Guns don't kill people... Two year olds in the Wal-Mart do! Another senseless death.

You're still wrong. Those are military homes.

No matter how much you SQUEEK, you're still no more than a lot of hot a air and a rubber pussy. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Are you stupidly arguing that 100% of the spouses and the children living in these private residences are "soldiers", you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM? Or, is your stupid-jackass-of-an-argument based on the premise that soldiers are not "citizens", you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM? Keep slithering like the slimy cretin you are, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

Are you stupidly arguing that 100% of the spouses and the children living in these private residences are "soldiers", you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM? Or, is your stupid-jackass-of-an-argument based on the premise that soldiers are not "citizens", you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, H DDB, DEM? Keep slithering like the slimy cretin you are, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Oh Jeez. dactyl WHAT ARE YOU SAYING, Squeeky?

Your argument is based on a cheap parlor trick. Nobody contends that part time military personnel in Norway's Home Guard are also citizens. Why would they?

You're just fucking stupid, Corpy.

If you want to celebrate a STRAWMAN victory, have at it. I think the party will consist of you and your idol worshipper, Rioseco, who'd drag his balls through broke. Glass just to get a snoot ful of your dick cheese. .there may be butt sex after you cut the cake.

Hinestly, IBIdiot. You're auite ridiculous. You'd earn your own pants on fire!

I see a class action law suit against the country of china for inventing gun powder ! How does 38 % of there GNP sound?

I see a class action law suit against the country of china for inventing gun powder ! How does 38 % of there GNP sound? Originally Posted by slickahhughs

After the private firework displays the other day, do they have any left?

"In a 46-page study, which can be read in its entirety here, Kates and Mauser looked at and compared data from the U.S. and parts of Europe to show that stricter laws don’t mean there is less crime. As an example, when looking at 'intentional deaths,' or murder, on an international scope, the U.S. falls behind Russia, Estonia, and four other countries, ranking it seventh. More specifically, data shows that in Russia, where guns are banned, the murder rate is significantly higher than in the U.S in comparison. 'There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, [the latter] is, in fact, false and [the former] is substantially so,' the authors point out, based on their research."

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/b...ence-with-ban/

BTW, speedy, there are about 56,000 of these in Norwegian homes:


Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Can you find anywhere where I've stated that less guns in the homes leads to less homicides? There is also no proof that more guns in the homes leads to less homicides.

Would you please give us the source of the information for your statement that 56,000 of those weapons are in homes in Norway. My quoted statements do not contradict that, but it contradicts what JD stated as the truth.
Norway still falls behind the U.S. in gun ownership as shown below, which supports what I said before -- there is not an assault weapon in every home in Norway as JD stated is required. That is all my previous post was saying.

Source: http://www.newsinenglish.no/2012/12/...rwegian-homes/

"The US topped most lists regarding gun ownership including a list comparing the rate of private gun ownership within the population. It was followed by Yemen, Switzerland, Finland, Serbia, Cyprus, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Uruguay and Sweden. In 11th place came Norway, a ranking that was attributed to Norway’s strong hunting culture and a large civil defense system that has resulted in thousands of volunteer reserve forces with access to firearms."

[B]
Norway still falls behind the U.S. in gun ownership as shown below, which supports what I said before -- Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Not being argumentative at all .... but .....

.. do you think the U.S. government has a "good count" on "guns" in the U.S.?

I doubt Norway does either.

I suspect if I contacted ATFE and asked them how many "guns" I "possess" I would get some response like: "you don't know?" or "how many do you think you have?" or "what was your name again with social security number and date of birth? ..... then "how many do you have right now?"

Even if I gave them a month to get back to me.

There in lies A flaw in the "anti-gun" movement. The only guns taken up will be those with "paper" on them in a Government "data base." That's why the Government (the anti-gun-for-civilians portion of Government) wants restrictions on secondary sales and "gun shows" .. newspaper and print ads, etc. ... and pawn shops have to keep track also. The Government is not keeping track of any "gun" I own for MY benefit. I do that. Which is one reason I don't carry one into Walmart and leave it in a basket, where someone can steal it or pick it up and shoot me in the head with it.

ANOTHER thread turned into a schoolyard pissing match by the Idiot Family.

You guys must be pretty proud of yourselves. Everything you touch turns to shit.

You guys must be pretty proud of yourselves. Everything you touch turns to shit. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

That's a windfall for shit-eaters like you. You don't need government help.

We'll provide you with your necessary "sustainables."

Can you find anywhere where I've stated that less guns in the homes leads to less homicides? There is also no proof that more guns in the homes leads to less homicides.

Would you please give us the source of the information for your statement that 56,000 of those weapons are in homes in Norway. My quoted statements do not contradict that, but it contradicts what JD stated as the truth.
Norway still falls behind the U.S. in gun ownership as shown below, which supports what I said before -- there is not an assault weapon in every home in Norway as JD stated is required. That is all my previous post was saying.

