Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-17-2013, 03:51 PM  
Taco John Taco John is offline
12on Paul
 
Taco John's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Casino cash: $7632
Expanded background checks for gun sales fails in Senate

Expanded background checks for gun sales fails in Senate, delivering blow to Newtown families and Obama

WASHINGTON – Compromise legislation to expand mandatory background checks for gun sales -- a key element of the federal response to the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn. – failed Wednesday afternoon in the US Senate.

The inability of President Obama and Democratic leaders to round up the required 60 votes in favor of enhanced background checks dealt a striking defeat to a major initiative of the president’s second term, falling short despite numerous pleas and trips to Washington by families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School victims, whose children were murdered five months ago by a lone gunman with a semi-automatic assault rifle.

The Senate voted Wednesday afternoon to block the first of nine amendments to Obama’s gun control bill, a compromise forged between senators Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, and Pat Toomey, a Republican from Pennsylvania to expand background checks for gun buyers.

Despite the bipartisan negotiations, the amendment failed when only 54 senators voted to proceed, falling six votes short. All New England senators voted yes except for Senator Kelly Ayotte, a Republican from New Hampshire.

“Shame on you!” a spectator in the gallery yelled out in the chamber, prompting a gavel for order.

Erica Lafferty, 27, the daughter of Dawn Hochsprung, principal of Sandy Hook who lost her life in the shooting, said she was disappointed by the vote “but the fact that it got to the floor is good.”

“I’m confident that it will be back, and I also know that I will be here when it does come back,” Lafferty said. “We’re not going away.”

Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, praised Manchin and Toomey for their efforts during the debate preceding the series of votes.

“You did the right thing,” McCain said. “What they have tried to do today I think is an act that should be appreciated by those of us who many times avoid taking the tough decisions.”

Senator Christopher Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat in favor of gun control, spoke out against the outsized influence of the gun lobby.

“The longer that I’ve spent in this place, the more I’m convinced that there are people who actually do believe that we should just go back to the days of the wild, wild west,” Murphy said, “that we should usher in a new era of gun control Darwinism in which the good guys have guns, the bad guns, and we just hope that the good guys shoot the bad guys.”

Because of senate procedural rules, a 60-vote threshhold was required for each of the nine amendments to proceed. The other amendments include an assault weapons ban and limits on high capacity magazines.

The gun debate has been marked by intense lobbying on both sides, big-spending influence campaigns targeting individual senators, and some vitriolic attacks, particularly by some groups opposed to firearms restrictions.

Groups beyond the National Rifle Association, the traditional representative of the gun lobby, have played a major role in the debate. The National Association for Gun Rights used email alerts, online videos, and a Facebook page to convey mocking imagery that targeted individual senators.

In a series of Facebook posts, the group showed Obama as a puppeteer, controlling the strings of Toomey. Stamped in red ink is, “Toomey Sold Out Your Gun Rights.”

The gun rights group similarly depicted all 16 Republicans who voted last week to prevent a GOP filibuster and move forward on the gun legislation debate. The 16 also are shown with their faces on sticks, tagged by Facebook users with unfriendly names. Senator Lamar Alexander, of Tennessee, is “Socialist.” Senator Tom Coburn, of Oklahoma, is “communist #9.” Senator John Hoeven, of South Dakota, is “Judas Bastard.”

Senator Kelly Ayotte, of New Hampshire, is “liberal [expletive] 1” while Senator Susan Collins, of Maine, is “liberal [expletive] 2.”

Polls show that nearly 90 percent of Americans support a strong system of background checks for gun purchases. But the looming failure of gun-control legislation illustrates how vocal minorities are exerting strong influence on congressional debates by targeting individual senators with outside pressure, channeled through Internet organizing.

Some of that organizing directly targets senators who seek compromise.

“NO DEALS, NO GUN CONTROL,” the National Association for Gun Rights blasts on its website.

Few have experienced as much heat as Collins, a Maine Republican who has built a reputation for being moderate and open to compromise. A host of groups in recent days have taken out ads in Maine trying to win her over, including groups supporting gun-control legislation.

Organizing for Action, an offshoot of President Obama’s campaign network, ran an ad Friday on the Bangor Daily News website with this message: “Tell Senator Collins: It’s time to close background check loopholes.” That ad came a day after a full-page ad from the National Rifle Association that asked, “Will Obama’s gun control proposals actually work? His own experts say, ‘No.’”

