facts: ob an the republican majorities in the house and senate have another year and a half in office.

perhaps it is time to cut a deal re gun control? how bout a trade?

like repeal of the draconian 1990's era federal gun control legislation and replace it with a federal law mandating gun control at the state level? the only federal mandate would be universal back ground checks at the state level only for all center fire semi auto hand gun tranfers? other gun control would be left to the states to determine, based on their particular needs.

ob might go for it? if not, then the legislation would be sitting on the desk of the new incoming pres in january of 2017.

There is gun control at state levels....

Ed to be nice you are the definition of a frigging Yankee idiot

Here is a convenient collection of Ed Good's anti-gun posts. He, along with King Brown, are among the most prolific anti 2nd Amendment trolls we have on this forum.

ANTI-GUN POSTS by ED GOOD

No universal background checks!! I'll take my chances that a private seller is NOT going to sell their handgun to a convicted felon and as far as I know ALL handgun sales even private sales have to go through an FFL, then to allow the Federal Government run by a future Democrat to get their hands on and fiddle with the universal background checks law.

Its bad enough walking into a gunshop now a days and running into a clerk who says he's a NRA member but acts like a Obama/Hillary supporter.

I recently changed from the gun shop I'd been shopping at and using for transfers on internet purchases due to just the attitude you describe. Over time it will cost them a fair amount of money...Geo

I can't speak for your State but here in Arizona private handgun sales DO NOT have to go thru an FFL as long as both parties are residents.
Universal background checks are the last step before total registration and we all know where that will lead.
Jim

so nobody else here, but me, wants to trade the 1990's era clintonian gun laws, for common sense state based universal back ground checks of all center fire semi auto hand gun transfers?

seems like a pretty good deal to me...

We could try common sense state based back ground checks for posting on the internet. The internet could be electronically monitored, your idea would need check points at state lines for pat downs and vehicle searches.

Of course, illegals already know how to work that pesky border issue, so we have to clarify that your new gun control restriction will only apply to law abiding citizens. Hey there's a thread floating around about a bunch of 223 cases scattered around a crime scene, don't forget those.

Well I'll state again. I trust a private party to make the determination before I would trust the Federal Government controlled by a bunch of Democrats.

If they get universal background checks a proposal at first glance that may seem reasonable to some, then look down the road. The Democrats will amend that law over and over again using it as a weapon against the Republicans adding all sorts of crimes to the list until Mother Theresa herself wouldn't qualify to own a gun.

No thank you.

it is apparent that some here have little knowledge of federal gun laws, nor guns in general...

it confirms my suspicion that some here are in fact anti gun moles in drag...

i am most weary of those who list themselves as nra affliates...

you know, like those unknowns who claim "nra life member" or something like that in their posts here...

and then there are the reading comprehension issues evidenced by many of the posts here...

As I said before the only cure for America is for every responsible adult to be armed. No new or existing gun control laws will help because criminals do not pay attention to laws. Frankly I'm surprised the states are still united after all what do citizens in New Jersey have in common with those in Wyoming?

Oh Oh, I know the difference! Most folks in New Jersey voted twice for the anti-gunner Obama... just like you Jagermeister.

Most folks in Wyoming did not vote twice for Obama as you did.

Any laws should come from the states.

New Hampshire would be a great place to start.

Anyone proven senile shouldn't be able to own a gun.

Anyone determined to be mentally unstable shouldn't be able to own a gun.

Sorry Ed......you and all the gays in New Hampshire are chit out of luck.

joe: nh is a wonderful example of a state exercising gun control at the level it requires to protect its citizens.

some other states in the north east, exercise far more gun control than does nh...hopefully, those laws also protect their citizens.

Well, I begrudgingly see your point Ed. I'll have to admit that Hillary already has a big head start over any Republican candidate. She already has California, New York, New Jersey and most of the other eastern states' electoral votes in her pocket combine that with the fact that women and blacks make up a majority of this country, its her election to lose.

And if she wins big, Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader McConnell will be left out in the cold with their stance on guns. I don't know we'll have to wait for 2016. That will be a big 'Y' in the road for this country.

Ed's point, repeal and replace. Quick question, does the repeal part come first, or do we add fed mandated gun control first. When 'negotiations' start across the aisle, will there be enough rino's, scratch that 'any', that'll beat down the repeal part in the name of a bipart. agreement/pork projects.

Second of ed's points among others, as shown by keith, he's against high capacity magazines. Ed's semi auto hand gun 'major' point is only a small stepping stone.

Ed has consistently trolled for stricter nation wide gun control based on his feelings that news topping incidences will be prevented. He's showing patience and is willing to play games by taking an increment. Sad part, if he could outlaw sensational headlines, he'd probably feel better.

EVERY Time gun owners have given in to the anti's with assurance that if they conceded this point it would be the last demand made it's come back to haunt us.
We now have an announced presidential candidate Scott Walker with an A+ rating from the NRA along with some very desirable other attributes. If you are a true gun owner you should be getting behind his campaign efforts and doing your part to get him into the White House.
As far as I'm concerned he's the first candidate I've really been enthusiastic about since Ronald Reagan.
Jim

What we also have is two folks that visit here, doublefan and Steve, who say no way. Both for trivial reasons that they won't read up on, but both upland bird hunters and gun folks. Weird huh?

That's what they claim.

jOe claims to be a turkey hunter. But he wants more gun control, just like his hero Obama. Makes you wonder if jOe even owns a gun.

Boy yer one sick bass'turde....

jOe claims to be a turkey hunter. But he wants more gun control, just like his hero Obama. Makes you wonder if jOe even owns a gun.

Hmmm, I do not think my reasons for finding Walker unappealing are trivial. I do not want see a strong social conservative in the WH. I'm not a supporter of the culture war and my social views lean much more libertarian than conservative. I am not overly concerned about what my fellow citizen does in the privacy of his or her home. I really do not think Rand Paul has much of a shot but he is much more what I want in a President. After nearly 16 straight years of discord surrounding the WH I'm ready for someone who can reach across the isle and make our government function in the fashion it was designed to. I know comprise is highly out of fashion currently but I do think it is sorely needed.

Yours is the most reasonable post I've read on the issue.

I'll have to bookmark this post King. On the first Tuesday of November next year, you will be bad-mouthing Rand Paul or any other Republican, and you will be supporting the Anti-Gun Socialist Democrat. I'm pretty sure Caitlyn SKB meant to say compromise instead of comprise, and aisle instead of isle. The only compromise you believe in is gun owners giving ground to anti-gunners.

If a Gay Black Anti-Gun Democrat happens to run against Hillary, you will once again be in heaven, and hope that he offers Hillary the VP slot.

Speaking of deal making and compromise, that was some fancy footwork by Kerry and your Magic Negro in giving away the farm in the Nuke deal with Iran. We give up all sanctions and restrictions on intercontinental ballistic missiles that can hit the U.S., and they still get to pursue Nukes with much more money coming in. Brilliant! Another massive foreign policy blunder that we all saw coming, and will cost the world dearly. This will go down in history as worse than the concessions Democrat Jimmy Carter made that allowed North Korea to get the A-Bomb.

Back to my scenario, or more important things like a cup of coffee. Both hill and Gov. Walker have track records that can be read up on. If they end up on the ballot, you say you're NOT voting.

hill has been campaigning by blocking access, reinforcing race, gender and class warfare, and she's in near perfect agreement with the current left wing partisan. I'm curious, where have you read about Walker's intrusions into the homes of Wisconsiners.

Back to the reading list, still demonizing Bush, eh. Not far enough left wing spending by him, maybe it's his quiet decorum, but I'm a bit curious, where have you read that he intruded on your libertarian values. Ah forget it, go get another coffee.

Steve,

The entire concept of "reaching across the isle" is merely a term used to describe accommodation and acquiescence to the sociopathic statists of the Democrat party. It is never used in the reverse context. The whole intent of the Democrat party is to change and prevent the government from functioning in the fashion it was designed to. That's the whole point of "fundamental transformation", to Totalitarian Statism. One party, totalitarian rule.

Craig,
the coffee was a good call. I needed that fourth cup this morning.

I know many of you guys are far right wing. I am not, I am a moderate, especially on social issues. To say the last two administrations were both full of contention is not an attack of Bush but a realistic view of recent history. I want something different. I want a congress that can pass legislation, that is not shutting down our government due to squabbles. I would happily vote for a center right Republican. I'm not interested in another divisive leader nor am I interested in further pursuing failed policy such as the war on drugs. Neither Walker or HRC is the kind of person I want in in the WH. I'm a bit tired of voting for the least worst candidate.

Quote:
"The entire concept of "reaching across the isle" is merely a term used to describe accommodation and acquiescence to the sociopathic statists of the Democrat party. It is never used in the reverse context. The whole intent of the Democrat party is to change and prevent the government from functioning in the fashion it was designed to. That's the whole point of "fundamental transformation", to Totalitarian Statism. One party, totalitarian rule."