Source: http://www.newsinenglish.no/2012/12/...rwegian-homes/

"The US topped most lists regarding gun ownership including a list comparing the rate of private gun ownership within the population. It was followed by Yemen, Switzerland, Finland, Serbia, Cyprus, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Uruguay and Sweden. In 11th place came Norway, a ranking that was attributed to Norway’s strong hunting culture and a large civil defense system that has resulted in thousands of volunteer reserve forces with access to firearms." Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

"No proof" says speedy, but yet "without proof" he insists legislating more laws and bureaucratic restrictions will change something for the better when all of the laws and bureaucratic restrictions one could want haven't accomplished what his ilk said they would accomplish.

As a reminder, speedy, the study pointed out that Russia has a higher murder rate than the U.S., and private ownership of guns is banned in Russia.

Regarding Norway, speedy, the sources were already cited. Members of Norway's Home Guard are primarily armed with the Heckler & Koch AG3 assault rifle, and they're required to keep them in their homes. Have you ever fired a Heckler & Koch AG3 on automatic, speedy? It's a fine weapon, speedy.

Oh Jeez. dactyl WHAT ARE YOU SAYING, Squeeky?

Your argument is based on a cheap parlor trick. Nobody contends that part time military personnel in Norway's Home Guard are also citizens. Why would they?

You're just fucking stupid, Corpy.

If you want to celebrate a STRAWMAN victory, have at it. I think the party will consist of you and your idol worshipper, Rioseco, who'd drag his balls through broke. Glass just to get a snoot ful of your dick cheese. .there may be butt sex after you cut the cake.

Hinestly, IBIdiot. You're auite ridiculous. You'd earn your own pants on fire! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You're the stupid jackass that just admitted that you have absolutely no basis in fact for your latest deflection, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

ANOTHER thread turned into a schoolyard pissing match by the Idiot Family.

You guys must be pretty proud of yourselves. Everything you touch turns to shit. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

This is tragic, shocking and altogether outrageous.

The kid was able to pull the gun out of the UNZIPPED safety pocket in the purse and defeat the safety on the weapon. In the Wal-Mart.

Shit happens, right?
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

In fact, it appears you injected "shit" in the thread FIRST!


"Don't want no shit, don't bring shit up!"

You never cease to amaze, LLIdiot.

You're a walking (probably with assistance) parlor trick gone bad.

So what is your solution to this conundrum? Arm Wal-Mart employees? Outlaw two year olds? Increase dipshit screening? If it's the latter, then you and your entire Klan, err, Clan would be banned from the Wal-Mart.

Except of course the ones in the sketchiest part of town where you'd get your ass beat for being white... Oops. Wrong dipshit.

never mind.

Again,please define "assault rifle" exactly.
Can an olympic styled target rifle, or a hunting rifle be used in an assualt ?
Or is there only a well specialized rifle of destruction that must be further regulated ?

Fact....., all "True Gun Grabbers" will not rest until they have them all !
Further they need the common man's support. They need the person who is willing to give up just a little more of his freedoms for the greater good. These lobbyist and politicians can do some damage on their own but well intentioned, misguided individuals supporting their campaign only makes their effort easier to pull off. This brand of progressives are further fueled when they can site any level of public support.

The proof of that lies in the fact that federal gun laws have proggressively gotten more restrictive since the passing National Firearms Act of 1934.


National Firearms Act (1934)
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968)
Gun Control Act of 1968 (1968)
Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986)
Undetectable Firearms Act (1988)
Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990) (ruled unconstitutional as originally written; has been upheld repeatedly after minor edits were made by Congress)
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)
Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004) (expired)
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...l_Firearms_Act

You never cease to amaze, .... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You are easily impressed.

Fact....., all "True Gun Grabbers" will not rest until they have them all ! Originally Posted by rioseco

Then they will never be rested. Ain't gonna happen.

Again,please define "assault rifle" exactly.
Can an olympic styled target rifle, or a hunting rifle be used in an assualt ?
Or is there only a well specialized rifle of destruction that must be further regulated ?

Fact....., all "True Gun Grabbers" will not rest until they have them all !
Further they need the common man's support. They need the person who is willing to give up just a little more of his freedoms for the greater good. These lobbyist and politicians can do some damage on their own but well intentioned, misguided individuals supporting their campaign only makes their effort easier to pull off. This brand of progressives are further fueled when they can site any level of public support.

The proof of that lies in the fact that federal gun laws have proggressively gotten more restrictive since the passing National Firearms Act of 1934.


National Firearms Act (1934)
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968)
Gun Control Act of 1968 (1968)
Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986)
Undetectable Firearms Act (1988)
Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990) (ruled unconstitutional as originally written; has been upheld repeatedly after minor edits were made by Congress)
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)
Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004) (expired)
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...l_Firearms_Act Originally Posted by rioseco

For a change, rio chimes in with old, worn out talking points from the NRA, the most insidious of all the special interest lobbies.

Please do some reading on the subject before you clog the board with redundant pap. we've had the "define assault weapon" argument half a dozen times. and it only gets more ridiculous every time ... Like your example of the Olympic target rifle. You're a fucking numbskull, plain and simple.

Oddly, the only time the second amendment to the fucking constitution is under attack is after kids get killed in kindergarten, or a baby blows his "responsible" mom away in the Wal-Mart, or people get slaughtered in a movie theater.

Rio, go back to any of those episodes and try to objectively assess whose rhetoric is "foamier," the gun grabbers or the patriots.

I'd you need any help understanding any of what I've said, check with Wayne LaPierre. he's shoot straight with you!