The group on Monday posted a doctored and unflattering photo of Collins with her eyes bulging as if she were a zombie. Within an hour, 5,413 people liked it on Facebook and 490 people had commented on it.

Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, Wednesday morning criticized the president for using the Newtown, Conn., families “as props.”

At a breakfast with reporters sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, he said the legislation would not have prevented the Sandy Hook shootings, and he criticized the vote as being mostly for show.

“A lot of things in Washington are window dressing, it’s a dog and pony show, it’s a parade, it’s theatrics, it’s histrionics, all to show people that something bad happened — which it did. Something terribly tragic happened,” he said.

But, he added, “None of the proposals really would have addressed the tragedy.”

http://www.boston.com/politicalintel...E3M/story.html
Posts: 50,980
Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 11:01 PM   #181
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD View Post
This really isn't rocket science.

But at this point if you don't see what I'm saying I'm not sure I can do any more to reach you.

If you raise the price of anything you're going to lower the number of people buying it. The point is the intent of the legislation isn't to make fewer criminals able to buy guns...it's to make fewer numbers of all people to buy guns.

Which in all honestly is fine if that's the law you want to propose, just be honest about it and don't deceive the American people.
Of course I see what you're saying. Do you not see that I also used an economics argument for why there should be background checks? And that my argument is based on pretty well grounded Economics and Law analysis?

You're interested in keeping the price of guns low, but don't tell me that it's about exercising your 2nd Amendment right to own a gun by exploiting loopholes.
Posts: 7,171
La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 11:16 PM   #182
CrazyPhuD CrazyPhuD is offline
Meow
 
CrazyPhuD's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2005
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
How can I put my interest into action without being considered by you to be some liberal whack job that wants to put you on some government-watched list that circles around your house every morning?
By the way you state this you assume that I'm some right wing nut, frankly I have not political affiliation because I think both sides are pure wackjobs. What I believe almost certainly pisses off both sides in equal measure.

That said what I care about is honest scientific evidence. That is EXTREMELY hard to find these days because all too often the people conducting the 'research' don't care about understanding a problem they only care about 'proving' their own personal viewpoints. Which sucks, that's part of why I actually reluctantly support that no government funding be used to study the gun issue. The only reason I do is because I don't thik at this point that any of that funding will be used with academic integrity. It's too polarized. The groups that will push for it(on both sides) have agenda's to prove and don't care about accuracy. If we could find people who really want to be honest then yes, but right now government funded research would probably only polarize us more.

For the most part I don't care about policy, if you can provide intellectually honest evidence that

A. There is a problem
B. That there is a possible solution
C. That your solution has a likely chance of making a difference
D. That you're applying your criteria for harm evenly

Then yes even if it's something I may not personally agree with I can understand the reasoning to do it.

D. is actually a critical point that most people don't pay attention too. We tend to make rather harsh standards for things we don't like and rather soft standards for things that we do like.

For instance the freakonomics guys were quick to point out that statistically swimming pools are 100X more likely to kill a child than a firearm. Are we placing harsh standards on firearms because people don't approve of them? To know that what we're doing is right we need to apply the same standard for everything. We can't say that we should take action when one child's life is lost due to firearms but not when 100 are lost due to drowning.

The simple way to think about this is to ask if the law is being made with your heart or with your mind. If it's made with your heart and punitive, then you're probably making a bad law.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t*rd by the clean end"
Posts: 8,013
CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 11:21 PM   #183
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $5000
I honestly believe that closing background check loopholes in order to create more obstacles for criminals, mentally ill, and other undesirables is a smart policy.
Posts: 7,171
La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 12:21 AM   #184
CrazyPhuD CrazyPhuD is offline
Meow
 
CrazyPhuD's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2005
Casino cash: $5000
So I was going to quote all of your posts just to make sure I got the 'argument' you're presenting. I did delete out all the comments that were clearly not an argument but tried to leave in as much as I could.

Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Online sales anger gun control advocates because shoppers can use them to exploit a long-standing loophole in federal law that allows unlicensed private gun sellers to skip background checks on prospective buyers in their home state. Also, while it's a felony to sell a firearm knowingly to an individual who would not pass a background check because of a criminal record or history of mental illness, many private sellers flout that rule.