Spot on and the treatment the family of the murdered girl Kate Steinle has receive from the Kenyans administration shows it doesn't go both ways when it comes to racist socialists reaching out. If anyone doubts this go look at the video of the San Francisco supervisors shot by Watters and shown on Fox news. Reaching across the aisle is Libtard B.S for giving in to them.
Jim

You guys are doing a very good job of laying out exactly the attitude I do not want in a leader and will not vote for.

Hey, as long as you don't vote for a Democrat.....

the obamma govt didn't fail because of republicans not reaching across the aisle harry reid held up any meaning full legislation so one party co opted the govt and the will of the people through our elected leaders. the democrats do not care about working across the aisle.

The only reason I 'asked' was because I was hoping for substance, policy, track records, maybe even facts as best that they can be sorted out. I respect that all it comes down to, for you, is feelings about wants.

I commend you for coming up with one policy, but I'd doubt you arrive at your conclusion, failure, without significant squabbles. I did though suspect that your demonizing of President Bush was due to your feelings about pet peeves, minutia.

Just because 'we don't always get what we want', we vote sometimes 'to get what we need'.

Interesting twist Craig, as usual. I have plenty of issues with the far reaches of both parties. Sorry your so offended by that. I did not demonize GWB. Sort of a catch 22 for me there was it not? Damned if If I do, Damned if I don't? I could list a ton of peeves with the both parties. Here is one small peeve, I have others. I hate the fact that the far right is continually trying to sell off the Federal lands I value so much. Remember how badly rural schools needed to be funded? A bunch of crap to further an agenda.

Wants? Needs? One thing I do not need is more of the same old BS from either party. I want a leader who is not divisive and can get things done. Crazy and a Libtard idea I know.

So you think drugs should be legal and drug dealers released from prison ?

most exchanges with you soon devolve into childish name calling, but just this once and against my better judgement I will answer you.

No I do not think legalizing all drugs is something we should do. I do think that we should treat the majority of drug use and possession as a health issue such as many European countries do. The USA has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. We spend Billions on locking people up in this country each year. Something has to change and a review of drug policy and mandatory minimum sentences would be a good start. A review of privatized prisons seems like another thing worth looking in to. Crime has been dropping for years yet up until recently the incarceration rate had been growing enormously.

my pet peeve is the democrats closing of land that i used to hunt or making it so restrictive that it is almost impossible to hunt.or like obamma and clinton putting state land off limits by federal decree.i was in trinidad colorado fourth of july week end i was shocked at all the pot shops my, favorite bar the monte cristo was even a pot shop.crime rate dropped cause the criminals are in jail.what do we do with criminals, what is the % of drug crimes,

According to the BOP, nearly half are in for drug offenses

http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp

Drug dealers are dealers of death.

Thus treat them as such....execute them and the drug problem and prison over crowding will be no more.

steve is it selling drugs, making drugs, stealing money to buy drugs.or possession of drugs.possession of how much illegal substance.are drug dealers included in the stats.

I do not know the details. I would assume possession and distribution. Other offenses are listed separately. The way I read it almost 49% are in for some kind of drug related crime.

There’s a lot to think about in that statement.

Ever know anyone's life that was effected by a drug dealer ?

I stand by my post...either you prove me wrong or ignore it.

The Clinton Assault weapons ban expired Sept. 13, 2004 and no updated version has passed Congress.
No one here except you Eddie Boy, wants to trade an expired law for a new one because no one is as out of touch with reality and stupid as you. DUH.

No argument from me...Geo

I have, several in fact and none for the better. I have lost several people in my life to drug abuse and regret each and every one of them. I'm just not so sure our approach is the best one. It seems some other places have had better results for less money treating substance abuse as a health issue VS a criminal issue. Chris Christie and the Koch brothers have been saying the same thing. I'm not for turning them all free or for legalizing everything but our get tough on crime approach has been a failure. It could be time to rethink things is my view.

Jailing the 'low hanging fruit' since the '80s has been a huge failure. Users are the victims of the drug trade yet that's who we have filled our prisons with. That El Chappy guy who just escaped from the Mex jail would be a good drone target...Geo

Prior to the enactment of drug laws in the last century we had drug users and to some extent from what I have learned drug abusers as well. However, and again from what I have read we, didn't have anything like the widespread problems we have today.
You at one time could go into your neighborhood drug store and buy opium for example as it was unregulated and cheap.
I wish I did but and I don't have a solution here but I remain convinced that the "War on Drugs" which has been ongoing for around 40 years is a failure. The only ones benefitting from this "war" are the drug cartels which get bigger, richer and more dangerous with each passing year.
Short of invading South America and rounding up and executing all the drug cartels(this will never happen) I think we're tried just about everything and drug use is still extensive. If anyone has another alternative or unique solution I for one would like to hear it.
Jim

One of the recent steps taken in your state is to allow the legal use of marijuana. But, that implies that there is also an illegal use. The penalty for a crime, make a doctors appointment?

You did say the offenses are not all equivalent, and not all should be released from prison. Does it make sense to encourage the use of something then turn around and say, you have a medical problem, get help.

Some eighty percent of ocare enrollees are subsidized as it is, one way of paying the bills is to sell off unproductive fed land that's only used by a few hunters. No, I'm not playing games, just pointing out that medical costs are a sixth of our entire economy, and creating new patients and making them wards of the medical community does seem like a thought through solution.

Maybe, since body art is so popular, a big tattoo on the forehead is a thought to purchase at pot shops or to get medical coverage for addiction. That way folks that enjoy getting high can identify like minded people easily, and the medical folks know that the einsteins with the tats get penciled in at the back of the waiting list.

To me what does not make sense is continuing to follow a failed policy. We spent more money on this issue than any other developed country and yet have the least amount of success. To me, it might be time to admit that the current strategy does not work and look to see how others have dealt with the issue better than we have. I have seen estimates of between 60 and 70 billion a year spent on the prison system. Last year the federal BOP had a budget of over 8 billion and yet we are not winning the drug war.

Well some may not approve of Colorado's legalization, our economy is doing very well, we have a red hot real estate market and our schools are very well funded currently. I think our voters most likely made the right call on this issue. Our local law enforcement is very happy with the new law. They are now able to focus limited resources on more serious crime. Time will tell but the sky has not fallen yet here. This may all be a brief moment in time anyway due to the pending case before SCOTUS and the outcome of next years Presidential race.

i read an article that said projected income has fallen short in colorado.being a cash business(mostly)probably has something to do with it.i dont care what adults do but when it affects children in a big way it is a problem just like alcohol or the abuse of anything it will get to be a problem ,i don't have an answer.i wonder what the cost is for habitual criminal on the economy,and society as a whole,

I can't honestly see 'failed' policy, tweekable, sure. No doubt in my mind, there's no will to make the policy succeed. Take for instance the recent discussion here. A huge crippling fine against a baker, and a revolving door at the border and prison for a 'nonviolent' druggie who graduated to murder. Is that a 'successful' policy, as to what happened to the baker? Depends on who you ask. The left says, too bad about the murder, but revolving doors are good.

We are a whole bunch bigger than most developed countries, and no, visiting prisons is not at all like wondering why the place filled with straight laced executives who got caught with a joint at a party. Which country should we pattern after? 60 to 70 bil. a year, by any stretch of the imagination, that's a drop in the bucket, a true bargain the way these folks print, borrow and squander money. 'They' print around that amount each month and at times quite a bit more.

Why not two parts. First treat it like speeding tickets, the worst the offense the higher the fine, and push it too far and you get arrested. You can't say there's more important police work to do, speed traps are a basic business model of most forces.

Second, add a big surcharge on their medical insurance, so that their 'risk' group covers their expenses. 'Rehab' is high maintenance and expense, I don't think it's the equivalent of a poor single mom taking her crippled kid in for necessary surgery. It's not a big deal, but you really didn't seem to warm up to the thought of teaching a guy how to run a mill in your shop, when you saw him light up just before he knocked on the door for his first lesson.

Caitlyn SKB is whining about the failed war on drugs, but he won't say a word about his leader Obama removing virtually all defenses along our Southern Border. Gee, I wonder how those drug cartels are getting much those drugs in here? Of the 20-some million illegals in this country, how many do you suppose were mules?

Mark,
this years tax revenue has already surpassed all of last year and set records.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/colorado-pot-tax-schools-hits-171816590.html

Craig,
I see us having the highest incarceration rate in the world as a failure. We lock people up at a rate of 4 times as often as Europe. Something is not right in that equation. I find it interesting your are able to dismiss 60 Billion in annual expenses so very easily, not something I would expect from a fiscal conservative.

If I am going to be held liable then I do not want anyone running machinery in my shop under the influence of any substance legal or otherwise. One of the biggest drug related problems in this country is the abuse of prescription medication. I mention earlier loosing people close to me due to substance abuse. My close friend did not get hooked on the street corner but at his doctors office while trying to manage chronic pain. This is not an easy problem to fix nor do I think I have all the answers but I can objectively say current policy is a failure.

Where's the incentive to change anything when building and filling jails is becoming a largely privately-owned industry paid for by taxpayers?

It is worth remembering voters did all the legalizing directly via referendums. I very much doubt there is state where a legalization referendum will not get 51% of the vote. It will be difficult for the GOP to win a Presidential election without carrying Colorado...

