no reduction in gun crimes, including murder, under gun-control laws. A significant number of studies show higher rates of murder and other gun crimes under gun-control laws.
How can this be? It seems obvious to some gun-control zealots that, if no one had guns, there would be fewer armed robberies and fewer people shot to death.
But nothing is easier than to disarm peaceful, law-abiding people. And nothing is harder than to disarm people who are neither — especially in a country with hundreds of millions of guns already out there that are not going to rust away for centuries.
When it was legal to buy a shotgun in London in the middle of the 20th century, there were very few armed robberies there. But, after British gun-control zealots managed over the years to disarm virtually the entire law-abiding population, armed robberies became literally a hundred times more common. And murder rates rose.
One can cherry-pick the factual studies, or cite some studies that have subsequently been discredited, but the great bulk of the studies show that gun-control laws do not in fact control guns. On net balance, they do not save lives but cost lives.
Gun-control laws allow some people to vent their emotions, politicians to grandstand, and self-righteous people to “make a statement” — but all at the cost of other people’s lives.
January 22nd, 2013 08:33 AM
If you are truly that naive and believe what you posted. Please read this article.
January 22nd, 2013 08:44 AM
Why not limit all guns to one bullets. In fact why not ban guns from having bullets? To me it's just like banning drugs. It's unenforceable in the end so it'll just end up in more guns in the hands of criminals.
January 22nd, 2013 09:54 AM
I get the long term goal. I get that if you just did away with all guns.. that EVENTUALLY guns would become rare.. and gun crime would be very slim. But the question to be raised would be:
"How many people do you sacrifice between now and that day"? Does the ends justify the means? It might take 10, 20, 50, 100 years before guns are truly the exception instead of the rule. That still doesn't prevent violent criminals from commiting violent crimes. They will just switch to the knife. Then we can have knife control debates when I'm 70 and my grandchildren will be like "WTF kinda shit is this"!?
****ing pointy knives are a point of argument currently in the UK.. people are seriously grandstanding that there should be no pointed knives because they are only made to stab. I would bet these idiots have never needed to use a knife in any other setting but the ****ing dinner table.
January 23rd, 2013 11:51 AM
I'm not a hunter, I contract out my killing at the moment.
I do however use high capacity mags.
I shoot pistols and AR-15's for sport and for fun,
The 2nd has nothing to do with hunting.
January 23rd, 2013 12:30 PM
Here's a list of what the Dems proposed, and were ultimately rejected, in New York's latest gun bill.
- Confiscation of “assault weapons”
- Confiscation [of] ten round clips
- Statewide database for ALL Guns
- Continue to allow pistol permit holder’s information to be replaced to the public
- Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than 5 rounds or pistol grips as “assault weapons”
- Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to 5 and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines
- Limit possession to no more than two (2) magazines
- Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month
- Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners
- Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years
- State issued pistol permits
- Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State
- Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers
- Mandatory locking of guns at home
- Fee for licensing, registering weapons
January 23rd, 2013 12:44 PM
I dont know... I know some pretty hard core asian ganstas!
January 23rd, 2013 01:31 PM
Last edited by soonerintn; July 19th, 2013 at 06:05 PM.
January 23rd, 2013 01:36 PM
Liberals can't understand why they cant be taken seriously.
January 23rd, 2013 01:42 PM
I'm sure the libtards on here agree with the list....
January 23rd, 2013 01:44 PM
Which further illustrates the point.
January 23rd, 2013 02:03 PM
January 23rd, 2013 02:07 PM
Repeal the 2nd amendment! Replace it with the Equal Rights Amendment!
January 23rd, 2013 02:09 PM
Missouri Lawmaker proposes a bill that would require parents to inform their child's school that they own a gun.
1. This act creates the offense of failing to stop illegal firearm possession. A person commits the offense if he or she is the parent or guardian of a child under the age of 18, he or she knows the child possesses a firearm in violation of the law, and he or she fails to stop the possession or report it to law enforcement.
2. This act also creates the offense of negligent storage of a firearm. A parent or guardian of a child under the age of 18 commits the offense by recklessly storing or leaving a firearm in a manner that is likely to result in the child accessing the firearm if the child obtains access to the firearm and unlawfully carries it to school, kills or injures another person with it, or commits a crime with it.
3. This act requires a parent or guardian to notify a school district, or the governing body of a private or charter school, that he or she owns a firearm within 30 days of enrolling the child in school or becoming the owner of a firearm.
January 23rd, 2013 02:17 PM
Seems like good intentions . . . but I'm not ok with this approach at all.
January 23rd, 2013 05:07 PM
I have no problems with #1 and #2. Those liabilties probably already exist in case law.
#3 is completely unacceptable.
January 23rd, 2013 05:18 PM
Good golly. The **** is strong with these proposals.