Bob Ralph shuttered Express Police Supply, a brick-and-mortar store in Lenexa, Kan., that sold Smith & Wesson's M&P 15 semiautomatic rifles and Glock's 22 handguns, in 2011. Now he's gearing up for GunCycle.com. Ralph acknowledges that a private collector who auctioned a gun through his site could meet the buyer in a parking lot and hand over the weapon without a background check. "There would be no way for me to stop that or preclude that," he said. "And it would be legal for them to do it that way."



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/business/artic...#ixzz2Qm81rhKB
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Just because you're not clever enough to skirt around laws doesn't mean we shouldn't create better obstacles for those who are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Why are background checks "gun-grabbing?" Do you really not want people to go through background checks in order to get a gun, or do you think it's a pretext for something else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Law is often about margins and talking small steps toward action or inaction. That's what the entire field of Law and Economics is about, which dominates legal scholarship today.

Creating sensible obstacles that would prevent someone from doing something because it's harder to do it now often makes sense. We should want people to go through background checks to get extremely dangerous weapons. We should make it really hard to circumvent the law. There shouldn't be loopholes that are easy to get by, which bad people exploit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Right. The problem is that 1%. What can we do to place obstacles in front of that 1% so that they think "Well, I'm not going to bother with all this crap in getting a gun."
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
I thought so. It's not really about background checks is it? It's because you think it's a pretext for something else. If you were guaranteed that it was only background checks, you would be more accepting, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
I think most Americans want gun owners to go through background checks, and to close up loopholes of those laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
On expanding background checks? It's probably very high. Possibly 90%.


Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Create obstacles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Yes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent criminal acts from happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Why would requiring background checks for all gun transactions be a punishment for the 99%? They are already submitting to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Criminal codes follow bad acts [it's the act that comes first]. It's not like we're sitting around making up this scenario where people exploit loopholes in the existing laws. There was literally a guy in this thread within the hour essentially admitting to doing just that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Imagine a person in the 1%. They either would (with a greater likelihood of being denied), or they could abandon their quest, or they could go through a more significant obstacle, which has a greater likelihood of them failing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
I'm not advocating that we shouldn't take into account the costs of such policies. What do you think the significant cost of expanded background checks would be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Background checks are not an obstacle to getting a gun?
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
I think I was clear in what I believe the benefits would be. Consider the situation from a person in the 1% -- who wants to purchase a gun without a background check.
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Like stealing it, perhaps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Let's assume that background checks aren't an obstacle "in the slightest." Can you make an argument why they shouldn't be mandated, then? Suppose my argument is only that they make people feel safer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
I'll take that scenario over a guy going around current gun laws to avoid a background check or a record. Absolutely.

If a person steals a gun, the crime is reported, and authorities have been alerted. But even before the moment arises, a person planning a criminal act will be more hesitant to steal a gun, because 1) it's riskier than a loophole [can get caught, and even injured] and 2) it's more troublesome than a loophole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
What's the cost to expanding background checks to all transactions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
That's your argument for not expanding it, or is this your question to me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
The benefit is that it prevents many convicts, illegal aliens, fugitives, and mentally ill people [which is huge], from purchasing a gun from a FFL, unless there's a loophole or they break the law.



Nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
By closing the loopholes and making all transactions go through mandatory background checks, more dealers are going to comply, resulting in an increased hardship to people who want to purchase a gun by skirting around the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Or they go through loopholes that are not illegal, but should be. Let's close those loopholes! Also, as I mentioned above, the expansion of background checks would create an increased hardship on the person who wants to break the law. And that's a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
The inverse of this is: does the opposition really care about keeping people safe, or do they just want guns to be cheaper so they can sell to more inner city gangs who can shoot each other?
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Yeah, we're talking about the 1% here. Law is often at the margins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
That hardship (background checks, which you earlier claimed were not a hardship in the slightest) is already in existence for those who don't want to break the law and are perfectly happy to go through a background check.
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
The inverse of the "You just want to raise prices on guns" argument? I take it you didn't find Crazy's argument too effective either, then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
So it seems to me that the price is a big issue to you, and that lower cost of guns is more important than the alleged (unproven) safety of people from those who exploit the currently existing loopholes and commit crimes.