Prediction: Madam President and more ammo shortages. You can thank the social conservatives for it.

steve i dont care what adults do i just worry about the unintended consequence .we have laws people break them and have to suffer because of there actions. a low level drug addict illegal deported several time is a murderer now how many times will this repeat itself.im sure if the people that abuse prescription drugs would abuse what ever is easy to get.ryanf,i think you are incorrect and i hope the novelty wears off not every state is transplanted Californians.and some will reject the legalization of pot.

I wonder if our closet Libtard RyanF feels the same about all of those states where a majority of voters shot down gay marriage when it was put on the ballot? It even failed in Kalifornia. No rainbow State House until some Liberals on the Court overruled the voters.

Do you think all of those people who voted against queers getting married, when they had the chance to vote on it, were all staunch conservative Republicans?

Hey RyanF, we know you pee standing up, because that's what you tell us from your seated position, but what do you think of the latest scandal from Planned Parenthood?

well i reread the article ,pot sales estimates were much lower than estimated,the increase in tax revenue was from a increase in the general economy, tabor,cfi,are where the info comes from ,its interesting in denver there is a 35% tax on pot.but if you have med. marijauna card. no tax and you get special treatment.is this considered prescription drug abuse? and there will be increased cost from homeless explosion welfare,and the usual suspects.one good thing.pot smokers don't start fights in bars,and i really liked the monte cristo because in was really old had a really cool bar and history.(bullet holes in the bar)

Gay marriage? The gay community got played. They just don’t know it yet. They think they won big but they lost along with the rest of us. The authoritarians are laughing. Gay marriage opened the door to yet more government intrusion into personal lives. Only the state wins. Same as the drug war, only the state wins.

I don’t understand the planned parenthood thing but, I’m not against abortion per se, and I’m not against stem cell research. If the abortion is going to occur anyway, what additional harm comes from using the tissue for research or whatever? You want to have a funeral and put it in a little casket?

I don’t know why social cuckservatives are so passionate about abortion. What do they expect to get for their sanctimonious twattery?

The predictable result: President H!tlery Rotten Cl!tless.

It’s a dog-eat-dog world, and the GOP has chosen to be the biscuits.

Far before the 'laws', gays have been in bed with gov, they work together, they win you loose.

Do all the research you want, but I'm not so sure that the law allows harvesting fetal tissue....for the almighty dollar.

I don’t care what PP does. It’s all a distraction. Nothing is going to change. Every few months another atrocity pops up. A few weeks of righteous indignation from the Right countered by a feminist b!tch-fest from the Left. Nothing ever comes of it because nothing is supposed to. It’s just a proxy war so the left and right don’t fight over anything of significance.

If you want Hillary to supervise the ongoing destruction of America (or what’s left of it by Election Day), then republicans should continue their pro-life vote getting strategy.

If you prefer Latino Jebino supervise the ongoing destruction of America (or what’s left of it by Election Day), then republicans should never-ever-under-any–circumstances-never-ever, say the word abortion.

Not that it matters. The transformation from freedom to crony-fascism will continue either way. The wiping clean of history will move ahead full steam either way. The lawlessness will continue either way. The Aztec invasion will continue either way. More Dusty Nuts and other maladaptive types will be imported either way. The rainbow flag will fly at the White House either way.

Back to ed’s compromise. I concede that semi-auto pistols are dangerous, just like swimming pools, chain saws, and inner city youths.

cept: semi autos seem to be da tool o choice o de murderous wackos!

gun free zone

OK. Let's assume you and all of the other anti-gunners could magically make all semi-autos just disappear. Do you think the murderous types would stop killing? Or would they switch to revolvers? Or pump shotguns? Or rifles?

Then what idiot?

In the right hands just as much damage could have been done with a single shot shotgun.

wackos would continue to murder with what ever weapon that is easily available to them...

but without semi auto handguns, which are so easily obtainable, and easily concealed, they would kill less...

for example if the nut in the church would have been armed with a revolver and not a semi auto, then perhaps the worst he could have done was to kill six people. whereas, in reality, he murdered nine people and wounded three others.

G17/19/26 with spare 33 round and G22/23 with spare 22 round magazines sure have lots of bullets. It would be a nightmare to be in unarmed crowd with someone on a rampage with one of those. If the shooter had to reload more often that would give victims more chance to disarm them assuming they believe in credo when it seems hopeless take the fight to enemy. Assuming they had enough "genitalia" to do it of course.

Ever hear of carrying more than one revolver? You can kill 9 and wound 3 with a couple revolvers.

Ever hear of speed loaders?

Ever hear of 9 shot revolvers such as my old H&R Model 922?

Ever hear of the D.C. Sniper who killed lots of people over the course of several weeks by firing one well aimed shot at a time?

Ever hear of serial killers who kill dozens of victims over time without a gun?

Ever hear of Germanwings Flight 9525 where the co-pilot flew the plane into a mountain and killed all 150 passengers... without a gun?

Ever hear of 9-11 where several thousand people were killed in one day by Muslims who didn't even have a gun?

Have you seen the huge warehouses filled with illegal drugs that Customs confiscates coming across our porous border? That represents about 1% of what actually comes in. If you can smuggle in drugs by the ton, you can do the same with guns. If you ban semi-autos, do you think criminals will turn theirs in? Do you think they will not be able to get them anyway as easily as they get illegal drugs?

Your penchant for gun control will not stop killers idiot. It will only reduce the ability of the law abiding to defend themselves. It will only erode our Constitutional freedoms and lead to calls for even more gun control. Great Britain stopped with a ban on semi-autos and so did Australia, right? No! Wrong.

You are a hopeless anti-gun idiot

keet: your post above is yet another attempt to present yourself as a raving pro gun lunetic, in an effort to support your hidden anti gun agenda...no one is crazy enough to really believe what you post above. and certainly not a responsible nra member, which you falsely claim to represent.

ever hear of:

less fire power in the hands of wackos will result in less victims?

how about this deal:

a simple trade would be to amend the federal firearms law of 1934 to include semi auto center fire hand guns, in exchange for a repeal of the federal firearms law of 1993.

Well ed, the shooter at the Washington Naval Yard killed eleven with a pump shotgun. One of the eleven was a cop armed with a semi-auto pistol, and the cop knew there was an active shooter in the building and had been instructed to maintain his post to stop the killer.

So if anti-gunners like yourself somehow manage to impose your will on the rest of us and eliminate semiautos the death toll may go up because the mass murderers will then switch to pump shotguns.

Then you antigunners will demand the elimination of pump shotguns. And should your group be successful in that the terrorists will switch to double barreled shotguns.

Gough Thomas wrote that a double equipped with ejectors could match the sustained fire power of a pump. Of course that was in reference to pass shooting driven pheasant. If he was right then the mass murderers will switch to doubles and over and unders.

And on and on.

keith presents the positions of the NRA very accurately and effectively.

You? You don't give a damn, one way or the other, about people, semi-autos, or gun control. Just trolling, hoping to start an argument. Suggest you hop back over on the PETA BBS and start a new thread about how much you enjoyed killing baby seals for their fur, back in the day. That will get some shit started for you for sure.

well mikie, the nut who shot up vpi murdered 33 people with concealable semi auto hand guns and lots of mags...

wonder how many less he would have killed if he was armed with a shotgun instead? and how many of his victims would have had the time to run away, when they saw him with a shotgun?

Well ed, the Washington Naval Yard shooter cut down the stock and barrel on his pump shotgun.

You presume your Virginia Tech shooter would have killed fewer with a shotgun. How do you know he wouldn't have killed more with a shotgun? The murder spree lasted two and a half hours.

You know what you get when you cut the stock and barrels short on a Parker DHE? A handgun, illegal, but a handgun never the less.

When your baby seal slaughter thread over on the PETA board winds down I think you should start a thread there supporting competitive pigeon shooting. That ought to get you some drama.

More people die from medical mistakes in this country each year than from all types of guns combined. Same for traffic fatalities due to vehicles. The total for 2010 worldwide due to vehicles was 1.24 million deaths.

A number of years ago in a town not far from me there were two unsolved mass murders. A hammer was used to kill a mother and 5 children in one and a knife was used to kill a mother and four children in the other. There were theories that it could have been the same killer, but we'll probably never know.

Nobody here is interested in giving up any of our Constitutional Rights except for you, King Brown, and Jagermeister. You forgot to answer my question about whether other countries stopped seeking further gun control after banning or severely restricting access to semi-autos. You also neglected to answer my question about criminals being able to smuggle in illegal guns after your proposed ban took them away from honest law abiding citizens. Why don't you just PM your fellow anti-gunners you idiotic troll?