January 23rd, 2013 06:16 PM
I don't believe I should need to tell the school anything.
Besides, who wants a position in a school district responsible for managing this data anyway?
January 23rd, 2013 07:35 PM
I don't think you should either. They already keep plenty of enrollment data so this wouldn't be a huge deal to them. Hard to keep real-time track of that info though.
January 23rd, 2013 09:40 PM
Last edited by soonerintn; July 19th, 2013 at 06:04 PM.
January 24th, 2013 07:33 AM
True. We have to provide two different utility bills each year we re-enroll our kids . . .
January 24th, 2013 07:39 AM
Don't forget that your insurance premiums will probably go up if you slip and tell your doc that you own a gun or 10.
January 24th, 2013 08:24 AM
Well, today is the day Feinstein introduces her gun ban legislation.
Feinstein, Conn. Senators Set To Propose Assault Weapons Ban
Connecticut’s two U.S. senators are joining forces with California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and other key senators, proposing a retooled federal ban on assault weapons in the wake of the deadly Newtown school shooting.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the proposed legislation, to be unveiled Thursday in Washington, D.C., will more narrowly define what’s considered an assault weapon under a resurrected ban. The bill, he said, will also prohibit high-capacity magazines, limiting them to a capacity of up to nine rounds of ammunition.
Blumenthal said the legislation is “one of the most significant” bills to be introduced following the Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It also marks the first bill that Blumenthal and Sen. Chris Murphy have worked on together as senators.
“This bill will be a signature moment in providing a profoundly significant step in the legislative strategy,” said Blumenthal, adding how final language of the bill was still being drafted on Wednesday. “But it is only a first step and we need to build on it with a comprehensive program” that includes expanded background checks and mental health care.
President Barack Obama has also proposed reinstating the federal assault weapons ban, which Congress failed to renew in 2004. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said such a ban might clear the Senate but doubts it could pass the House of Representatives. Obama has also proposed renewing a 10-round limit the size of magazines.
Robert Crook, a state gun rights advocate and executive director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, said assault weapons bans, such as the one in Connecticut, have not accomplished anything.
“All it does is impact the legitimate citizen and has no relevance to crime control and atrocious incidents like Sandy Hook,” he said, adding how American gun manufacturers “know how to innovate” and have been able to get around the state’s ban.
“What legislators should do — if they’re going to do something — they ought to come up with something innovative that both benefits the citizen and doesn’t impact the citizen, and benefits crime control,” Crook said.
Murphy, whose former House district includes Newtown, contends that a tougher assault weapons ban will save lives. He said the revised ban that’s being introduced Thursday will be difficult for manufacturers to skirt and would ban the type of AR-15 rifle used by the shooter in Newtown.
“If this bill had been in effect, there would be little girls and boys still alive today in Newtown,” said Murphy, adding how the only inconvenience to sportsmen would be reloading more frequently at shooting ranges because of the smaller magazines.
“This bill is the bread and butter of gun reform,” Murphy said. “If you get military rifles and high-capacity clips off the streets, there are going to be less people killed in mass shootings going forward. It’s as simple as that.”
Blumenthal said the bill defines rapid fire assault weapons in terms of a single feature, such as having a pistol grip or a flash suppressor. Connecticut’s ban defines the weapons in terms of having two features.
Murphy and Blumenthal are scheduled to unveil the details of the bill with Feinstein and Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Chuck Schumer of New York during a news conference. Also, U.S. Reps. Carolyn McCarthy of New York, a leading voice in Congress in favor of gun control, and Ed Perlmutter who represents Aurora, Colo., where a gunman opened fire in a movie theater last year, are scheduled to be on hand, along with gun safety advocates, law enforcement and teacher organizations, Blumenthal said.
The Dec. 14 shooting in Newtown left 20 first graders and six educators at the elementary school dead. The gunman also killed his mother at the home they shared and eventually took his own life as police arrived at the school.
January 24th, 2013 08:54 AM
Why is a pistol grip so evil? What is the liberals fascination with banning anything with a pistol grip?
January 24th, 2013 08:59 AM
There's no logical reason. It just simply makes the gun look "scarier" in their eyes. Same with a flash suppressor. Neither cause the gun to function any differently.
January 24th, 2013 09:07 AM
If by "function differently" you mean "fire a projectile" you are correct.
If you are claiming that there aren't tactical advantages to those items, you are misinformed.
The following users like this post:
January 24th, 2013 09:11 AM
Regardless, neither feature makes the gun anymore deadly than a semi-automatic of the same caliber without them.
January 24th, 2013 09:20 AM
That largely depends. If a person is able to shoot more accurately at a high rate due to not having his vision altered as greatly by muzzle flash, he is going to be more deadly in its operation when juxtaposed with a standard carbine.
This is why they exist, and is not debateable.
Tags for this Thread