JOIN THE NRA !!
General Savage
That is, if you are not already a member. It's $35 per year, and you
get a nice monthly magazine.
With almost 4 million members, they have had an enormous positive
effect on 2nd amendment rights.
Add another 10 to 20 million members, and we might be able to thwart
the Obama/Reid/Pelosi fascist agenda.
Oh, and did I say ....
Join the NRA !!
"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"
Tim Miller
> Why do you need to join a cult to exercise your gun rights?
>
> I have a gun
Doubtful.
> but I don't need the NRA as a crutch to justify it.
> I see the NRA is nothing more than a bunch of hooligans who give gun
> owners a bad name.
That's because you're a lying, pig-ignorant post forger.
Fift...@abcnnbcbs.com
<savag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
AND for those of you near a Saxet gun show, there is a booth outside
where you can sign up with the NRA for $25 AND get FREE ADMISSION to
the gun show. The next Austin show is 11/15 and I'll bet the place
will be PACKED!
I may try and sell my FN/FAL in hopes the new Bushmaster makes it out
before the "assault weapons" ban is revived.
kuikahi
Fuck you..you lost..deal with it.
You can suck Bush's cock when he leaves office.
Tim Miller
It's amusing that "sucking cock" is the first thing that
springs into your "mind". You must be related to "piglet".
ROFLMAO!!
kuikahi
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
you can have a 3some with that dude
eagerly waiting for Bush's cock
Tim Miller
There's that "cock" talk again. Are ALL you democrats homos?
<Seinfeld>
Not that there's anything "wrong" with that.
</Seinfeld>
Fift...@abcnnbcbs.com
<datal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Fuck you..you lost..deal with it.
>You can suck Bush's cock when he leaves office.
Nah. We don't "swing" that way. You do know that Obammy opposes
queer marriage, don't you? That leaves you and your butt buddies
outted in the cold.
Tim Miller
>
> Actually I'd be worse off as part of the NRA cult. They serve no
> useful purpose.
Doesn't matter. You're STILL the only one that "swings" that
way, forger.
kuikahi
General Savage is a Bush cocksucker...you lost...deal with it
Tim Miller
> administration.
>
You don't "think". And you'd be wrong.
Again.
The "new administration" is going to have to get ready to deal
with the NRA.
General Savage
You are more proof that liberalism is a very serious mental disorder.
General Savage
You are more proof that liberalism is a very, very serious mental
disorder.
Bob
@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com>, savag...@yahoo.com says...
--
Without the 2nd Amendment, the rest are just suggestions.
geotek
"General Savage" <savag...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:86878cfe-1f2d-48ab...@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
Although I agree with most of your points, has the NRA become like the Labor
Unions? They still exist, but have no actual political clout any more. Is
the NRA the best bang-for-the-buck? I'm not starting an argument, I just
want to know what they did while the country went blue. I like the
concealed carry laws that have taken hold across the SE, anyway, but what
have they done lately? Is it just that we should fear the unknown yet to
happen?
geotek
Morton Davis
"Judge Piglet" <pon...@uscb.edu> wrote in message
news:j174h4po9ucsume27...@4ax.com...
> Why do you need to join a cult to exercise your gun rights?
>
> I see the NRA is nothing more than a bunch of hooligans who give gun
> owners a bad name.
Of course you would, FUCKTARD.
David Moffitt
"kuikahi" <datal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5fc6d56b-4c40-44f5...@c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
What did he lose?
GUN CONTROL: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman
explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
Benj
wrote:
> > you can have a 3some with that dude
> > eagerly waiting for Bush's cock
>
> There's that "cock" talk again. Are ALL you democrats homos?
Dems call that "diversity", but when EVERYBODY is in love with some
man's hairy ass, it doesn't seem that "diverse" to me.
Benj
> Although I agree with most of your points, has the NRA become like the Labor
> Unions? They still exist, but have no actual political clout any more. Is
> the NRA the best bang-for-the-buck? I'm not starting an argument, I just
> want to know what they did while the country went blue. I like the
> concealed carry laws that have taken hold across the SE, anyway, but what
> have they done lately? Is it just that we should fear the unknown yet to
> happen?
Same old anti-gun scam. You just think every gun owner should sit on
their ass because the people out there doing the work aren't doing
enough to please you. And yes, you ARE starting an argument! Hey, we
were there back when just a few of us were on the NRA's case because
they were still in the old "boy and his dog, Hunting Lodge" idea of
gun politics and we were telling them that if they didn't get
political and like RIGHT NOW, no NRA members would have any guns to
shoot! It took a while but they DID come around. Say what you will,
but they are the biggest lobby there is. Bigger than than even AARP!
