Admiral - I still think the 2A attacks are a diversion while the jackals in the gov't steal us blind (again) but the people in Boston and Watertown must be rethinking the whole gun ban argument.
"Admiral - I still think the 2A attacks are a diversion while the jackals in the gov't steal us blind (again) but the people in Boston and Watertown must be rethinking the whole gun ban argument."
Boston is a terrorist paradise with all the gun control nuts there. Had this happened in my state, Mississippi, we would not have to had 10,000 police to capture this guy. Stealing your image for my Obama Cartoons site!
As a Bostonian I can say without a doubt I never once considered owning an assault rifle, and never during the recent chaos did I want one. In fact I am glad that most of my neighbors don't own one. The people that feel a need to own such a weapon are either paranoid and scared, or have small damaged egos, and neither is helpful when police are doing a door-to-door search.
I have no problem with handguns or hunting rifles (and I have liberal friends that own both), either would be effective against the two bombers, but I really don't see the need for assault rifles. The question is really where do we draw the line-- for example, are you guys in favor of fully automatic weapons? Will the government ban on rocket launchers lead to all weapons being taken away?
yeti - assault rifles? A 5.56mm is a .22 on steroids. You have bought into the liberal mantra - and you are another person who has never been shot at. After almost 40 years in law enforcement I can say this with perfect equanimity, when the SHTF I want the biggest, baddest tool of self defense I can legally possess.
You obviously have never been in the position of having to defend yourself or your family or anyone else. Good for you. I refuse to depend on other people who may or may not show up to do what I should be doing for myself. The courts have decreed that the police are under no legal obligation to protect you.
This is only one of about a dozen court decisions ruling that the police have no obligation to protect individuals.
Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)
Here are some more. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts
Your comment makes no sense as it is not founded upon reality. Snark does not lend validity to an argument, you gotta try harder sport.
And yes, I would prefer having a fully automatic weapon if I could afford the ATF permit and the weapon.
.jpg)
14 comments:
WOW. This is art!
From an update on my latest post:
Obama's And Boston's Lesson: Jihad Works
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=219949
Admiral - I still think the 2A attacks are a diversion while the jackals in the gov't steal us blind (again) but the people in Boston and Watertown must be rethinking the whole gun ban argument.
Sure they did. Most Dem's, like probably every Kennedy, when their (cheated on) wives were home alone. You just don't know how to play this game!
Doom - I never want to learn.
"Admiral - I still think the 2A attacks are a diversion while the jackals in the gov't steal us blind (again) but the people in Boston and Watertown must be rethinking the whole gun ban argument."
I bet they were and still are.
Too cool ... You're right, I know I've never said it.
Boston is a terrorist paradise with all the gun control nuts there. Had this happened in my state, Mississippi, we would not have to had 10,000 police to capture this guy. Stealing your image for my Obama Cartoons site!
Ron - I bet Mississippians would have been out there with the police. I also wonder why they didn't use tracking dogs In MA.
Odie - In my mind there's no doubt doubt those words will never pass your lips.
I'm sure the libs are bitching about the boat being shot up by the Feds.
WoFat - from what I've read, there is a collection being taken for this guy to buy a brand new boat.
As a Bostonian I can say without a doubt I never once considered owning an assault rifle, and never during the recent chaos did I want one. In fact I am glad that most of my neighbors don't own one. The people that feel a need to own such a weapon are either paranoid and scared, or have small damaged egos, and neither is helpful when police are doing a door-to-door search.
I have no problem with handguns or hunting rifles (and I have liberal friends that own both), either would be effective against the two bombers, but I really don't see the need for assault rifles. The question is really where do we draw the line-- for example, are you guys in favor of fully automatic weapons? Will the government ban on rocket launchers lead to all weapons being taken away?
yeti - assault rifles? A 5.56mm is a .22 on steroids. You have bought into the liberal mantra - and you are another person who has never been shot at. After almost 40 years in law enforcement I can say this with perfect equanimity, when the SHTF I want the biggest, baddest tool of self defense I can legally possess.
You obviously have never been in the position of having to defend yourself or your family or anyone else. Good for you. I refuse to depend on other people who may or may not show up to do what I should be doing for myself. The courts have decreed that the police are under no legal obligation to protect you.
This is only one of about a dozen court decisions ruling that the police have no obligation to protect individuals.
Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)
Here are some more.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts
Your comment makes no sense as it is not founded upon reality. Snark does not lend validity to an argument, you gotta try harder sport.
And yes, I would prefer having a fully automatic weapon if I could afford the ATF permit and the weapon.
Post a Comment