That's a values system issue there. I think a lot of people would agree with me over you, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
You also think that the overwhelming majority of people who want increased background checks really desire it not because it could increase the safety of Americans, but because it would increase the price of guns?
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Your argument is that if the background check loopholes are closed, it will increase costs, which will cause fewer people to purchase a gun. Your belief is that even a $30 increase could 'outprice' someone who doesn't think the value of their gun ownership is worth that much.

While this makes sense, let's recognize it for what it's worth: a hypothetical theory that may not actually represent reality.

What makes your hypothetical theory any more valid than mine, which also makes sense and is based on theory?
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
What's the root cause of the problem?

Also, you are attributing to the 'liberal left' something that isn't true: they don't want to prevent gun ownership to law abiding citizens. As a Democrat, I'm completely fine with law abiding citizens having guns. I'm not fine with just any criminal/mentally ill person to exploit some lame loophole to bypass the background check.
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
It seemed to me that you did argue that increasing price on guns, and thereby decreasing ownership for even law abiding citizens, was a more likely intention of increased background checks than safety of people from gun violence.



I'm interested in preventing criminals and mentally ill people from using a background check loophole to obtain dangerous weapons. How can I put my interest into action without being considered by you to be some liberal whack job that wants to put you on some government-watched list that circles around your house every morning?
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Of course I see what you're saying. Do you not see that I also used an economics argument for why there should be background checks? And that my argument is based on pretty well grounded Economics and Law analysis?

You're interested in keeping the price of guns low, but don't tell me that it's about exercising your 2nd Amendment right to own a gun by exploiting loopholes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
I honestly believe that closing background check loopholes in order to create more obstacles for criminals, mentally ill, and other undesirables is a smart policy.
Ok so reading through your points it sounds like your theme is firearms in the hand of criminals and the mentally ill cause harm. Because of that harm we should take action to prevent their access. You seem to acknowledge that the number of people buying legal firearms who shouldn't be is pretty small i.e. ~1%. Even if 99% of people are being legal if 1% of those people are illegal then we should take action to prevent people from having access.

At one point you say that if universal background checks we no burden to the 99% you don't see why you people would oppose it. Honestly to some degree I agree. Background checks could be done where you ID information is set to a unique hash and then checked only against a list of people that are prohibited from possessing firearms. We could make the procedure anonymous and safe, but we don't really do that. If it was cost free I probably would have only minor issues with it but it's not.

There is a real measurable cost to this and the benefit is hard to measure.

But let's take your proposed standard and apply it generally. Right now you say the case where 99% of the people are legal and 1% are illegal. Let's loosen that a bit and say the standard to take action is if 95% of the people are legal and 5% of the people are illegal. Would you propose making legislation to make illegal activity harder for every law where 5% of the people are breaking it?

If not then why are you singling out firearms? Is it because you believe the damage from firearms is high enough that we should take action? Are there other things that most people obey the law but a few break that cause harm that we should take action on?

How about speeding? It's probably safe to say more than 5% of people in this world speed and the harm from speeding is significant from deaths, injuries and property damage. It is perfectly within our technical capabilities to require that every car be fitted with a device that monitors it's speed and writes speeding tickets automatically anytime someone exceeds the speed limit.

In it's purist form it would have no cost on those that obey the law, and only be burden to those that disobey the law. It would likely be a measurable burden to those who speed and reduce accidents, property damage and death. Even though it's a statistically small percentage of people who break the law and cause the damage, would you support monitoring everyone if only to catch a few?

The same for drunk driving, probably more than 5% of people drive impaired and they cause outsized damage against innocent drivers for both injury, death and property damage. Should we outfit alcohol interlock devices on every car to prevent the car from starting if you've had too much to drink? It would likely be a strong impediment to reducing drunk driving and probably only a minor cost to most drivers. Should we also implement that policy?

I'm not trying to draw comparisons between driving and firearms here, it's just two easy examples that have similar rates of harm and frankly probably more law breakers. Using your standard we should be implementing policy to make it harder for people to speed and harder for people to drive drunk.

But why don't we? Is it because more people drive and would see it as an encroachment upon their own freedom? Is the standard you propose for firearms what you would also propose to be applied to everything with similar law breaking rates and similar or greater harm? If it is I respect your opinion even if I personally disagree with it. You are consistent which is more rare these days.

