Political Crossfire Forums

[TNBiologist]

Lucky Luke wrote: TNBiologist wrote:

And you don't think people sell rifles or shotguns on the street now? That is just naive. It would be the same as selling large quantities of drugs out of your house. Would you get caught? Probably but then someone else just opens up shop. America has outlawed alcohol beofre and it was still transported/sold in large quantities. America has outlawed drugs and they are still transported/sold in large quantities.

Drugs and alcohol are not only consumable but also highly addictive, rifles and shotguns are neither making your point at best silly.

:-D
:-D

Even if all guns are banned, if there is a market for a product it will be smuggled in (like steriods which are not addictive) and can be sold via black market.

[Blinky]

Lucky Luke wrote: Blinky wrote:

Well, thats the story LNRW. Notice how you have still to this day not elected either the "chronically confused" or "Completely Illiterate" options available to you in my third last post. Is that because it is both?
This has taken me a considerable time to put together, so I hope you appreciate the effort. I hope also you have indeed learned your lesson.

Accepting your apology in advance,
Blinky.

I wish you good luck it took me a week to get a simple answer from him and I had to open a thread just to get it, never mind it was worthwhile:



http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=49717&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

:-D
:-D

Thanks LL. As you can tell I am also used to waiting while LNRW gathers irrelevant quotes over a week to support his "case".
I'm expecting a comparison between guns and swimming pools any day now.

[leftneckredwing]

Quote: Well, thats the story LNRW. Notice how you have still to this day not elected either the "chronically confused" or "Completely Illiterate" options available to you in my third last post. Is that because it is both?
This has taken me a considerable time to put together, so I hope you appreciate the effort. I hope also you have indeed learned your lesson.

Accepting your apology in advance,
Blinky.

See advice wanted.

[Lucky Luke]

Onevote wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Onevote wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Onevote wrote:

One that knows what reality is and isn't.

I don't take advice from drug users who called themselves law abiding citizens. Do you buy your stuff with your gun in hand Onevote?

:-D
:-D Reading comprehension my friend. Go back and reread the posts. Then you can decide if you want to ask such a dumb question again! In this Country I can go right now and buy, pot,coke,meth,steroids Etc. in a less that an hour. It takes three days to get a gun here.

Just because I could get the stuff doesn't mean I do.

I went back and read your post:

Onevote wrote: Kinda like drugs! Hard to get.

There is only one way to find out if one likes drugs.

Do you buy this stuff you like with your gun in hand Onevote?
:-D
:-D :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You reread it , and still can't conprehend what you read! Good lord! what do they teach in school over there?

Let me make this as simple as I can for you. My comment was that a ban on guns ( since that was the topic) would make them " hard to get , like drugs" Meaning that drugs are very easy to get even though We have a total prohibition on things like Pot ,cocaine, heroine, steroids, Etc.

This in no way implies that I have a need to buy or consume any illegal drug to know that they are very easy to get.

What drugs are you taking that causes you to not comprehend a single sentence you read?

I don't take drugs OneVote and I don't agree with people taking them furthermore I would not claim publicly that pot heads is better than alcohol or that there is nothing wrong with pigging out on little debbie's and giggling for a while.
If you are not using the stuff, please don't encourage others to do so.
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

TNBiologist wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: TNBiologist wrote:

And you don't think people sell rifles or shotguns on the street now? That is just naive. It would be the same as selling large quantities of drugs out of your house. Would you get caught? Probably but then someone else just opens up shop. America has outlawed alcohol beofre and it was still transported/sold in large quantities. America has outlawed drugs and they are still transported/sold in large quantities.

Drugs and alcohol are not only consumable but also highly addictive, rifles and shotguns are neither making your point at best silly.

:-D
:-D

Even if all guns are banned, if there is a market for a product it will be smuggled in (like steriods which are not addictive) and can be sold via black market.

Quote: Anabolic Steroids May Be Addictive, Study Finds
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/steroids/a/steroids_addict.htm

And they are of course consumable.

Next.
:-D
:-D

[Blinky]

leftneckredwing wrote: Quote: Well, thats the story LNRW. Notice how you have still to this day not elected either the "chronically confused" or "Completely Illiterate" options available to you in my third last post. Is that because it is both?
This has taken me a considerable time to put together, so I hope you appreciate the effort. I hope also you have indeed learned your lesson.