They have connections all over Congress and the state legislatures as
well. They don't always do what they should, but hey it's an
organization made up of PEOPLE and they all have different ideas.
Personally I don't get guys like "Geotek" here who seem to think that
kicking in $25 and getting into a gun show free (C&E gun shows all
over the Midwest have the same offer) is some kind of horrible pain
that can't be born unless the NRA is meeting his (extreme) standards!
We are talking about a couple of pizzas here! We are talking about a
few beers. If you are too poor to afford an NRA membership each year
then you are too poor to own ANY gun let alone the ammo for it.
IF you are a gun owner and too bullheaded to simply join the NRA as
the base pro-gun organization, then I'll contact the Obama
administration for you and they'll provide you with a dumpster for
your guns as well as the "security force" to pry them from your cold
dead hands.
So, Mr. "Geotek" please tell us just how much your life is worth to
you. I pity da foo that thinks $35 is too much money for his freedom.
You spit on the graves of all those who gave a LOT more than $35! But
don't get me wrong. There is NOTHING wrong with being more pro-gun
than the NRA! NOTHING AT ALL! And there are LOTS of ways to join in
that fight. AFTER you've cover the baseline lobby with your NRA
membership, then add on Gun owners of America or JPFO! They ought to
be plenty hardcore enough for anyone. Where is it written that gun
owners are only allowed to join ONE gun owner organization.
Hey, is your life so worthless, that setting aside $100 a year to keep
the pressure on those who would repeal all your rights is money that
would be better spent on beer and pizza? If so then clearly YOU are
the problem.
I'm sorry but (supposed) gun owners this (politically) stupid always
sets me off! And I'm not just talking to "Geotek" here, I'm speaking
directly to ALL of you who own guns and value the continued right to
do so, but have not bothered to add your name to the NRA membership
rolls. The more names on the list, the easier it is to stop any future
congressional freight train. If you aren't willing to kick in your
share, then the gun lobby job you end up with will prove to be worth
exactly what you paid for it.
slate_leeper
<savag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And to do so, just click on the link below....
--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887
Bill Smith
wrote:
>On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 13:55:37 -0800 (PST), General Savage
><savag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Join the NRA !!
>>
>>That is, if you are not already a member. It's $35 per year, and you
>>get a nice monthly magazine.
>>
>>With almost 4 million members, they have had an enormous positive
>>effect on 2nd amendment rights.
>>
>>Add another 10 to 20 million members, and we might be able to thwart
>>the Obama/Reid/Pelosi fascist agenda.
>>
>>Oh, and did I say ....
>>Join the NRA !!
>>
>>
>Yea ya did. What's the purpose? What's the fixation with the NRA?
>Why do you need to join a cult to exercise your gun rights?
>
>I have a gun but I don't need the NRA as a crutch to justify it.
>I see the NRA is nothing more than a bunch of hooligans who give gun
>owners a bad name.
Bill Clinton is personally responsible for the tripling of membership
and truly vast increases in the NRA's power. I think it will be a drop
in the bucket compared to what Obama will accomplish.
Bill Smith
Bill Smith
>have they done lately?
>
Don't forget they were instrumental in getting a landmark Supreme
Court decision.
Bill Smith
Bert Hyman
<quan...@newsguy.com> wrote:
In fact, the NRA was an obstacle in getting the Heller case to move
forward.
This month's Reason magazine has a long article, "How the Second
Amendment Was Restored." In it they say:
"The Heller case quickly found a powerful opponent in the National Rifle
Association. This surprises nearly every layman I discuss the case with,
most of whom assume the NRA was behind the lawsuit in the first place."
The NRA was more afraid of the effects of losing than they were hopeful
of the effects of winning.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Bill Smith
I remember that, but they eventually got on board. I'm thinking that
they also saw an erosion in their ability to recruit new members with
a favorable decision from the supremes. Obama will provide plenty of
new members I think, but not until he does something about new gun
control legislation, which won't happen for a while.
Bill Smith
Bill Smith
>>
>>Bill Clinton is personally responsible for the tripling of membership
>>and truly vast increases in the NRA's power. I think it will be a drop
>>in the bucket compared to what Obama will accomplish.
>>
>> Bill Smith
>>
>>
>
Ending frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry, overturning the
stupid AWB, getting shall issue CCL laws in place, to name but a few.