If we want to make good laws then we need to make generic standards of when we take action and when we prohibit things. We need to apply those standards across everything we do because only then do we know if the standard really is too harsh. If we make a standard that effects everyone equally then we know if it's right, because everyone shares the burden of the same standard.

People are going to die and people are going to suffer, we cannot save everyone all we can do is be even about it. Then we know we don't discriminate. People like to talk about if we need to have things. The problem is that's not what this country was build upon. When it comes to government the question we should be asking isn't if we need to have it, but do we need to restrict it.

Frankly people shouldn't be having to defend why they 'need' to have a firearm anymore than people should have to defend why they 'need' to marry someone they choose. The government should have to put up a clear and convincing case why it 'needs' to not allow you to. Not liking something shouldn't be grounds for legislative action.

But honestly I've spent way too much on this issue tonight I have many more things I need to be doing. Time is my most precious resource and I've spent too much time on this already. I do wonder if it's worth it.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t*rd by the clean end"
Posts: 8,013
CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.CrazyPhuD threw an interception on a screen pass.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 05:04 AM   #185
ThatRaceCardGuy ThatRaceCardGuy is offline
I BRAUGHT THE BOOZE
 
ThatRaceCardGuy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: KU VILLE
Casino cash: $6798
Awesome to know you Faux News brain washed POS support criminals having an easy access to guns. You cowards and your unnatural hatred for the Potus is destroying thecountries ability to function as a democracy.
__________________
2011 CHIEFSPLANT NOOB OF THE YEAR...OFFICIAL LIKE A MOTHER****ER, AND I DARE YOU TO SAY DIFFERENT
Posts: 2,793
ThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby Piscitelli
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 05:09 AM   #186
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $14488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatguy View Post
Awesome to know you Faux News brain washed POS support criminals having an easy access to guns. You cowards and your unnatural hatred for the Potus is destroying thecountries ability to function as a democracy.
We're not a democracy. We're a Republic that protects the minority from an impassioned majority. Some issues aren't supposed to be a majoritarian decision. Only to you Constitution-trashing, tax-and-spend, pro-criminal, fire-breathing anti-American socialists. Your unnatural hatred for what this country was founded on is sickening.

And I don't watch any TV news regularly. When I do I flip between FOX and CNN.
__________________
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution
Posts: 58,431
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 05:19 AM   #187
ThatRaceCardGuy ThatRaceCardGuy is offline
I BRAUGHT THE BOOZE
 
ThatRaceCardGuy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: KU VILLE
Casino cash: $6798
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
We're not a democracy. We're a Republic that protects the minority from an impassioned majority. Some issues aren't supposed to be a majoritarian decision. Only to you Constitution-trashing, tax-and-spend, pro-criminal, fire-breathing anti-American socialists. Your unnatural hatred for what this country was founded on is sickening.

And I don't watch any TV news regularly. When I do I flip between FOX and CNN.

You're an idiot and a pawn. When a libertarian or a mou breather Republican hates my view I know I'm speaking the truth. Keep hiding behind your unnatural hatred for the Potus claiming you're a American.
__________________
2011 CHIEFSPLANT NOOB OF THE YEAR...OFFICIAL LIKE A MOTHER****ER, AND I DARE YOU TO SAY DIFFERENT
Posts: 2,793
ThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby Piscitelli
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 05:33 AM   #188
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $14488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatguy View Post
You're an idiot and a pawn.
Project much?

Quote:
When a libertarian or a mou breather Republican hates my view I know I'm speaking the truth. Keep hiding behind your unnatural hatred for the Potus claiming you're a American.
When a leftist ( progressive or socialist ) hates the views of Second Amendment supporters I know I am speaking the truth. For it has NOTHING to do with Obama, since a gun owner and moderate like Gifford supported it too. I feel Republican Toomey should lose his seat.

Now where you when new Maryland law that requires fingerprints and licensing was passed? Did you speak out against it or the Washington, D.C., gun law that was overturned by the Supreme Court in the 2007 Heller decision? Ya' know where law-abiding citizens unable to defend themselves against criminal class in the murder capital of America. No, because you would have loved to see both laws fastened on this nation as a whole.

I don't see you speaking out against Hollywood to reduce the use of guns in their movies either.

Your ultimate motives are suspect.
__________________
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution
Posts: 58,431
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 05:35 AM   #189
ThatRaceCardGuy ThatRaceCardGuy is offline
I BRAUGHT THE BOOZE
 
ThatRaceCardGuy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: KU VILLE
Casino cash: $6798
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
Project much?



