Lets get it straight here folks. The "observation" that I am referencing is this one....

"...and take away all firearms, as well as my right to use one to protect myself and my family if need be..."

What a line of crapola. And this "observation" does not mean that all R's support an automatic weapon in each home nor does it mean that all D's oppose same. And it darn sure does not mean that gun control equals taking away all firearms.... so take this drivel somewhere else.... it ain't flyin' here.

Exactly.

Rory is notorious for making trmendous leaps from 'you can't have an AK-47' to 'they want to take all my guns'.

Whether or not you favor the ability to own an AK-47 or similar weapon isn't the point........the point is that Rory will claim you're anti-gun if you oppose the ownership of any type of weapon.

I don't have a problem with resonable restrictions being put on firearm ownership. Your definition and my definition of "reasonable" may differ. But if you come around prowling my house, you'll get a quick confirmation that I'm not "anti-gun" by any stretch of the imagination.

Unless it's Rory's imagination........then all bets are off.

I just don't yet understand what is some people's fascination with telling me what I should or should not have/do on my property which has no effect upon them...

I think if you don't have any knowledge of firearms, and don't want to be around them , that is okay with me....and vica versa...


Most of this stuff just boils down to money....Some smart powerfull people get the masses all in a tizzy, and then provide a "solution" to the uproar for a fee......'cept they never really do get to the bottom of anything;.... but join this or that association, and band together for strength, and send big "contributions" for the lobbyists !


There really aught to be a committee to end all committees'..................

"I just don't yet understand what is some people's fascination with telling me what I should or should not have/do on my property which has no effect upon them..."

...unless you are gay or a 'druggie', right?

Edited to add:

Republicans seem fascinated with telling me what I can and cannot do in my own home.

h20;

Good point I guess

I don't know what the fallout from all the unemployed lobbyists would be, let alone the effect of the enhanced freedoms, but I for one would trade complete and final drug use and peter puffing freedom to you for complete and final firearms freedom, as long as you don't preach to little kids how "natural" homo's are, it is a behavior which is absolutly unnatural, but I guess it wouldn't be worth fighting to make it illegal if there was something gained in trade. You still wouldn't be required to like firearms, and I'd still not be required to like the guys who play the skin flute, but niether of us needs to be paying for others to discuss these issues over golf high salaries...........

P.S.;

I'd be trading their right to be peter puffers , not giving them rights to the benefits of real marriage, or anything else sacred to a union of a man and a woman....just let them do their thing, let me do mine, I'm not asking for any special access to benefits or other burdens on the public...................

I can cite twelve examples from nature showing that yes, indeed homosexuality IS natural....in that it occurs across species from the most basic forms of life to the most complicated.

Using your line of thinking blow jobs are also unnatural. I highly doubt however that if Claudia Schiffer offered to perform such an unnatural sex act on you, you'd turn her down. I could....but that's only because I'm saving myself for Jessica Alba .

Truthfully however, I've grown weary of 'debating' such issues on this board so I'm not going to point anything out. One half hour of google searching the matter would go much further toward educating you as to the truth than any example I may cite.

If you care enough about the issue of whether or not 'peter puffing' is natural I suggest you do a little research...and then come with another, more salient argument.

Absoloutely no restrictions on gun ownership? Now really...I wonder how the Forks police would take it if I decided to put the old guns from Big Mo on either side of my drive way pointed right at whoever drives down my drive way?

Give guns to the retarded...no restrictions, right? Give 'em to the schizophrenic.....no restrictions, right? Give 'em to convicted murderers....no restrictions, right?

Think your arguments out to their logical end, brotha. If you find yourself arguing in absolutes (ahem, Rory are you listening?) it's probably time to rethink. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Not so fast H2o...

I've got nothing against "controlling" criminals, and keeping "retards" from enjoying the RIGHTS of normal healthy citizens...

You are reaching now......


We can agree that Claudia is HOT though.....


BTW Are you expecting the taxpayers to fund the medical care of all these druggies that are going to be coming out of the closet, and proliferating ? I'm thinking they can live with the rsults of their choices/actions by whatever means they have, not by whatever they can milk from the working taxpayers.........

so then you are FOR some laws that restrict the use and availability of guns to the general public.

....next you'll be trying to take away my .22.

Keeping violent criminals away from firearms is not in any way contolling firearms.....their behavior has lost them the right to play with guns, and cars, and baseball bats, and knives, and hammers, and if we get serious someday, their right to see the outside of a prison.........


Do you want to let the peter puffers sodomize innocent young children............?

That last comment makes a similarly intelligent point as your last post......And I meant it only to illustrate that fact.

"Keeping violent criminals away from firearms is not in any way contolling firearms."

you are in Rory territory now. you do realize the complete and utter lack of logic in that sentence, don't you?

I guess if you can't distinguish between healthy common citizens and violent criminals, then we are probably not going to get very far in our communications, too bad, I was trying to understand your point of view....

Hey... wouldn't that mean the "bullying drug addicted gangsters" would have a weapon, too, if ALL citizens were required to carry?

Brilliant. :rolleyes:

By the way, I've lost track of the number of incidents where break-ins, armed robberies, and such have been thwarted because the home owner had a weapon in the house. I'm sure it happens every day, but obviously the liberal media refuses to print such stories because it will ruin their agenda for gun control.

that's the sound of one hand clapping.

Are you saying you didn't know that the gangbangers were packing heat these days....C'mon !

Harley forgets that thieves and gangbangers are cowards. You do not see much thievery down long country driveways why? In fact the local low rents go into town to do their dirty work.

-----------------------------------------------------------

How is banning a semi-auto 7.62x39 rifle going to keep you or anyone else any safer unless you also ban all guns with similar calibers that will shoot every time pull the trigger?

Would it just make you feel good?

What resonable restrictions are you in favor of?


If want to know where I stand on a subject just ask me, other wise if you're going to words in my mouth that I never uttered...make sure you pull your pants before you talk out of your a$$.

Rory,

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, puts words into other people's mouths more than you do.

If it bothers you, then good. Now you know how it feels.

Aunty M,

You still never answered the question I posed to you the other day...you said your pro-adoption--but are you Pro-life?

DanS,

It's funny how you personally attack others regularly and suggest that if they don't agree with you they're wrong and have their "head WAAAY up their ass"--but when someone merely takes issue with something you've said ('I don't have a problem with resonable restrictions being put on firearm ownership') and simply asks for clarification you cry like a little girl.

If you can't take it then stop dishing it out.

The childish name calling, personal attacks and the ''I know you are--but what am I' debating method only works up until about the 2nd or 3rd grade.

As MC Hammer would say,"Ring the bell--schools out sucker!"

Hey Rory,

GFY and have a nice, tall glass of STFU.

It will help. I promise.