Bill Smith
Bill Smith
wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:35:59 -0800, Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>and the benefit to anyone will be..... what?
>
>I don't think the new administration is afraid of the NRA. The NRA
>doesn't run this country.
I don't believe that the new Administration fears the NRA at all, but
it will respect it's power, just like any other powerful lobbying
group, the AARP for example. I agree that the NRA doesn't run the
country, nor does it seek to.
Clinton's AWB didn't benefit anyone at all, not even victims of the
criminal misuse of firearms. He paid a heavy political price something
that didn't benefit him in any way. Maybe Obama will be smarter than
that.
Bill Smith
Bill Smith
wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:31:37 -0800, Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>>>
>Why can't gun owners do that on their own?
Because individuals with a beef are ignored, and organizations with
millions of members with a beef are not.
Bill Smith
Bill Smith
wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 08:58:47 -0800, Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>That's what THEY will tell you.
>
>I don't think a gun lobby should be so instrumental in politics.
>Sounds to be something wrong with that.
So you think we should just lie there and allow misguided idiots to
run roughshod over us? Why in the hell should we do that?
Bill Smith
Faith, n, Belief without evidence, in what is said by one who speaks
without knowledge, of things without parallel.
Ambrose Bierce
HeyBub
>
> I remember that, but they eventually got on board. I'm thinking that
> they also saw an erosion in their ability to recruit new members with
> a favorable decision from the supremes. Obama will provide plenty of
> new members I think, but not until he does something about new gun
> control legislation, which won't happen for a while.
>
New members?
With Obama as president, are you going to put your name and address on a
list of (probable) gun owners?
Bert Hyman
<hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
You're kidding aren't you?
If it comes down that, not having your name on one list isn't going to
help you.
HeyBub
Why take chances? When I signed up, I used the name Chuck Schumer.
The NRA doesn't check.
But others might.
Bert Hyman
<hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Why take chances? When I signed up, I used the name Chuck Schumer.
>
> The NRA doesn't check.
>
So Schumer gets your magazine and your Avis discount?
Do you think he's kept the membership current and gets to vote
for NRA Board members?
HeyBub
> In news:8pudnW9p0--7_Y7U...@earthlink.com "HeyBub"
> <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why take chances? When I signed up, I used the name Chuck Schumer.
>>
>> The NRA doesn't check.
>>
>
> So Schumer gets your magazine and your Avis discount?
>
> Do you think he's kept the membership current and gets to vote
> for NRA Board members?
No, I used my address. Well, actually the address next door (I live in a
duplex) whose mail I also get.
If the authorities come, I'll tell them he used to live here but due to an
unfortunate incident with a neighbor's under-age daughter and a bucket of
Silly-Putty, he left town. I think he's in New York.
General Savage
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:52:49 -0800, Judge Piglet <pont...@uscb.edu> wrote:
> >On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:35:59 -0800, Bill Smith <quand...@newsguy.com>>wrote:
>
> >>On 06 Nov 2008 17:12:11 GMT, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >>>Innews:sc86h45g8rad38mh3...@4ax.comBill Smith
Piglet is more proof that liberalism is a very, very, very serious
mental
disorder.
General Savage
wrote:
> Judge Piglet wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 17:24:55 -0800 (PST), kuikahi
> > <datalin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 5, 1:55 pm, General Savage <savage_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Join the NRA !!
>
> >>> That is, if you are not already a member. It's $35 per year, and you
> >>> get a nice monthly magazine.
>
> >>> With almost 4 million members, they have had an enormous positive
> >>> effect on 2nd amendment rights.
>
> >>> Add another 10 to 20 million members, and we might be able to thwart
> >>> the Obama/Reid/Pelosi fascist agenda.
>
> >>> Oh, and did I say ....
> >>> Join the NRA !!
>
>
> > I think the NRA needs to get ready to 'deal' with the new
> > administration.
>
> You don't "think". And you'd be wrong.
>
> Again.
>
> The "new administration" is going to have to get ready to deal
> with the NRA.
Piglet is more proof that liberalism is a very, very serious mental
disorder.
General Savage
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:37:15 -0800, Judge Piglet <pont...@uscb.edu> wrote:
> >On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:31:37 -0800, Bill Smith <quand...@newsguy.com>>wrote:
>
> >>>>Bill Clinton is personally responsible for the tripling of membership
> >>>>and truly vast increases in the NRA's power. I think it will be a drop
> >>>>in the bucket compared to what Obama will accomplish.
