realizm Posted January 16, 2013 Share #101 Posted January 16, 2013 good something was done now here it comes "THEY TOOK OUR GUNS!" THEY TOOK OUR JOBS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreeddekalbL Posted January 16, 2013 Share #102 Posted January 16, 2013 THEY TOOK OUR JOBS! ha ha "THEY BROKE HIS JAW" lmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted January 16, 2013 Share #103 Posted January 16, 2013 Damn criminals at Albany as usual. They didn't act on the Long Island bus crisis, but they were fast to act here..... They did too. They kept LI Bus til the end of 2011 when it was slated to cut half the service in the middle of the year. The only reason they didn't lend Nassau the money for LI Bus in 2012 is because the Republicans and Mango had other plans. Doesn't matter, that's not the topic here anyway. Albany does a lot of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreeddekalbL Posted January 16, 2013 Share #104 Posted January 16, 2013 Enough. ok, i just had a little spin with south park thats all i had enough to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion VII 4 Life Posted January 16, 2013 Share #105 Posted January 16, 2013 Criminals are still gunna get access to the high powered weapons regardless of the new laws they put on the books. Theres tons of laws against most drugs but people still smoke pot and do crack and stuff. THIS. But, this is a major blue state, so what do you expect? These libtards don't get it, gun control doesn't work, and sadly I don't think they'll ever get it. Crime raises when gun control gets stricter (this is a true statistic everywhere), but that means nothing at all to them, it's all about banning the innocent citizens' guns he/she has to defend themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDTA Posted January 16, 2013 Share #106 Posted January 16, 2013 Criminals are still gunna get access to the high powered weapons regardless of the new laws they put on the books. Theres tons of laws against most drugs but people still smoke pot and do crack and stuff. Most people speed anyways, so let's upper the speed limit to 90. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgood6195 Posted January 16, 2013 Share #107 Posted January 16, 2013 Most people speed anyways, so let's upper the speed limit to 90. Please, do that, and people will go 100-120 mph in a heartbeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted January 16, 2013 Share #108 Posted January 16, 2013 Topics merged and made sticky. Since this is a huge issue now might as well just put all proposed gun control laws/gun rights debate here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion VII 4 Life Posted January 16, 2013 Share #109 Posted January 16, 2013 Looks like Obama is set to announce unconstitutional executive orders to circumvent Congress and ban guns, and I think it could (and should) actually get him impeached this time. A Texas congressman vowed to try to impeach President Obama if he moves ahead with plans to control guns by executive order and onetime U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese says it is not far-fetched. Rep. Steve Stockman, a Republican from the Houston area, called Obama's plans to skirt Congress and implement some controls administratively "an unconstitutional and unconscionable attack on the very founding principles of this republic." He also threatened to defund the White House. "I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment," Stockman said. Meese, who was the nation's top law enforcement officer in the Reagan administration, told Newsmax Stockman would have support for such a move - and a good case. “It would not be legal. It would not be constitutional,” Meese said. “And, indeed, if he tried to override the Second Amendment in any way, I believe it would be an impeachable offense. “An executive order without specific congressional authority can only apply to those portions of the government that are under his control — in their words, the executive branch. Now, there are some things he can probably do in regard to the actions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or some other governmental agency in its operations.“But to impose burdens or regulations that affect society generally, he would have to have Congressional authorization,” Meese added. Obama said at a press conference Monday that tracking data on guns that criminals use could be one item done administratively that would not have to go through Congress. Democrats have been calling for new gun control measures since the school massacre in Newtown, Conn. "I think that those of us who look at this problem have repeatedly said that responsible gun owners, people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship, they don't have anything to worry about," Obama said. But Stockman said any such move requires legislative action. "Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible," he said. "Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person — much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court." Modern day U.S. presidents including George H.W. Bush have used executive action for gun laws. Obama says his legislation will be crafted from suggestions gathered by a White House task force led by Vice President Biden. He and Cabinet members such as Attorney General Eric Holder spoke with a cross-section of groups and individuals since the fatal shooting, including shooting victims, gun rights advocacy groups, gun control groups, governors and executives from the video-gaming industry. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/texas-congressman-threatens-impeachment-if-obama-moves-on-guns/#ixzz2I6HNC95E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDTA Posted January 16, 2013 Share #110 Posted January 16, 2013 Oh, and also, it's not like all guns are being banned, MILITARY ones are. I get that you might need a pistol, or hell even a shotgun if you live in the mountains and someone tries to break into your home, but by no means do you need weapons of the stature being banned here. Please, do that, and people will go 100-120 mph in a heartbeat. That's my point. The odds of people going 100-120MPH now, are very minimal, because the speed limit is 60. But people are still speeding anyways, so by the logic lilbluefoxie and Orion VII are going with, it's saying that because of that, the speed limit should be raised. And don't say "it's not the same", especially if you guys are going to pull the "the person got hit with a train, let's ban trains!" crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Up Front Posted January 16, 2013 Share #111 Posted January 16, 2013 Sadly, when you approach the "ban everything" camp, they tend to ignore time-tested truths and history and instead think punishing the average person is the best approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted January 16, 2013 Share #112 Posted January 16, 2013 Oh, and also, it's not like all guns are being banned, MILITARY ones are. How clever you are. First in NY it was handguns. Now it's rifles. This scenario sounds awfully familiar to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgood6195 Posted January 16, 2013 Share #113 Posted January 16, 2013 How clever you are. First in NY it was handguns. Now it's rifles. This scenario sounds awfully familiar to me. So you are also noticing the pattern... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted January 16, 2013 Share #114 Posted January 16, 2013 So you are also noticing the pattern... When they were talking about the current legislation, they kept on referring to "loopholes" and "the loophole". Of course, the "loophole" they speak of is the old "gun owner loophole". They're trying to get rid of that pesky little event where people want to own guns in the first place. No one should be surprised at the current state of NY legislation. This state is unfortunately mobbed with downstate authoritarian types who love to be controlled by someone else. Why fend for yourself when you can suck on the government teat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GojiMet86 Posted January 16, 2013 Share #115 Posted January 16, 2013 And your excuse to let people have semi-autos and assault rifles to protect themselves against a burglar is calling Democrats and big government lovers tit-and-cocksuckers. Why fend for yourself when you can suck on the government teat? And who are you defending yourself against? Some guy breaking into your home? From your anti-government and anti-Democrat/liberal rhetoric, I don't think so. You certainly seem to think that this handout government is going to kill you in one way or another. Why the need for military weapons? If the goal is to kill an intruder, why have multiple weapons and military weapons when a pistol that can accomplish the same goal? You're on Alex Jones territory right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted January 16, 2013 Share #116 Posted January 16, 2013 What does Alex Jones have to do with...any of this? This recent [over]usage of the term "military weapon" serves only one purpose: to distract the reader. A KA-BAR is a "military weapon", but I don't see anyone crying about those? Oh wait, crimes committed with knives are prevalent in urban areas, so they don't really exist, right? An individual breaking into your home poses a great threat to your family and yourself. Multiple assailants, even more so. The threat must be taken care of and handled quickly. Whether someone uses a bow & arrow, a .22LR pistol or a 7.62 AK is none of my business. As long as the good guys come out on top. A disarmed nation benefits two groups of people: those who wish to harm, and those who wish to control. Which group are you in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgood6195 Posted January 16, 2013 Share #117 Posted January 16, 2013 And your excuse to let people have semi-autos and assault rifles to protect themselves against a burglar is calling Democrats and big government lovers tit-and-cocksuckers. And who are you defending yourself against? Some guy breaking into your home? From your anti-government and anti-Democrat/liberal rhetoric, I don't think so. You certainly seem to think that this handout government is going to kill you in one way or another. Why the need for military weapons? If the goal is to kill an intruder, why have multiple weapons and military weapons when a pistol that can accomplish the same goal? You're on Alex Jones territory right now. The point is to protect one's self from a dangerous government, like say, the NY government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GojiMet86 Posted January 16, 2013 Share #118 Posted January 16, 2013 What does Alex Jones have to do with...any of this? Don't know. Maybe the fact that he and you keep using that " this government is making everyone a pussy and a slave to the state, and that needs to be taken care of" rhetoric. Or maybe that both of you think this government is trying to eradicate our rights so that somehow it make us sheep. And I know you don't like the guy. This recent [over]usage of the term "military weapon" serves only one purpose: to distract the reader. A KA-BAR is a "military weapon", but I don't see anyone crying about those? Oh wait, crimes committed with knives are prevalent in urban areas, so they don't really exist, right? An individual breaking into your home poses a great threat to your family and yourself. Multiple assailants, even more so. The threat must be taken care of and handled quickly. Whether someone uses a bow & arrow, a .22LR pistol or a 7.62 AK is none of my business. As long as the good guys come out on top. While you're at it, can I drive my Abrams, too? A disarmed nation benefits two groups of people: those who wish to harm, and those who wish to control. Which group are you in? Hey, you're the one with gun, not me. So stop pointing it at me. The point is to protect