Accepting your apology in advance,
Blinky.

See advice wanted.

You see advice wanted.

[Onevote]

Lucky Luke wrote: Onevote wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Onevote wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Onevote wrote:

One that knows what reality is and isn't.

I don't take advice from drug users who called themselves law abiding citizens. Do you buy your stuff with your gun in hand Onevote?

:-D
:-D Reading comprehension my friend. Go back and reread the posts. Then you can decide if you want to ask such a dumb question again! In this Country I can go right now and buy, pot,coke,meth,steroids Etc. in a less that an hour. It takes three days to get a gun here.

Just because I could get the stuff doesn't mean I do.

I went back and read your post:

Onevote wrote: Kinda like drugs! Hard to get.

There is only one way to find out if one likes drugs.

Do you buy this stuff you like with your gun in hand Onevote?
:-D
:-D :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You reread it , and still can't conprehend what you read! Good lord! what do they teach in school over there?

Let me make this as simple as I can for you. My comment was that a ban on guns ( since that was the topic) would make them " hard to get , like drugs" Meaning that drugs are very easy to get even though We have a total prohibition on things like Pot ,cocaine, heroine, steroids, Etc.

This in no way implies that I have a need to buy or consume any illegal drug to know that they are very easy to get.

What drugs are you taking that causes you to not comprehend a single sentence you read?

I don't take drugs OneVote and I don't agree with people taking them furthermore I would not claim publicly that pot heads is better than alcohol or that there is nothing wrong with pigging out on little debbie's and giggling for a while.
If you are not using the stuff, please don't encourage others to do so.
:-D
:-D Simply Stating that drugs are easy to obtain even though they are prohibited is far from advocating their use.

[Lucky Luke]

Onevote wrote: Simply Stating that drugs are easy to obtain even though they are prohibited is far from advocating their use.

Stating that there is nothing wrong with pigging out on little debbie's and giggling for a while surely is, isn't it OneVote?

:-D
:-D

[Onevote]

Lucky Luke wrote: Onevote wrote: Simply Stating that drugs are easy to obtain even though they are prohibited is far from advocating their use.

Stating that there is nothing wrong with pigging out on little debbie's and giggling for a while surely is, isn't it OneVote?

:-D
:-D Can you show me that statement? I don't remember ever posting anything about little Debbie's and giggling. But I must ask, do you have a problem with snack food? or laughter? Do either of these two somehow contribute to the moral decline of your anti freedom Utopia?

[Lucky Luke]

Onevote wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Onevote wrote: Simply Stating that drugs are easy to obtain even though they are prohibited is far from advocating their use.

Stating that there is nothing wrong with pigging out on little debbie's and giggling for a while surely is, isn't it OneVote?

:-D
:-D Can you show me that statement? I don't remember ever posting anything about little Debbie's and giggling. But I must ask, do you have a problem with snack food? or laughter? Do either of these two somehow contribute to the moral decline of your anti freedom Utopia?

I would not compare snack food sold legally with the purchase of illegal drugs but some do think that one's freedom to buy illegal substances is moral, I happen to disagree.

:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

For a good long time that amendment has been around. I somehow think that having it has slowed down the beast. Maybe not totally, but it has slowed down. The present corrupt government is a pain and they might try to amend the 2nd. I personally don't think it would work well enough for them to make it happen. Simple, take away guns and you'll have a war like no one has ever had.
I think we (most of us anyway) remember Paul Harvey. Back in 2001 I got this email and (after checking it out) it applies today. here it is folks.

Thousands of years of governments killing people. Eventually, some people figured out a way to create a balance such that this could not happen again. And for hundreds of years it worked, but then people decided it would be a good idea if society ridded itself of the balance, because there was some inherent danger. hmmm?
Are you considering backing gun control laws??? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?

CONSIDER THIS... In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953 approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established Gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million politcal dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan indians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1,000,000 "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total vistims who lost their lives to because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history the next time someone talks in favor of gun contol, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
It has now been 12 months (in 2001) since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide (then) Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8%, and Armed robberies are up 44%. In that countries state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are UP 300%. Over the past 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns".
It is time to state it plainly, Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and , yes, gun control laws only affect the law abiding citizens.