Keith:
I hope you realize you are dealing with a blithering idiot. He doesn't know what he's talking about and cannot draw logical conclusions even when presented with compelling factual information.
This jerk would make a good Chicago politician who believes that passing more stringent "Gun Control" laws is the key to solving their ghetto homicide rate.
I hate to keep saying this but Ron White is right "You can't fix stupid" and this guy sets a whole new standard in that category.
Jim

Yes Jim, it is no secret to anyone that Ed Good is an idiot. He goes out of his way to write and act like an idiot. A troll like Ed who lives in a one bedroom house with two bathrooms is clearly full of shit. I can only hope that his continued anti-2nd amendment attitudes affect him financially in his Internet gun sales and his firearms appraisal business if and when a potential customer Google's him to find out about him.

universal background checks for semi auto handguns at the state level or trading semi auto handgun registration a la federal gun law of 1935 in exchange for repeal of 1993 federal gun law is not giving up constitutional rights. if responsible gun owners do not do something about the misuse of semi auto handguns, we may in deed loose constitutional rights.

full auto firearm ownership is restricted by the gun law of 1934. as such, owners of full auto firearms do not commit mass murder. so logic dictates that same would apply to semi auto handgun owners, if they were required to register with the feds under the firearms law of 1934.

ignoring the fact that we are over gunned in this country is irresponsible and in the end may cost us some more of our right to own firearms.

More guns, especially semi-autos, in this country has led to less murder and less violent crime. The facts back it up 100%.

You will always be a loser and a complete idiot Ed.

"More guns, especially semi-autos, in this country has led to less murder and less violent crime. The facts back it up 100%."

please advise source of these "facts".

The violent crime statistics over time are readily available on the internet, even to an idiot such as yourself. I don't tell lies here to make my point like your pal King Brown. We have posted the statistics here many times before, and also posted links showing how the numbers of guns sold in the U.S. has increased dramatically, especially since your boy Obama got elected.

But it hasn't sunk in to your thick skull, so why should I or anyone else waste any more time repeating it to an assh*le like you?

Here's a current Homicide Trend chart for those too ignorant to look it up themselves:
Additionally for those weak on interpretation: Note that the decline in homicides synchs with onset of the implementation of concealed carry laws in the mid 90s.
Jim

It also coincides with the ending of the crack epidemic which I think had a much greater effect on the chart above. Thank goodness that is in the past.

Thanks Jim. I wasn't about to waste my time proving what should be well known to one of our anti-gun trolls.

And this is even more significant now that we have concealed carry in all 50 states... thanks in large part to the efforts of our NRA. And the anti-gunners wild-eyed predictions of blood in the streets has not happened. The vast majority of the shootings in places with the most restrictive gun laws, like Chicago and Baltimore, are done by lawless people who in most cases are not legally permitted to even own any gun, and who wouldn't bother with a CC permit.

But all of this is lost on idiots and trolls with an anti-gun agenda. I don't want to mention any names like Ed Good or King Brown.

Don't forget sQuealin jOe. He is pro gun control:

I'll be sure to let any cops I speak with know that the crack epidemic is officially over. I'm certain they'll get a good laugh out of that stupid statement.

Reminds me of failed policies, medical advancements, a few bad apples, cooked numbers and feeling good. You can't always get what you want, but if you vote sometimes, you get what you need.

The more you help enable the social engineers, the more you should relook at concealed carry, rather than hoping for goodness.

james: thanks for the graph indicating a declining trend in the homicide rate nationwide since 1994. good news, regardless of the cause.

you make the claim that it is a result of concealed carry laws implemented in the mid 90's. what data do you have to support that claim? sounds like wishful thinking to me...same as if one were to claim that the declining homicide rate nationwide is due to the implementation of federal background checks for most hand gun transfers, also implemented in 1994...

what makes this whole gun control thing so difficult to deal with is that we have so little factual data to support any claim...what we do have is the vast majority of citizens who try to respect the views and rights of their fellow citizens and not just those who agree with a particular agenda...

also, we now have about twenty years of factual data that suggests we are over gunned as a society. and we are experiencing more and more horrific evidence of that situation.

wonder when and where the next mass murder will occur via the misuse of high capacity firearms?

The misogynist in me thinks ed is short for edweena. We're not shopping for shoes here, make up your mind.

It will occur in mexico, the middle east and africa. Not necessarily in that order, but it'll be neck and neck.

We won't hear about those, but if it happens closer to home, it may be reported in Canada, it will be exploited in the US.

ed is just trying to start an argument.he is a lonely turd we should make a drinking game out of his ignorant comments.

Hold on, Craig. Jim says declining homicides because of cc with no evidence to back it. How about those millions of immigrants including Hispanics which the Immigration Office says are more law-abiding than native-born Americans? Suppose?

jes da facts, please...jes gimme da facts...

a la columbo

There is NO WAY to "prove" that the declining homicide rare is the result of concealed carry. However the increase in concealed carry along with skyrocketing gun sales has disproved one statement that the Libtards constantly made during this period. That "there will be blood running in the streets with more people carrying guns". Quite the contrary is obviously the real case and the Libtards are, as usual, completely wrong. Furthermore the fact that the homicide rate began to decline over the period concealed carry became the prevalent law of the land is one hell of a coincidence and if a statistical correlation study was performed using these as factors I estimate a correlation greater then .9 would be the result.
There is another subtle reason that the homicide rate is probably declining that you'll rarely hear voiced very often and I won't do so here. If someone else want to address this issue from other perspectives feel free to do so.
Jim

I found this article from USA Today surprising considering the source is definitely not a gun and bible clinging publication. It presents a rather honest look at where the gun violence is occurring and who is committing it. It also offers some causes for it that are not firearm related and which you are not likely to see presented in other MSM publications. Maybe our message is getting through.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/12/14/sandy-hook-gun-laws-column/4003387/

Edited to add that upon relooking at it, it is three years old. The ears are still deaf although the facts have not changed.

Are you sure Jim said, 'because of', I thought he typed, 'synchs'.

As to the stories from the 'immigration office', I'm glad you mentioned 'more' law-abiding. You do know that each and every one of them has committed a felony entry into the US. I don't know about the 'office', but are you saying that all 'native-born Americans' have at least one felony under their belt?

Be that as it may, why do I get stopped at the Canadian border and asked what my business would be entering your country. Don't you have an office that can tell you border staff that I'd be more law abiding than any of you folks, and I'm giving you the courtesy of letting you know I'm visiting.

Oh, I'm sorry you meant there's less of the ruthless, rapists, murderers and violent drug offenders than the average 'native-born American'. Will you join with me in agreement that those folks are just a bonus for the US.

Quote:
"Are you sure Jim said, 'because of', I thought he typed, 'synchs'."
Yes That's what I said craig but facts don't mean anything to a Libtard like Brown and he has demonstrated time and again.
Any reasonable person can conclude that some thing(s) that happened over the last 20 years resulted in a lower homicide rate and the rise in legal concealed is likely a factor.
However people like Brown would rather attribute this to efforts of the Good Fairy rather then admit that their warped view of the world is out of synch with most reasonable people.
Jim

I would be inclined to support some sort of reasonable compromise between gentlemen, but in order for that to happen both sides must have some sort of common ground and an ability to trust.

The modern DEMOCRAT party has repeatedly demonstrated a willingnes to lie, deceive, and simply act in bad faith in the enforcement of current laws.

No deal can be made with such a party until it changes.

I rarely comment on Ed threads as they usually descend into personal attacks at some point. The whole point of the suggested compromise was to stir things up.

That's about as lame a liberal excuse as I've heard....You thinking crystal-meth makes criminals less violent ?

Wonder why we don't see meth labs on the news almost everyday anymore ? I bet you think it's because people are not using drugs.

It's because crystal-meth is pouring in from Mexico.

old: i have presented two options here for a deal regarding gun control...you indicate your willingness to consider compromise...

what do you have in mind re compromise with the anti gun folks?

and thank you for your usual gentlemanly posts on this forum.

Jim H, the USA Today article is as accurate today as it was then. We may have different notions for the roots of black violence and how to deal with it. I'm discouraged there's been so little progress except for the country's acceptance of a black as president. In the long run, that may be more fruitful than all the do-this-do-that legislation.

I left the USA Today post up after I realized it was not current. The facts are true today, possibly even more devastating for the black population. The great shame is that such editorials are entirely missing in the MSM. Instead, the focus is on flags, guns and white privilege.

The "acceptance" of a black president has had an even more damaging effect on the black population than could be imagined. They are much worse off in almost every respect than before Obama's election, primarily due to the policies of that administration.

Obama was touted as a unifier, when in fact he has been the most divisive president in memory.

This is a false argument. The statistics on immigrant law breaking are yet another example of the politicians and main stream media changing definitions. There is a great difference between illegal immigrants and immigrants. Magically, the illegal qualifier has disappeared just like global warming has become climate change.

The immigration office can track (legal) immigrants and provide crime statistics, which we would hope would be good, as if not the offender faces deportation. They cannot track illegal immigrants since they are by definition undocumented and lawbreakers to begin with.

There are, however, many reports available which detail the tens of thousands of illegals with serious felony convictions including rape and murder which have been released back into the US as well as the disproportiantly large population of illegals currently held in the jails.

You may be accurate in your opinion; time will tell. I don't think there can be unifying by any person or organization, for all the legislation, unless there's a collaborative spirit in the hearts of a majority.