one's self from a dangerous government, like say, the NY government. Wow, you've opened my eyes. So tell me, how are you planning to get rid of this dangerous government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted January 16, 2013 Share #119 Posted January 16, 2013 Don't know. Maybe the fact that he and you keep using that " this government is making everyone a pussy and a slave to the state, and that needs to be taken care of" rhetoric. Or maybe that both of you think this government is trying to eradicate our rights so that somehow it make us sheep. And I know you don't like the guy. While you're at it, can I drive my Abrams, too? Hey, you're the one with gun, not me. So stop pointing it at me. If i'm pointing a gun at you, it's because you're doing something you shouldn't be doing. So quit doing that something, and we'll get along just fine. As for the Abrams, go for it. Just make sure you know how to drive the thing. I'm not surprised that you fail to see the elimination of rights as a threat to a free society. Starting in 1938 the Third Reich began to severely limit the ownership of arms. Subsequently, 12 million people were exterminated. Do you think an armed Germany would have allowed such to happen? Welfare is dependence on the government for money (to buy food and other necessities.) Disarmament is dependence on the government for protection/safety (the police.) The two go hand in hand. There's no Alex Jones here. There's no "Bush did 9/11" or "Obama did Sandy Hook". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GojiMet86 Posted January 16, 2013 Share #120 Posted January 16, 2013 If i'm pointing a gun at you, it's because you're doing something you shouldn't be doing. So quit doing that something, and we'll get along just fine. Or you just could be the one intruding my home and threatening my family. I'm not surprised that you fail to see the elimination of rights as a threat to a free society. Starting in 1938 the Third Reich began to severely limit the ownership of arms. Subsequently, 12 million people were exterminated. Do you think an armed Germany would have allowed such to happen? I can't fail to see something that doesn't exist. Of course, you forgot an armed Germany killed those 12 million people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted January 16, 2013 Share #121 Posted January 16, 2013 Yes, a government bent on domination and with absolutely nothing stopping them systematically killed 12 million people. The German people were disarmed and destroyed. The irony of it all: i'm sure plenty of people said "it'll never happen here"...before it -did- happen. Germany, China, Khmer Rouge, the list goes on and on. Disarm & destroy. I don't know about you, but I don't go around breaking into homes. Probably has a lot to do with why you have an issue with people defending themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgood6195 Posted January 16, 2013 Share #122 Posted January 16, 2013 If i'm pointing a gun at you, it's because you're doing something you shouldn't be doing. So quit doing that something, and we'll get along just fine. As for the Abrams, go for it. Just make sure you know how to drive the thing. I'm not surprised that you fail to see the elimination of rights as a threat to a free society. Starting in 1938 the Third Reich began to severely limit the ownership of arms. Subsequently, 12 million people were exterminated. Do you think an armed Germany would have allowed such to happen? Welfare is dependence on the government for money (to buy food and other necessities.) Disarmament is dependence on the government for protection/safety (the police.) The two go hand in hand. There's no Alex Jones here. There's no "Bush did 9/11" or "Obama did Sandy Hook". What do you have against Jones? 9 times out of 10, he is right about the problems at hand, and whatever he's not, it's usually worse than he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted January 16, 2013 Share #123 Posted January 16, 2013 What do you have against Jones? Another idiot with a modem and a webcam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted January 16, 2013 Share #124 Posted January 16, 2013 Yes, a government bent on domination and with absolutely nothing stopping them systematically killed 12 million people. The German people were disarmed and destroyed. The irony of it all: i'm sure plenty of people said "it'll never happen here"...before it -did- happen. Germany, China, Khmer Rouge, the list goes on and on. Disarm & destroy. I don't know about you, but I don't go around breaking into homes. Probably has a lot to do with why you have an issue with people defending themselves. And the ironic part of the whole Sandy Hook thing was the guns were brought legally, but in a sense stolen. Pretty callous to use that tragedy as a reason for all the gun bans. I can understand the automatics, but taking away the semi-autos? Do people get to have 4 hand guns in place of that semi? If such politicians feel that we don't need such guns, then I'd like to see their body guards under the very same restrictions. Only one bodyguard and one gun. But no, they won't be so willing to do that... more do as I say, not as I do shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted January 16, 2013 Share #125 Posted January 16, 2013 And the ironic part of the whole Sandy Hook thing was the guns were brought legally, but in a sense stolen. Pretty callous to use that tragedy as a reason for all the gun bans. I can understand the automatics, but taking away the semi-autos? Do people get to have 4 hand guns in place of that semi? If such politicians feel that we don't need such guns, then I'd like to see their body guards under the very same restrictions. Sandy Hook has about as much to do with guns as drunk driving has with cars. They're involved; they're not the cause. Incidentally enough, machineguns are legal to own in CT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.