So, LL there's something for you to chew on. I figure that there is no way any "law abiding" honest citizen is going to that willing to surrender their weapons to a corrupt government. The ones that do are weak minded fools and they will be the first to be rounded up because they no longer fit in with the so called system. Now, I personally like the second amendment and all of the other amendments as well. They are each worth fighting for. They might get my guns but I can say this the corrupt bas***** will earn them. So, now that we have an interseting perspective on what gun control actually has done in the past, it appears that we should "NEVER" allow the like of hillary and some of the others like her to take what has worked very well over the past 200 years.

By the way LL -----I'm Back>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :lol:

[Onevote]

lilwolf wrote: For a good long time that amendment has been around. I somehow think that having it has slowed down the beast. Maybe not totally, but it has slowed down. The present corrupt government is a pain and they might try to amend the 2nd. I personally don't think it would work well enough for them to make it happen. Simple, take away guns and you'll have a war like no one has ever had.
I think we (most of us anyway) remember Paul Harvey. Back in 2001 I got this email and (after checking it out) it applies today. here it is folks.

Thousands of years of governments killing people. Eventually, some people figured out a way to create a balance such that this could not happen again. And for hundreds of years it worked, but then people decided it would be a good idea if society ridded itself of the balance, because there was some inherent danger. hmmm?
Are you considering backing gun control laws??? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?

CONSIDER THIS... In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953 approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established Gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million politcal dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan indians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1,000,000 "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total vistims who lost their lives to because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history the next time someone talks in favor of gun contol, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
It has now been 12 months (in 2001) since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide (then) Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8%, and Armed robberies are up 44%. In that countries state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are UP 300%. Over the past 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns".
It is time to state it plainly, Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and , yes, gun control laws only affect the law abiding citizens.

So, LL there's something for you to chew on. I figure that there is no way any "law abiding" honest citizen is going to that willing to surrender their weapons to a corrupt government. The ones that do are weak minded fools and they will be the first to be rounded up because they no longer fit in with the so called system. Now, I personally like the second amendment and all of the other amendments as well. They are each worth fighting for. They might get my guns but I can say this the corrupt bas***** will earn them. So, now that we have an interseting perspective on what gun control actually has done in the past, it appears that we should "NEVER" allow the like of hillary and some of the others like her to take what has worked very well over the past 200 years.

By the way LL -----I'm Back>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :lol: World history shows this to very true. Since it seems the evolution of Government, no matter how genuine it may start out, sooner or later turns against the very people it is supposed to serve. The ability to mount resistance is the right of the citizens.

[lilwolf]

Aboslutely right. Why should law abiding people give up their guns for a corrupt government. I figure that weak minded folks will willingly surrender their weapons for what ever reason. But to blatantly surrender is non acceptable in my book.
Americans (or any people) should always have a way to keep a government in check.

[Winchester]

lilwolf wrote: For a good long time that amendment has been around. I somehow think that having it has slowed down the beast. Maybe not totally, but it has slowed down. The present corrupt government is a pain and they might try to amend the 2nd. I personally don't think it would work well enough for them to make it happen. Simple, take away guns and you'll have a war like no one has ever had.
I think we (most of us anyway) remember Paul Harvey. Back in 2001 I got this email and (after checking it out) it applies today. here it is folks.

Thousands of years of governments killing people. Eventually, some people figured out a way to create a balance such that this could not happen again. And for hundreds of years it worked, but then people decided it would be a good idea if society ridded itself of the balance, because there was some inherent danger. hmmm?
Are you considering backing gun control laws??? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?

CONSIDER THIS... In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953 approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established Gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million politcal dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan indians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1,000,000 "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total vistims who lost their lives to because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history the next time someone talks in favor of gun contol, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
It has now been 12 months (in 2001) since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide (then) Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8%, and Armed robberies are up 44%. In that countries state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are UP 300%. Over the past 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns".
It is time to state it plainly, Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and , yes, gun control laws only affect the law abiding citizens.