I didn't offer it as an argument, Jim, more as a supposition as legitimate as concealed carry. Crime is falling as well in Canada with onerous restrictions on cc. Canada had much lower gun violence than the US, before and after cc was permitted in very special cases. (I've forgotten whether the Immigration Office stats refer to both legal and illegal immigrants? I thought both when I posted.)

Great catch in the illegal immigrant vs. immigrant crime statistics JCHannum. As craigd noted earlier, every one of the illegals is a criminal just due to their act of illegally entering our country.

As for statistics from King Brown's Immigration Office source, this is the same source that has been telling us that there are 11 million illegals for the last 10 or 15 years. The illegals keep coming, over 40,000 per month into Texas alone, and very few are being deported, but the 11 million number is not revised upwards.

The most important fact to remember is that King Brown is and agenda driven compulsive liar. He will use the most inaccurate and questionable Liberal sources to back up his claims and he will seldom provide any proof when pressed.

Even when shown that he has given us factually incorrect data, King Brown will never acknowledge that he was wrong or that he has lied to us once again.

Funny that King is still clinging to a glimmer of hope for his precious black president Obama. The guy has been an abject failure by almost every measure, but King can't follow the advice of his imaginary friend Martin Luther King, and judge Obama by the content of his character. The only thing King sees is a black guy in the White House, and he's been peeing his pants in excitement for 6 years now. I should have put my 401-K money into "Depends" stock.

It is not an opinion, it is a fact. Race relations are worse today than they have been in recent memory. You can go back to MLK and the 60's if you wish, but since that time untili the last few years, there has been a continuing easing of race relations. Since the Obama election, we have been returned to the riots of the 60' & 70's. The elected black officials have addressed the situation by giving the rioters a place to destroy.

We are having police disrespected and ambushed and black rapist gangs in Detroit.

You offered it as a statement without a qualifier. It was nothing more than another attempt to change the conversation and alter difinitions.

See King? Almost everyone is on to your constant stream of lies and bullshit. The only ones you have fooled anymore are the moron Jagermeister, and the complete idiot Ed Good. You should have quit while you were ahead.

Instead, you offer up proof every day that Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.

Statistics are irrelevant. America is a violet country with lots of guns. The only solution is for every responsible adult to carry a sidearm at all times. Look at last shooting in TN. The gunman was not well-trained even if he had the element of surprise if the victims were armed he could kill one maybe two but not five. Regardless of how many fell the rest of poor Americans could take small measure of comfort in that they did not die defenseless.

and yet another redundant post by an anti gun mole, who presents himself here as an nra benefactor and borish lunetic...

the nra should track you down and have you served with a cease and desist order for soiling their good name with your long time negative and non productive behavior here.

You're probably right he doesn't seem to know much about firearms and never posted a picture of anything he claims to own.

As if on cue, we hear from both of King's mentally challenged cheerleaders, moron Jagermeister and complete idiot Ed. Jagermeister, you should be happy to be classified as a moron since a moron has an I.Q between 25 and 50 and an idiot has an I.Q. lower than 25. Ed is just a hair above a head of cabbage.

Hey anti-gun Ed Good, don't you think it's time to at least use the proper spelling for lunatic? When I call you an idiot and an assh*le, it just wouldn't have the same effect if I spelled it wrong. I think you and your friend King Brown should write to the NRA and ask them to make me stop defending the 2nd Amendment from anti-gunners such as yourselves. I'm sure they will be glad to help.

Jagermeister, I told you I have nothing to prove to some moron who proudly voted for Obama twice, and then is stupid enough to complain about the high cost of ammo.

I just checked, it may still be valid, but this comment is three years old. Mayhem, knocked on the doors of your hallowed institution, parliament. It didn't sneak in, in a cowardly manner. It shouted, 'I'm a com'in' with gunshot ringing out and a trail of death leading up the hill. News showed good citizens cowering behind shrubs and park benches, unable to get clearance to text parliament of the coming danger.

In one fell swoop, the veil of Canada's violent nature was pulled aside, sending her back to the stone ages of public opinion. I commend your efforts to change hearts, but the mind knows better. I guess, how's the fishing?

Ahh, you noticed yet another King Brown lie craigd... unless of course the Great Fisherman King Brown is out there reeling in giant trout, one after another, and occasionally taking a break to rest his weary arms and make a quick post here from his Wi-Fi enabled laptop. Or maybe he had to postpone his fishing trip because of the weather. But I'd be surprised if it was because of that. I'd expect him to be out there from 0-dark thirty to dark thirty, bare chested in sleet and gale force North Atlantic winds, diving into the icy water if necessary to catch gigantic trout too big for his tackle to handle.

I was going to ask in a few days, but you astutely beat me to the punch. Nice catch.

to quote o'reilly:

lune, as in lunny...

Where did you get the purple sunglasses?

I don't know where you get any veil of "Canada's violent nature" being pulled aside, Craig. Canada is a peaceful country compared to the United States, admired for its tolerance and respected for its experiment in multiculturalism. Canadians talk to each other, live together, without the spite and spleen demonstrated daily here between members who despise others who don't agree with them.

The fishing couldn't be better. Within 150 metres from where I'm sitting, from the wild oysters and mussels on our beach to the harbour entrance a couple kilometres north magnetic, there are rainbows, brookies, brown trout, sea bass and Atlantic Salmon for the taking, and right now wild brookies on the fly in nearby freshwater lakes of easy access with my float aircraft.

Come on up to an angler's and hunter's heaven.

The "millions of immigrants that do not commit crime" is parroting of a false liberal narrative that Chuck Todd attempted on Sunday. It turns out that there is some very compelling data available from the GAO that puts lie to it. This Breitbart link details it, and the included link to the GAO data confirms it.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ion-crime-wave/

NBC, as might be expected has no comment when confronted with the truth. King changes the subject to oysters.

No thanks King. I'd rather not fish or hunt with an anti-2nd Amendment liar. I can't imagine why you spend so much time here meddling in our affairs and putting up with withering spite and spleen when you could be blissfully talking and fishing with your Canadian neighbors who would tolerate someone like you.

For the record, I withdraw my comment that republicans should stop talking about abortion. It’s hopeless either way. Now we’ve got male feminists.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html

It’s going to be Hillary. Because vagina. All is lost.

Let's see, one politician, Rick Santorum, turned you into a flaming Liberal who pretends to be a Libertarian. Now one man who is a feminist has you telling us that all is lost and Hillary will win no matter what.

Nope, remember that's old info. I guess you had to be there. I was waiving my arms around like I was conducting some symphony when I typed that out. I was in the zone, so me, being a little guy, must oppose your rich and mighty position with the meager tools of repetition, so that one day, when I grow up, I can converse just like you. Whew, I can't hold my breath that long anymore, can I buy a period.

Sadly, there is a class of cuckold men who will vote for her. That, plus ‘first woman president’ will get her in. Wonder how the debates will go? She’s an unlikeable idiot but…the GOP will be bringing a dog to a catfight.

Actually, The Donald would easily trounce her in the debates and general. The fact that the neocon establishment thinks Jeb is more electable speaks volumes. Did they learn noting from Bubba? Women will flock to vote for this guy. You a neocon establishment guy?

Donald will be dropped from Republican hopeful lineup. He has insulted a man that has not been shot down and spent time at the famous Hanoi Hilton. Conservative mind can not accept that.

John McCain needed being insulted....Most in the USA are ready for change in Washington.

If the Republican party wants to win they better be nice to Donald Trump I don't believe they have another person running that can defeat Hillary Clitt'on.

No, I'm just fairly Conservative, and can't believe how extreme the Liberal Left has gone. And I'm also someone who tends to notice people who pretend to be something they are not. That's why you and King stand out in a crowd to me.

Actually, it appears we already have a woman president, who is also a black, or should I say Mulatto president to boot. You won't find many John McCain fans here. He has caved in to anti-gunners, been very soft on illegal aliens, and virtually handed the presidency to Barack Hussein Obama.

Maybe he's 'in it' because he knows how expensive national tv advertising is. Maybe, he'll drop the rest of the lineup when they no longer have any value to him. He shows what the rest of them are made of whether they take the 'high' road or the low road.

Just because a white rich guy is not afforded the insulation of pc, doesn't mean he can't throw out provocative bomb shells. It works for the current two time election winner.

He wouldn't be my first choice, but there's no doubt in my mind that if he wins the primaries, he would by far be the best competitor. The others should take advantage of the lessons and build on the best of the strategy.

Currently the Republicans think he's great, with the establishment and Tea Party accusing each other of apostasy, like the Sunnis and the Shias, and you know how that turned out. Strategy? Looks more like self-immolation to me. Hasn't USA Today moved him to its entertainment pages?

Obviously King Brown prefers the strategy of Hillary Clinton of carefully scripted interviews and roping off the press to avoid answering any embarrassing and uncomfortable questions that might actually reveal who she is and what she has and has not accomplished.

If a front running Republican did the same thing, King Brown would be very critical, but we all know King will always show 100% support for the anti-gun Socialist Liberal Democrat.

I’m not likely to get a Trump yard sign but, he sure pisses off all the right people. Come to find out, “divisive” is code for forcing one’s opponents and rivals to take sides on issues. Cool. The Donald demonstrated the “serious” GOP candidates are pretty much interchangeable. But we knew that.