When a leftist ( progressive or socialist ) hates the views of Second Amendment supporters I know I am speaking the truth. For it has NOTHING to do with Obama, since a gun owner and moderate like Gifford supported it too. I feel Republican Toomey should lose his seat.

Now where you when new Maryland law that requires fingerprints and licensing was passed? Did you speak out against it or the Washington, D.C., gun law that was overturned by the Supreme Court in the 2007 Heller decision? Ya' know where law-abiding citizens unable to defend themselves against criminal class in the murder capital of America. No, because you would have loved to see both laws fastened on this nation as a whole.

I don't see you speaking out against Hollywood to reduce the use of guns in their movies either.

Your ultimate motives are suspect.

Did not read do not care. You're an idiot.
__________________
2011 CHIEFSPLANT NOOB OF THE YEAR...OFFICIAL LIKE A MOTHER****ER, AND I DARE YOU TO SAY DIFFERENT
Posts: 2,793
ThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby Piscitelli
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 05:37 AM   #190
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $14488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatguy View Post
Did not read do not care. You're an idiot.
Ohhhh, you're not just 'skeered of guns but of thought too!

Cry me a river of crocodile tears.
__________________
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution
Posts: 58,431
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 06:53 AM   #191
ThatRaceCardGuy ThatRaceCardGuy is offline
I BRAUGHT THE BOOZE
 
ThatRaceCardGuy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: KU VILLE
Casino cash: $6798
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
Ohhhh, you're not just 'skeered of guns but of thought too!

Cry me a river of crocodile tears.
Dumb ass. I own two assault rifles and three hand guns. Keep trolling like the rest of the DC dumb asses. Your ( and the vast majority I of DC right wingers) inability to look past your unhealthy hatred of the Potus and see why this bill is needed would be comical if it weren't so tragic.
__________________
2011 CHIEFSPLANT NOOB OF THE YEAR...OFFICIAL LIKE A MOTHER****ER, AND I DARE YOU TO SAY DIFFERENT
Posts: 2,793
ThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby Piscitelli
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 06:56 AM   #192
Frazod Frazod is offline
Banned
 
Frazod's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: my own personal pig hell
Casino cash: $5050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatguy View Post
Dumb ass. I own two assault rifles and three hand guns. Keep trolling like the rest of the DC dumb asses. Your ( and the vast majority I of DC right wingers) inability to look past your unhealthy hatred of the Potus and see why this bill is needed would be comical if it weren't so tragic.
So you're part of that 1% of criminals that uses assault rifles? Cool! Nice to see you representing, bro!
Posts: 91,125
Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 06:58 AM   #193
ThatRaceCardGuy ThatRaceCardGuy is offline
I BRAUGHT THE BOOZE
 
ThatRaceCardGuy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: KU VILLE
Casino cash: $6798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douchemaster General View Post
So you're part of that 1% of criminals that uses assault rifles? Cool! Nice to see you representing, bro!
Hmmmm..Why would you assume I'm a criminal?



Oh wait this is DC. All black people are criminals and thugs until proven otherwise.
__________________
2011 CHIEFSPLANT NOOB OF THE YEAR...OFFICIAL LIKE A MOTHER****ER, AND I DARE YOU TO SAY DIFFERENT
Posts: 2,793
ThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliThatRaceCardGuy 's adopt a chief was Sabby Piscitelli
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 06:58 AM   #194
Frazod Frazod is offline
Banned
 
Frazod's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: my own personal pig hell
Casino cash: $5050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatguy View Post
Your sheet is showing .
So's your gaping vag.
Posts: 91,125
Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Frazod < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 07:01 AM   #195
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $14488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatguy View Post
Dumb ass. I own two assault rifles and three hand guns. Keep trolling like the rest of the DC dumb asses. Your ( and the vast majority I of DC right wingers) inability to look past your unhealthy hatred of the Potus and see why this bill is needed would be comical if it weren't so tragic.
Oh, do you're just afraid of thought then. You're the tragedy.
__________________
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution
Posts: 58,431
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:48 AM.


This is a test for a client's site.
A new website that shows member-created construction site listings that need fill or have excess fill. Dirt Monkey @ https://DirtMonkey.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.