Firearms Freindly Collective?

TheMan13 said:
Note that I did not direct that at you fucktard, as you obviously lack the ability asses reality or your position in life.

My comment was to juxtapose the history of Judaiochristian teaching with all the bullshit political rhetoric you spew here regardless of the fact you clearly understand either.
Click to expand...

so close to an actual thought in english, but just more retarded bible thumper jibberish.

you bible thumping idiots make life worth laughing about.
 
ozfarmerjoe said:
good day all, prodigal, i am very happy to say that "no, i don't get it" and hope i never will.

it is an evident truth in many countries including mine that your extreme gun ownership laws and use of weapons is completely unnecessary. we live happily and mostly peacefully without a closet full of firearms.

i think it's a case of shitting in your own backyard. a very violent society that is violently self perpetuating.

i am a farmer and my weaponry consists of a .22 rifle that is used for killing sick or injured animals.

i sincerely hope that no-one you love or care about is on this years list of the 20,000 plus murdered souls... especially if their only malefaction was trespass!

what ever happened to the laid back stoner?
Click to expand...

THe people I love, at least when they are around me, are protected from firearms, with them. You can't get the criminals guns from them, therefore, you need to be able to protect yourself from them when they bring their guns. I'm a happy farmer too, I just happen to enjoy shooting, and the need to keep the wolves at bay.
 
TheMan13 said:
... that arguing with ignorance is futile.
Click to expand...

the overwhelming majority of americans support an assault rifle ban, magazine capacity limits, a national gun registry, and universal background checks.

and even the four conservative justices on the supreme court have said that such things are perfectly consistent with the second amendment.

these are the facts. i'll excuse you so you may cry in your cornflakes now.
 
Just because you repeatedly state something will never make it true. What was your parties line on slavery as it caused the last Civil War? Whom would your party call to arms this time, as you have insulted that culture for decades?!?
 
hey all,
well it appears that we'll have to live with and accept each others opposing positions on gun control measures or lack of control measures. we could go around in circles forever on this one.


my last comment on this would have to be: i think the proposals forwarded for gun control in the u.s. are entirely reasonable. i cannot for the life of me see why a background check on a persons character, mental illnesses or dodgy past is opposed! seems like so much common sense to me.


australia has strict gun controls and as of yet we haven't been over run by marauders. few guns in our community and i feel very very safe.


i may not agree with the pro gun position but you do indeed have the right to your own opinion... hopefully exhibited without malice directed at those who's opinions don't tally with yours.
 
I have no problem with background checks, but in reality the tons of recent laws already out there in reference to healthcare privacy make it a joke. To write laws mandating a record search you have already made illegal to search is as absurd as UncleBuck and just as irrelevant to anything productive.
 
I bet Buck is a fat middle aged guy who rarely has seen pussy...unless we are talking via the net.

Anyone who's that much of prick leads a lonely existence.
 
TheMan13 said:
Just because you repeatedly state something will never make it true. What was your parties line on slavery as it caused the last Civil War? Whom would your party call to arms this time, as you have insulted that culture for decades?!?
Click to expand...

go ahead and chase your slavery bunnies as if it had something to do with the issue.

you are correct, me saying it will never make it true. but when the SCOTUS says it, that does.

you're welcome, ma'am.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision

now go post some more videos to prove your astounding intellect.
 
DaleRoberts said:
I bet Buck is a fat middle aged guy who rarely has seen pussy...unless we are talking via the net.

Anyone who's that much of prick leads a lonely existence.
Click to expand...

6'2'', 190, still in my twenties, and just got done with a nice session with the wife.

where's your sky daddy now?

:lol:
 
ozfarmerjoe said:
hey all,
well it appears that we'll have to live with and accept each others opposing positions on gun control measures or lack of control measures. we could go around in circles forever on this one.


my last comment on this would have to be: i think the proposals forwarded for gun control in the u.s. are entirely reasonable. i cannot for the life of me see why a background check on a persons character, mental illnesses or dodgy past is opposed! seems like so much common sense to me.


australia has strict gun controls and as of yet we haven't been over run by marauders. few guns in our community and i feel very very safe.


i may not agree with the pro gun position but you do indeed have the right to your own opinion... hopefully exhibited without malice directed at those who's opinions don't tally with yours.
Click to expand...

The restrictions proposed would ban every gun in the country except bolt action rifles, a few shotguns, and revolvers over 6 shots, and you think that is reasonable?

As far as background checks go, the ones we have now, go unprosecuted when a criminal is found with one. The criminal is not going to go to the local PD and request a background check on his buddy riff raf. They are going to sell to each other quietly. All background checks really are, is a way to register law abiding citizens, ubless confiscation is the goal, the effort is expensive, and by definition, fruitless. Legally speaking, the background check can only be applied to the law abiding, because if it were applied to the criminal, it would be in violation of his fourth and fifth amendment rights, and therefore inadmissable against them. There is a Supreme court decision on that already.
 
UncleBuck said:
6'2'', 190, still in my twenties, and just got done with a nice session with the wife.

where's your sky daddy now?

:lol:
Click to expand...
speedobottom.jpg


... you forgot about your mad Guitar Hero skillz brah :!:

In a male same sex marriage is the "wife" the "catcher" :?:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

elkamino
Grow space "impossible" to find in Anchorage, says Realtor
2 3
Replies
51
Views
12K
GrowerGoneWild
GrowerGoneWild
FranJan
The Saga Continues- Portugal And Legalization @ 12 Years- 'This Is Working'
Replies
1
Views
1K
BlazedMonkey
B
O
Watch Gangster Squad Online Stream
Replies
0
Views
1K
Occurerty
O
bsemaj
James E. Barber Sr. v. City of Vancouver et.al.
Replies
5
Views
2K
bsemaj
bsemaj
nontheist
How to be a good liberal
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
canndo
canndo
Back
Top