Bump stocks for guns

Looking back, seems like it was a poor investment.
Really no. That money helps them sustain the 2nd Amendment. Something that never should have to be argued in the first place. Unfortuantly we have any number of small minded Id Ten Tees that run around with the standard drool coming out who need to be fought for some reason. They are organized and do a good job of something that shouldnt even have to be done. With out them the Id's would have a much stronger hold then they do now so, I consider it an excellent investment. If I had more money I would donate considerably more to them.

Not a big fan of Lapierre but what can you do.
 
Your post makes me feel like I'm talking to the wall. Responsible people are fine with tyhe AR-15. Responsible people that don't mind being on ATF's radar still have M-16s. Read the law and the constitution, please.
 
We've been defunding mental health institutions for decades

Hmmm....

We've been taking good care of our criminals, though, before we let them out to cause more calamity in the public so we can argue over guns and other things. I promise you, the shootings will never stop til we fry someone immediately. There are people that would gladly do it for you. Most people against that are good at looking the other way.
 
@Lurk, trying your hand at politics, are you?

I am not surprised at all this has become political. Thank those same people that follow behind the Pelosi and Clinton ideals, and the likes of them. That makes them worse than dirt to me. Imagine Benghazi, and wonder how she is still walking.

The tongue can no man tame, it was said. Words have started more bad times than most would care to discuss. What ever happened to those poor guys that were kept secret until someone told most everyone about them? Who was held responsible? And so it goes...

I see more joined in to the war of words this is fast becoming. I hope nobody jumps out from behind a bush and starts shooting. That's right: sorry for forgetting we are all safe on the WWW where we can pretend to be whatever we want. A nine year old can have all the fun they want.
 
No one is carrying a rifle around for protection. They are to big, to heavy. But if they want to they should be able aithout being harassed by police. Its called freedom. Put guns in the hands of more people and the world becomes a safer place than without them.

eb4ac3b7344d57fd4a5162d9aaa5a69c--idf-women-military-women.jpg
This is a schoolteacher in Israel.
 
Liberal in America: the opposite of a conservative.

Terrorist: We want to kill you in the name of Allah because we’re good Muslims!

Liberal: No, you’re not. That’s not what you believe.

Terrorist: Yes, it is.

Liberal: No, no…you’re oppressed and probably upset about global warming.

Terrorist: Wait, what?

Liberal: Let’s all co-exist!

Terrorist: How did you miss the entire, “We want to kill you in the name of Allah” thing? What is wrong with you?
 
@Lurk, trying your hand at politics, are you?

I wish you had been around to ask Donald Trump about that.
No, I just wrote a bit about how enacting stricter gun laws is simply a token gesture that will not solve the problem.

I am not surprised at all this has become political. Thank those same people that follow behind the Pelosi and Clinton ideals, and the likes of them. That makes them worse than dirt to me. Imagine Benghazi, and wonder how she is still walking.

This sounds callous, but mistakes happen. Trump will rack up a body count, too. These are extremely dangerous jobs.

The tongue can no man tame, it was said. Words have started more bad times than most would care to discuss. What ever happened to those poor guys that were kept secret until someone told most everyone about them? Who was held responsible? And so it goes...
Figureheads are dangerous because personality influences how people vote. We need governing bodies, not a president for people to idealise or loathe.

I see more joined in to the war of words this is fast becoming. I hope nobody jumps out from behind a bush and starts shooting. That's right: sorry for forgetting we are all safe on the WWW where we can pretend to be whatever we want. A nine year old can have all the fun they want.

Well, yes, we are discussing it online. I don't think that means that we are playing pretend with our heads in the sand.

Is English your second language? I didn't get your point.
 
Last edited:
Liberal in America: the opposite of a conservative.

Terrorist: We want to kill you in the name of Allah because we’re good Muslims!

Liberal: No, you’re not. That’s not what you believe.

Terrorist: Yes, it is.

Liberal: No, no…you’re oppressed and probably upset about global warming.

Terrorist: Wait, what?

Liberal: Let’s all co-exist!