Of course he won’t win (it would never be allowed, same for Cruz and Paul) but, I hope he stays healthy and doesn't have an "unexpected” heart attack or car crash before the debates start. I'd love to see him [censored] slap both the moderators and his opponents.

At this stage in America’s decline, the only thing about a politician we should care about is their entertainment value. If we’re going to circle the drain, good entertainment is the least we should ask in return. Trump wins there.

Plus, Michelle Obama is indistinguishable from a drag queen. This would be the perfect counter to the Obama hangover.

There's a reason for that! Obama is "on the down-low, and Michelle is his beard, or cover. Actually, he needs to do a lot more. I mean, who could tell when they see his limp wristed exit from Air Force One or looking like a fairy riding a bike? That probably has a lot to do with Jagermeister's unabashed support for him.

http://hillbuzz.org/is-barack-obama-gay

The Trump story is entertaining. It kind of makes you wonder what might have been if Ross Perot didn't drop out and actually managed to get elected. For a nation of over 300 million people, we sure don't get to choose from the cream of the crop very often. By the time the Primary rolls around to my state, the majority of the field has been dramatically thinned by voters in early Primary states. I don't care much for that.

The real accusations of Apostasy are coming from the Democrat Party. It is the more extreme sub-cult supporting Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren that are accusing the other statist, religious sub-cult of Hilary worship. Both are waging the Soviet-inspired statist Jihad against Individual Freedom and Equality. There are no Cults of Personality active in the Republican Party. Only Conservatives and the incremental statists controlling party leadership.

If you think so, you should take a minute to look up dem candidate o'malley apologizes. He sings all the right songs that you like to share here. His crime, while trying to rally his base at a 'lib conference', saying all lives matter. He was booed off the stage because he was supposed to say 'black' instead of 'all'.

Showing all the spine, conviction and confidence of a warm bowl of jello, the would be commander in chief set out on a backtracking mission. His real crime is probably the irish sounding last name with the appearance to match. Another one for the majorities, eh?

Warren running? I thought she declared out.

luv da donald!

I don’t know if Obama’s part gay but, regardless, if Trump is President, no one will have to humiliate themselves pretending that a First Wookie is a beauty.

Ed, it’s fun to watch for sure. How long has it been since any Republican had the nutsack to speak his mind or challenge the status quo?

The GOP may be screwed. Trump isn’t a republican (or democrat, or libertarian). The guy doesn’t seem to conform to any political ideology. It appears he’s a straight-up individualist. He could be a character in an Ayn Rand novel. He doesn’t seek consensus or approval. He kicks asses.

They say he’s like Obama, a narcissist. I don’t think so because he doesn’t lose frame when personally attacked. That 2-diget IQ dipshit, Rick Perry, made a lame attempt to kick Trump out of the respectable GOP circlejerk club, and it backfired. Mitt, Jeb, and Lindsey have all had a go. They all were forced to withdraw from the skirmish to seek medical attention for prolapsed rectums. Only Lindsey enjoyed it.

You know things have gone sideways when Salon and the Huffington Post come to the defense of poor Rick. I can’t wait until Trump says what everyone thinks, and calls Christy a disgusting fat-ass.

Trump has pushed Overton Window wide open. This will not be allowed. I predict they find a way to keep him out of the debates.

The Donald has managed to make what would have been a tedious non-race of little importance, besides administrating national decline, into something interesting to watch. Imagine a beauty pageant owner vs. the “first woman president”. Won’t happen, but oh what a glorious train wreck it could be.

Thanks for an interesting opinion. It 's sure going to be fun to watch

Who is they, the advertisers who want a smaller market share? If he's 'in' the top whatever number they pick to debate, I would bet more advertisers will jump on board figuring he'll bump up the curiosity.

Trump is an Iconoclast when it comes to typical Republican spineless political decorum, and it's both entertaining and overdue. He represents the traditional American trait of straight talk and forthright honesty. In this political climate of Beta-Males, pathological lying statist sociopaths, and vacillating weasels playing to an imaginary "middle" of the electorate, it's refreshing. What a contrast to the way Hillary Clinton talks.

Yes it is entertaining but what is his motive??? I don't want to see a repeat of 1992 with Perot where everyone thought he was entertaining also.

Bingo treb. He may just be around to stir up interest in a new tv show that he has in the works. I think he has a huge value because he's forcing response. Everyone knows, it's not enough to show up armed with facts, figures and ideas, got to have an advanced degree in sales and actressing. A smart RNC would heavily involve him right up until it's too late to run as an independent, then let the chips fall where they may.

We had a chance last time with a smart business man, who wanted to kick start the country, made solid foreign policy noises and was nice. The economy is still screaming for a good business person, but how many times is decorum going to be tried without success. The time before that, we tried a career politician that only legislatively votes on the right, 43% of the time. How many times does that strategy have to fail before r's stop listening to libs that advise, 'we' should be 'moving' towards the center.

I hope the R's can come up with a presumptive nominee fairly quickly in the process, offer the remaining few wannabes some important sounding positions and force the party act like it's rallying. Ooops, did you mean ed g., crusader for medium rare receivers.

member 2012 run up, when sarah parked her bus an took da train into "the city" an had tea wid da donald? wonder if they are still buds? wonder how a trump/palin ticket would do against ah hillery/duval ticket?

would be fun to watch...

I think that Trump is only in the race to cause trouble within the Republican primary and to split the Republican vote allowing another Clinton in. They, the Clintons and Trump, have struck a back room deal.

+1. Enjoy the comedy while it lasts.

Since the real danger Trump poses for the Republicans is a Third Party Run, let's see if he criticizes Hillary as much as he does Republicans. If he is in fact a Hillary Shill, he won't criticize her, in order to set up the corrupt favoritism he'd receive once she's elected.

I couldn't agree more. That will be the trigger right there if he goes after the Democrats meaning of course Hillary as hard. I could be wrong but I have a gut feeling about this guy.

could be...one neva knows do one?

Instead of attacking the Obama administration and Hillary for the immigration issue he attacks a Governor of a state, Rick Perry. What does a Governor have to do with immigration? But Trump tore into Hillary yesterday so maybe I'm dead wrong about this guy. I sure hope so.

Since I'm not going to vote because I no longer care who wins I'm going to enjoy this comedy. Being independently wealthy Trump has nothing to loose. In his business any news is good news.

I turn on the news just to see what Big Don said today.

I believe just the opposite, the best way to draw off votes with a third party run would be to criticize her in ways that would motivate her base and grab some right wing votes, not policy. Easily something that could be hammered out in a short business meeting about compensation for shilling.

How about that, today's news says he is threatening more and more about a third party run, and he says it will be based on how he's treated by the rnc. Same thing though, he's getting them to react, and it's unclear where he's headed with it.

Imagine what the Donald would have to say about you Jagermeister. He'd probably call you an anti-gun troll who doesn't even own a double gun, and an Obama kiss-ass.

That's what I figured. But he just tore into Hillary yesterday. May be I'm wrong about this guy. I sure hope so.

Trump has also blamed Perot's candidacy for Clinton's 1992 win, and the real-estate developer previously seemed concerned that he could do the same for Hillary Clinton.

"I think every single vote that went to Ross Perot came from Bush," Trump told The Washington Examiner. "Virtually every one of his 19 percentage points came from the Republicans. If Ross Perot didn't run, you have never heard of Bill Clinton."

There it is boys in black and white.

I don’t know the mechanism that silences Trump but this will not be allowed to continue. Trump has no chance but his presence exposes too many uncomfortable facts (which makes me doubt he’s a Hill Shrill).

1. The elites and their mouthpieces are totally fixated on Trumps transgression: Having the balls to publically say what people are thinking in private –we have far more two digit IQ Mexicans than needed.
2. What’s missing is any factual rebuttal of what Trump said. The frenzy is aimed at silencing Trump without answering his objection.
3. What’s also missing is poll numbers. Forbidden topics like a secure border are never polled.
4. Its shows what a sad state of affairs America is in when a presidential candidate is considered evil for wanting to protect his country's border.
5. There really is little difference between the republicans and democrats. As soon as you get a person who freely speaks his mind both parties and the media join forces attack him. How many truth tellers has National Review fired over the years?
6. When the elites and their mouthpieces say something will be good for America, the complete opposite is true. Sooner or later the elites are going to get bitchslapped.

By this point, democracy is mostly ritual. Your next presidentess will be Hillary Clinton.

Speaking of insecure borders, why haven't we heard anything from our Liberals on the White House statement that Kate Steinle's Law will be DOA if approved by the House and Senate?

The law would send convicted felon illegal aliens who have been deported and then come back to the U.S. to Federal prison for 5 years. You have a president who would rather protect illegal alien felons than citizens of his own nation. Yet he wishes to restrict the gun rights of law abiding citizens.

This is what you support and voted for. King Brown hates me for mentioning it.