So, LL there's something for you to chew on. I figure that there is no way any "law abiding" honest citizen is going to that willing to surrender their weapons to a corrupt government. The ones that do are weak minded fools and they will be the first to be rounded up because they no longer fit in with the so called system. Now, I personally like the second amendment and all of the other amendments as well. They are each worth fighting for. They might get my guns but I can say this the corrupt bas***** will earn them. So, now that we have an interseting perspective on what gun control actually has done in the past, it appears that we should "NEVER" allow the like of hillary and some of the others like her to take what has worked very well over the past 200 years.

By the way LL -----I'm Back>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :lol:

But people have changed, we're so much more enlightened now, there is no longer any need for civilians to own guns. Governments always have the best interest of it's citizens in mind.

/sarcasm off

[lilwolf]

Winchester,
Damn but I wish that were true. If the government had my best interests at heart - OMG I'd think I died and went to heaven or some such place. :-D

[Winchester]

lilwolf wrote: Winchester,
Damn but I wish that were true. If the government had my best interests at heart - OMG I'd think I died and went to heaven or some such place. :-D

Oh I forgot they will always be there to save us from the bad guys. Government is there to protect and love us from craddle to grave. :lol:

[lilwolf]

[img]

[/img]

[img]
[/img]

These are a couple of my toys Winchester. The sniper toy is a Dragonov
Love this gun. The other is my bessie.

People who want these will have to take them by force.

[Thrilla]

Winchester wrote: lilwolf wrote: Winchester,
Damn but I wish that were true. If the government had my best interests at heart - OMG I'd think I died and went to heaven or some such place. :-D

Oh I forgot they will always be there to save us from the bad guys. Government is there to protect and love us from craddle to grave. :lol: :lol: :lol:


nice sig bro...Ted is the man!

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: For a good long time that amendment has been around. I somehow think that having it has slowed down the beast. Maybe not totally, but it has slowed down. The present corrupt government is a pain and they might try to amend the 2nd. I personally don't think it would work well enough for them to make it happen. Simple, take away guns and you'll have a war like no one has ever had.
I think we (most of us anyway) remember Paul Harvey. Back in 2001 I got this email and (after checking it out) it applies today. here it is folks.

Thousands of years of governments killing people. Eventually, some people figured out a way to create a balance such that this could not happen again. And for hundreds of years it worked, but then people decided it would be a good idea if society ridded itself of the balance, because there was some inherent danger. hmmm?
Are you considering backing gun control laws??? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?

CONSIDER THIS... In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953 approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established Gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million politcal dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan indians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1,000,000 "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total vistims who lost their lives to because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history the next time someone talks in favor of gun contol, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
It has now been 12 months (in 2001) since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide (then) Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8%, and Armed robberies are up 44%. In that countries state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are UP 300%. Over the past 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns".
It is time to state it plainly, Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and , yes, gun control laws only affect the law abiding citizens.

So, LL there's something for you to chew on. I figure that there is no way any "law abiding" honest citizen is going to that willing to surrender their weapons to a corrupt government. The ones that do are weak minded fools and they will be the first to be rounded up because they no longer fit in with the so called system. Now, I personally like the second amendment and all of the other amendments as well. They are each worth fighting for. They might get my guns but I can say this the corrupt bas***** will earn them. So, now that we have an interseting perspective on what gun control actually has done in the past, it appears that we should "NEVER" allow the like of hillary and some of the others like her to take what has worked very well over the past 200 years.

By the way LL -----I'm Back>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :lol:

Emerson did surrender his weapons, an American law abiding citizen was declared unfit to own guns by an American court, wake up Lilwolf.

In New Orleans guns were taken away and there were no wars, where were you Lilwolf?



All talk and no action.
:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

Luke, you are peeing on a forest fire with your little cartoon. What about the 50 million people that have been killed in the interest of your gun control issues?
Screw Emerson. Wars or no wars. Giving up your right to protect yourself from a bad guy or a corrupt government is pure idiotic. You might do that LL but not a person that values a gun or his right.
So in the interest of Gun control LL. It was okay to take away guns from 50 million people and kill them?
When you think it is okay to just round up people then you tell me who is next on the list LL. Is it more protestants or more catholics?
Who's next LL?