Terrorist: How did you miss the entire, “We want to kill you in the name of Allah” thing? What is wrong with you?
From your perspective @just me, how does this same conversation unfold between the conservative and the terrorist?
 
Liberal in America: the opposite of a conservative.

Terrorist: We want to kill you in the name of Allah because we’re good Muslims!

Liberal: No, you’re not. That’s not what you believe.

Terrorist: Yes, it is.

Liberal: No, no…you’re oppressed and probably upset about global warming.

Terrorist: Wait, what?

Liberal: Let’s all co-exist!

Terrorist: How did you miss the entire, “We want to kill you in the name of Allah” thing? What is wrong with you?
As I understand it in Australia they have put up concrete barricades between the streets and sidewalks to keep some holy warrior from plowing through crowds of Australians.
someone.webp
ATTRACTIVE statues and seats acting as barricades in popular stadiums, bridges, shopping centres and shared traffic zones across the country are part of a new plan to block terrorists from ploughing vehicles into pedestrians.

A report called Australia’s Strategy for Protecting Crowded Places from Terrorism, warned that terrorists are seeking larger vehicles such as trucks to carry large amounts of explosive to cause greater casualties and that barriers including concrete bollards, planter boxes or monuments should be used for protection.

It also highlighted the risk of terror cells using chemical weapons, warning that “mass casualties” are possible.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull commissioned the report following the 2016 Nice terror attack which saw a Tunisian claiming links to the Islamic State group killed 86 people.

Following the tragedy, Nice residents questioned why city authorities hadn’t installed barriers — even though IS extremists had explicitly encouraged followers to “crush” enemies with cars.

Mr Turnbull announced a new national security strategy with the release of the report today.

Aside from maintaining constant vigilance there will be a greater use of permanent bollards to separate vehicles from pedestrians and more use of police and agencies around mass gatherings.

“You can have bollards, you can have seating. (For example), some of the seating in the Pitt St mall is positioned in a way that would provide a barrier to a vehicle,” Mr Turnbull said.

The new barriers could come in the form of steps, art and statues, according to the prime minister.

“At the design stage it can be done very unobtrusively,” he said.

“This work has been underway for a year. It’s been finalised recently, discussed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). All jurisdictions, states and territories are very familiar with it.

“It’s part of our continuous program of optimising and improving the way we can keep Australians safe.”

The plan was given to Australian businesses and councils last week, and outlines ways to prevent vehicle attacks similar to those seen in Barcelona, Nice, and London.
 
Last edited:
One example would be supporting the NRA and their efforts to stop and/or suppress all publicly funded research on gun violence. See this link... http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx

Of course it is possible that you could be a member while still disagreeing with their stance on this. If so I hope you'd let them know how wrong they are on this point.
Big article and it would take tremndious time and resources to fact check. Its much easier to break it down into its simplist form. "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesnt get any simpler. Its literally part of the foundation of our country. So let them research gun violence all they want it makes no difference. Its up to you to find a way to live with whatever aspect of it is you dont like. Its not for others to conform to what you think you want.
 
They just need to ban autos altogether. They also need to mentally evaluate anyone who wants to drive one.
I am given to wonder if we ban guns altogether if the problem of massacring people will actually be solved or if the methods employed to accomplish such a goal will simply change. What I can say for certain though is that in the U.S. mental health falls to a very low order of priority and it is a problem that needs attention not just for resolving these recurring massacres but because of the obvious implications of leaving people untreated. I don't think that improving treatment for the mentally ill will actually solve this problem but it is something that needs to be done and it would help alleviate the frequency of such occurrences to a limited degree.
 
Last edited:
Big article and it would take tremndious time and resources to fact check. Its much easier to break it down into its simplist form. "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesnt get any simpler. Its literally part of the foundation of our country. So let them research gun violence all they want it makes no difference. Its up to you to find a way to live with whatever aspect of it is you dont like. Its not for others to conform to what you think you want.
So you agree that the NRA shouldn't stand in the way of this research?
 
Back
Top