Did anyone catch that A$$hole Juan Williams on O'Reilly last night arguing against this bill and opposing restrictions on the Planned Parenthood thugs selling body parts. I honestly thought O'Reilly was going to slug him at one point.
Of course O'Reilly screwed up on gun regulations again in stating someone can sell a gun to another online and just ship it to the without any background check etc. I took the time to email him and tell him he was wrong and why but I doubt if I'll ever hear back. I'm still waiting for a retraction on his "Any one can walk into a gun show and buy a machine gun or a bazooka" idiotic statement he made after the Conn. shootings.
Jim

Actually assuming it is a long gun and mailed to an address in the same the state it was sold in, that would be perfectly legal in most states as long as the seller is not an FFL holder.

Here is a copy of the email I sent to O'Reilly last night.
Jim

O’Reilly :
Once again you have demonstrated you are clueless when it comes to CURRENT firearms regulations. The truth is as far as you can get from your “backdoor purchase no background check” assertion you made on your program on July 22.
If someone buys a gun on Auction Arms, Gunbroker etc. the same regulations are in effect as buying a gun in a brick and mortar store or at a gun show.
If it is an interstate transaction it MUST go thru an FFL licensee who is required to have the buyer fill out a Form 4473 and go thru a background check just like a face to face transaction.
It would be in the interest of all concerned if you would correct this misleading information on your program.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

But that's not what O'Reilly said Caitlyn SKB. Interesting that you comment on Jim's reply, yet apparently have no problem with your president's threat to veto legislation that would imprison illegal alien felons who return to this country after being deported.

If George Bush had done anything to protect violent illegal alien felons and endanger American citizens, our Libtards would never shut up about it.

face to face transactions only require a 4473 and background check if the seller is an FFL holder.

Part of quote from Jim's e-mail:

What part of "INTERSTATE TRANSACTION" did you not understand idiot?

Too busy looking far a way to denigrate the Conservative while changing the subject about Obama protecting Illegal Alien Felons, I guess. Some things never change.

Jim, in reference to your message to O'Reilly. You lost him with the 1st line. It does no good to be right when nobody is listening anymore...Geo

I’ll shit a solid gold brick if they do anything meaningful about sanctuary cities. This is a de facto sanctuary country.

Since the R's gave the D’s a big azz whoppin’ in the 2014 midterms, Congress has allowed Obama’s unilateral mass amnesty, the Confederate flag has come down, Iran has been authorized to build nukes, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership has been ratified. And Bruce Jenner is heroic.

Even if they did do something to enforce immigration, it’s too late to make any difference.

Fact is, our system is deliberately structured to prevent anyone who holds the heretical view that the USA should occasionally pursue polices that benefit the regular Americans will not get elected dog catcher. One literally has to be a billionaire, Like Trump, to point out we are getting fucked over and not face personal destruction.

How many of those examples you gave were actually passed by Republicans in Congress Ryan?

Quote:
"face to face transactions only require a 4473 and background check if the seller is an FFL holder."

I was told to look at this so that's what I'm doing. SKB: Your statement is incorrect in varying degrees depending upon the State in which the transaction is taking place. For example: If in my home State of Arizona it would be correct but far from correct in a State like New Jersey.

Quote:
"Jim, in reference to your message to O'Reilly. You lost him with the 1st line. It does no good to be right when nobody is listening anymore...Geo

As O'Reilly has publicly stated he's a simple man who only understands simple concepts so I expect you're right. However; Perhaps he has someone on his staff that can grasp that he is wrong.
In the meantime I've re-labeled his "No Spin Zone" the Idiots B.S. Zone.

Jim

your statement is just as incorrect for the very same reason you said my statement was incorrect, due to varying state laws. I'm sure in your mind you are correct though. Many states do not require background checks at gunshows.

Boehner got 75 House Republicans to vote with the Dem’s to fund Obama’s amnesty.

Jeb says amnesty is an act of love. But, he’s a Bush so what do you expect...

If a Republican majority in both houses of Congress can't stop Obama from issuing illegal immigrants Social Security cards and years of back welfare payments, it’s because they're okay with it! Republican house members even introduced a bill to let illegals to be able to serve in the military. That’s basically endorsing illegals. Expect illegals to be given the right to vote within 5 years.

Boehner and McConnell actively lobbied for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That shit-stain Marco Rubio voted for it (if only Castro had killed his ancestors). You know things are fucked up when the tea party teams up with Dem’s to try stop Boehner and McConnell for aiding Obama. Rand and Cruz didn’t vote for it -to their credit.

The Republicans will bless the Iran deal. The sanctions will lift and Iran have more money to fund terrorism (like our Saudi allies and Bush Family Friends).

$hit-stain didn't endorse it this morning when kerry was lobbying for the deal. Stain said iran and the world should know that there's a high probability that with a new pres, the whole deal could be off the table. Stain also cautioned the entire business world, if iran blows the deal, then all businesses will be in immediate violation of sanctions. Stain also cornered kerry about the US obligation to defend the iranian nuc program from outside attack. Kerry couldn't brush off that stain.

You're a dem, you should embrace this deal. Your man will veto any attempt to expose the disaster that this 'agreement' would be. The true danger is, what if iran honors the deal perfectly.

And you really believe I could have sent a comprehensive response to O'Reilly which I could have generated and O'Reilly would have understood it and issued a retraction ?
Jim

Didn't have to wait long for another terrorist attack. This time at Lafayette, LA movie theater.

Just as I predicted...

So you're telling us that you do not want to answer this question Ryan? Apparently you'd rather spin it to show us that we have some RINO's... as if we didn't already know that. Does it bother you as much to know that your president Obama campaigned as being against gay marriage, and then later supported it? Or do we only demonize all Republicans for being either dishonest or wishy-washy?

And, Joe, you and Ryan put your finger on it: Trump is in your face because Americans are becoming tired of playing the punk's game. Anyone, anything is better than what's on offer; respect for Congress and the Court at dismal lows.

Reason cannot prevail because America, now firmly in the grips of the Age of Acquiesence, gave up resistance to wealth and arbitrary power generations ago. There was a time when the middle class and working men and women had influence on national affairs. Finance has replaced industrial "capitalism."

Ahh yes, it's the old Punks Game rearing its' ugly head once again.

Everyone is a Punk except the anti-gun Liberal Democrat candidate.

What a total fraud you are King Brown. So tell us where Jost Winery got their grapes when you claim they were illicitly using your name and image? Does the new owner Carl Sparkes know you are accusing him of mistreating his employees?

Does it take a Punk to know one King?

Politics are confusing, luckily there are clear guidelines to follow. When the punk's game is loosing traction, reason cannot prevail. Generations of R's have subverted the middle class, while 'also ran' hill can't make up her mind on how to spend her 1.5bil campaign war chest. There was a time when the majorities could relegate the Constitution to the same circular file that progressives do for the bible, just by interpreting a poll.

Not too loud, it's a dirty little secret that the gender movers and shakers are not part of the working community. Ooops, you're not saying they're working women, no doubt in the service of rich white males. Hey, where we gonna progress to next?

No, I don't think Americans are getting tired of the punk's game. Most don't have a clue about getting engaged in political issues beyond their reproductive 'health' issues, and libertarian insistence that others can get high in the privacy of their own home, but 'I' can do it anywhere 'I' want.

Maybe, Trump is in your face because his teleprompter broke. Maybe, there's a message that stirs 'em up. Maybe, he knows how to deliver it. Isn't it possible. There have been past politicians who were a cross between a secular Jesus and stadium stuffing rock star, sigh past. Just kidding they're alive and well.

WTF are you talking about? The GOP controls the House and Senate. Every piece of legislation, every confirmation, every treaty, and everything else that comes out of the 114th congress is “passed” by Republicans. They own it all.

What do they own, the paper it's written on. Your man bo looses his pen when it comes time to break the gridlock, do the peoples work, get the shovels ready, etc., and sign legislation into law. Buuut, his pen works just fine for regulating your morality.

Who else could punish millions of its own citizens for having religious convictions, but unilaterally decide that legal 'immigrants' can omit parts of their pledge to the US for new citizenship based on religious grounds. As you would put it, wtf, eh?

Well, no, Craig, it's not wtf indifference at all. It's called "reasonable accommodation" in multicultural societies.

Your way, millions of liberals who support gun rights and NRA would be called traitors, liars, hypocrites if they voted for Democratic candidates.

No one could be that foolish, eh?

The tiny radical rump that says only conservatives know what's best diminish support for the Second and NRA. You're blessed only a couple are here.

OK Ryan. So why don't you give us the names and House and Senate Bill numbers that resulted in the things you blamed solely on Republicans, and also give us the yea and nay votes by Party.



The jury is still out on the TPP, and whether or not it will help or harm U.S. workers. I'm pretty skeptical considering how much NAFTA and other so-called Free Trade deals have disadvantaged the U.S. worker. The House and Senate did not allow mass amnesty. They did not vote on removing the Confederate flag in South Carolina. They did not even have a hand in negotiating the Iran Nuke deal, and were opposed to it. And they sure as hell did not make Bruce Jenner a hero or bathe the White House in Rainbow lights.

But we already know you are all about blaming everything on Conservatives and giving a pass to Liberal Leftists. I still laugh at your cock and bull story of how Rick Santorum's stance on Gun Control turned you into a flaming Libtard.

Wrong again King Brown. Gun owners who vote for anti-gun Democrats are fools. Especially the dumb asses like Jagermeister who vote for Obama twice, and then wonder why their gun rights are under assault and there are ammo shortages and price increases. They are no help to us. They shoot themselves in the foot over and over and they drag us all down with their foolishness and naive belief that 100% anti-gun politicians like Obama will suddenly start respecting the 2nd Amendment.

There are a relative handful of NRA A+ rated Democrat Senators and Congressmen, and I myself have voted for some. And my own Republican Senator sided with Obama on Gun Control after Newtown as did Jim's Senator John McCain. An intelligent voter educates himself and knows where his man stands on important issues. It is stupid, and even unpatriotic to blindly support politicians who are most likely to infringe upon Constitutional Rights.

But voters who do that are not necessarily compulsive liars like you. You repeatedly make the dishonest claim that guys like me diminish support for the 2nd and the NRA, but it is you who supports and praises Liberal Democrat politicians who work to infringe upon our rights. And it is you who criticizes the very successful strategies of our NRA, and suggests that we roll over and give in to the anti-gunners.

We're blessed to have a filthy liar like you here. It helps folks see just how dishonest people with a dishonest agenda operate. You are not our friend. You have done nothing to support or advance gun rights in Canada. Do you still wish to tell everyone that you support gun rights after they actually see your own anti-gun and anti-NRA words here in this link you filthy Liar?

ANTI-GUN POSTS by KING BROWN

Republicans certainly did allow mass amnesty. These are the 75 House Republicans that partnered with Dems to fund Obama's amnesty.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/03/04/t...se-names-184000

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/03/gop-leaders-allow-obamas-amnesty/

Caitlyn Jenner says he's conservative, like keith. The Republicans will role over and endorse the Iran deal.

This is how Yankee Republicans treat southern Republicans

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/09/politics/house-gop-confederate-flag-embarrassment/

multiculturalism is the death of an independent country immigrants who came to the united states wanted to be american not hyphen Americans.it was the most important thing in there life.

So 75 of 247 Republicans in the House voted with a majority of Democrats to fund the Dept. of Homeland Security? And you blame them all, yet neglect to mention the majority of Democrats and your president Obama? How would you have spun this if all the Republicans had voted to withhold funding and temporarily shut down the Government again? Wasn't that a large part of this? We have had a porous southern border for decades under Republicans and Democrats. The gates are wide open now, sanctuary cities flout Federal law as does your president, and he vows to veto the Kate Steinle law which would jail illegal alien felons who come back here after being deported. But you only blame Republicans.

There were also a few Republicans who voted with Obama's side on gun control after Newtown, including one of my own Senators. Do you think I should become a flaming Liberal supporter like you because of that Ryan, or should I admit that there are RINO's who betray Conservatives, and work to expose them and replace them? King Brown has admired John Boehner for his willingness to cave in to Democrats. He calls it compromise and bipartisanship. It is sad to see, but I don't think we should throw in the towel and become Libtards like you Ryan. Especially cowardly Libtards who pretend to be something else.

We shall see if any Republicans support or endorse the Iran Nuclear deal. So far, most or all are against it. You said Republicans made Caitlyn Bruce Jenner into a hero. We all missed that one and are still waiting for you to show us when that happened. I don't really care what Bruce Jenner calls himself or herself. What matters is how they actually vote and what they actually support. That's the big difference between Bruce/Caitlyn and you Ryan.

Boy you make it complicated, and by the way, wash your mouth out with soap.

My way. Simple, I look towards our gender pushy friends for guidance. Foolish is fleeting, I would change the way I feel and always be right. There is no need to accommodate. If I get Trumped by a lefty, I would call myself a poor hard working 'immigrant', get a show on mtv and praise heaped on me by the pres. How about them apples.

Multiculturalism is not Equality. It is political favoritism designed to buy votes. Entitled, sociopathic "Victim Status" always accompanies it, providing the rationalization for Statist, religious extortion and vote-buying.

Who said reasonable accommodation is equality, Ken? Multicultural societies require reasonable accommodation of the other. One size does not fit all the same way.

"As you would put it, wtf, eh?"

You put those words in my mouth, Craig!

Define "Reasonable Accommodation" and provide an example of it.

why dont you boys go play yo games sum wares else an stop trashin mah tread...

Your whole thread became trash the moment you suggested that we give an inch to anti-gunners assh*le. Law abiding free men don't act so spineless.

Oh, so you're saying that Christian bakers who believe that homosexuality is an abomination should not be penalized for refusing to bake queer wedding cakes and pro-life taxpayers should not have to fund Planned Parenthood?

Or are you really telling us you are a lying hypocritical fraud? We already know that King.

What is going to happen is people like you and those Christian bakers will be "suffocated" by crushing numbers of members in continually evolving society. You're loosing.

Keith:
Is it really necessary to respond to semi literate people on here who think we are "loosing" sic. These idiots will lose out in the end just as Neanderthals, currently re-incarnated as Libtards, lost out to Cro-Magnon men who were smarter.
Jim

You only have a thread because these guys for some F'd up reason post on it.

Three Canadian examples of reasonable accommodation of muslims: no requirement for women to show their faces to males at airport check-in, changed regulations to play soccer wearing head scarves, privacy times at public swimming pools. Not for nothing Canada again voted as having the world's best reputation in global survey by the Reputation Institute; I don't think it has ever been below second.

Are you literally saying that any person can claim they're muslim and conceal their identity at Canadian airports. Or, do Canadians profile a select group of women as muslims, and then decide the amount of reasonable it takes to feel good?

By the way, I know that institute. It's an off shoot of the 'he man women haters club', originally cofounded by a fat white guy. Try as you might, I insist on repeating how violent Canada and her culture is, and unfortunately there're sign it's being exported to the US.

Are you seriously comparing those trivial instances to modification of the U.S. Citizenship Oath?

If you think they're remotely comparable, you now should understand why so few take you seriously.

Really, is that all you can think of?

LIttle Johnny's Canadian Cousin, Little Bruce:

Little Bruce and Jenny are only 10 years old, but they know they are in love.
One day they decide that they want to get married,so Bruce goes to Jenny's father to ask him for her hand.
Bruce bravely walks up to him and says, "Mr. Smith, me and Jenny are in love
and I want to ask you for her hand in marriage."
Thinking that this was just the cutest thing, Mr. Smith replies, "Well Bruce, you are only 10. Where will you two live?"
Without even taking a moment to think about it,Bruce replies, "In Jenny's room. It's bigger than mineand we can both fit there nicely."
Mr. Smith says with a huge grin, "Okay, then how will you live? You're not old enough to get a job. You'll need to support Jenny."
Again, Bruce instantly replies, "Our allowance,Jenny makes five bucks a week
and I make 10 bucks a week. That's about 60 bucks a month, so that should do us just fine."
Mr. Smith is impressed Bruce has put so much thought into this. "Well Bruce, it seems like you have everything figured out. I just have one more question. What will you do if the two of you should have little children of your own?"
Bruce just shrugs his shoulders and says, "Well, we've been lucky so far."
Mr. Smith no longer thinks the little shit is adorable.

Reasonable accommodation in action...Geo

That's a dandy, Geo!

You asked for examples of reasonable accommodation. Stiffing $135,000 for not baking a cake ain't it, Ken. I wasn't comparing them to anything. Where does citizenship oath come into reasonable accommodation?

I got an example for you. bo's out in kenya going on and on about his left wing agenda, you know the predictable stuff that gets US 'journalists' nodding in agreement.

The accommodating kind of person he is, the kenyan president just blurts out what everyone else knows, but are too afraid of pc to say. Gay rights 'is not really an issue on the foremost mind of Kenyans. And that is a fact'. By the way, substitute 'Kenyan' for any other country or culture in the world.

The point is that "Reasonable Accommodations" turn into sociopathic inflictions once "Victim Status" is awarded or attained. It's subjective, and if inflictive, unconstitutional. The Islamists attempting to inflict Sharia Law, with the acquiescence of some Democrat politicians is an example. An unreasonable accommodation.

"Loosing"? Do you mean loosening... or losing? Sorry Jagermeister, everyone is not becoming gay like you. Most wedding cakes will still have a bride and groom on top... not two grooms. What an idiot!

What do you think of your senile friend from Canada telling us that reasonable accommodation means caving in to Muslims but apparently still trashing the beliefs of Christians? I can't wait for the idiot analysis of this.

Ain't it something our President took the queer issue to Kenya....the scum has no shame.

Are you talking about Obama, Jagermeister, or King Brown here?

Lets not leave Amerilla Micheal out...

Your prO-gun control and prO abortion beliefs make yOu Obama's bOy, scUmmy bOy that is.

Because you are very stupid you can only type very stupid stuff. Maybe you should stop typing.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......

Ed, what was the topic of your thread again... I forget. Was it about how stupid you are, or was it about how much you King and Jagermeister support anti-gunners?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

Ed, what was the topic of your thread again... I forget. Was it about how stupid you are, or was it about how much you King and Jagermeister support anti-gunners?