>
> >>>> Bill Smith
>
> >>>power?? power for what?
>
> >>Ending frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry, overturning the
> >>stupid AWB, getting shall issue CCL laws in place, to name but a few.
> >> Bill Smith
>
> >Why can't gun owners do that on their own?
>
> Because individuals with a beef are ignored, and organizations with
> millions of members with a beef are not.
Piglet is more proof that liberalism is a very, -very- serious mental
disorder.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>I have a gun but I don't need the NRA as a crutch to justify it.
>I see the NRA is nothing more than a bunch of hooligans who give gun
>owners a bad name.
If you had a gun, you wouldn't need the NRA to give you a bad name.
You do a pretty good job of that by yourself.
_____
"'bout fuckin' time they put that lowlife "N" away."
- racist Pig rejoicing over the O.J. verdict 10-3-08
"Since you brought it up, OJ IS a nigger and I'm not
the least bit sorry to say it. "
- racist Pig finally admitting his hatred of blacks
"D.C. v. Heller is a single law that will not stand the test of time."
-pig, trying to figure out the difference between a
law and a court decision
"Fucking kike. "
-racist pig, after having found another
group of people to hate.
"... sounds like a fag name."
-hate criminal "Pig"
"You look at it you stupid spic."
- hate criminal "Pig"
"Since when does a mic have the right to make suggestions?"
- hate criminal "Pig"
Bill Smith
wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:30:26 -0800, Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:36:28 -0800, Judge Piglet <pon...@uscb.edu>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 08:58:47 -0800, Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I like the concealed carry laws that have taken hold across the SE, anyway, but what
>>>>>have they done lately?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Don't forget they were instrumental in getting a landmark Supreme
>>>>Court decision.
>>>>
>>>> Bill Smith
>>>
>>>
>>>That's what THEY will tell you.
>>>
>>>I don't think a gun lobby should be so instrumental in politics.
>>>Sounds to be something wrong with that.
>>
>>
>>So you think we should just lie there and allow misguided idiots to
>>run roughshod over us? Why in the hell should we do that?
>>
>> Bill Smith
>
>Who's running roughshod? I have my gun and no one has bothered me
>about it.
>
>I think the NRA gives off a negative image about gun owners. 2A gives
>you a right to own a gun and no one has tried to take it away from you
>so I just don't see why you need this cult to fight some imaginary
>battle. I know gun owners in Fla who will have nothing to do with the
>NRA because they give off negative vibes.
They won't have anything to do with the NRA, but they damn well accept
the benefits of it's existence. I used to be one of those guys until I
found that the phrase "reasonable gun control" meant something else
entirely.
Bill Smith
Bill Smith
wrote:
That bird has flown. At 63 I'll not live to see a time where a list of
probable gun owners is compiled for the purposes of confiscation, but
it wouldn't be hard to do even without registration. It's not going to
happen in the Obama Administration anyway, there's to much opposition
and he has much bigger problems on his plate to deal with.
Bill Smith
Bill Smith
>>
>>That bird has flown. At 63 I'll not live to see a time where a list of
>>probable gun owners is compiled for the purposes of confiscation, but
>>it wouldn't be hard to do even without registration. It's not going to
>>happen in the Obama Administration anyway, there's to much opposition
>>and he has much bigger problems on his plate to deal with.
>>
>> Bill Smith
>
>
>nothing that would indicate that anyone wants to do anything except
>cut down on gun crime and gun confiscation was not an option
>presented. Gun CONTROL is, but it's not the same thing as
>confiscation nor do I think it leads to it. The government has too
>much going on to be scurrying about trying to collect guns. Maybe
>I've missed something but I just don't see it.
One of the things people do is believe in something so strongly that
they keep doing unworkable things over and over expecting different
results. The solution to the excesses of alcohol consumption was the
Volstead Act. All it accomplished was to turn organized crime into a
really big well financed business. The same thing has happened with
the illicit drug business. It seems we need to learn that lesson over
again. Why?
We'll just outlaw "assault weapons". Well, maybe we should outlaw
handguns. Okay, what about sniper weapons? You know what a sniper
weapon is, don't you? The slippery slope is real.
Gun control in the UK led directly to the confiscation of all
privately owned handguns. It took a while, but it happened. There are
people in high places who favor just such a thing here. We just
elected one them to be our President. I know what he is saying, but
look at his voting record.
Bill Smith
Omelet
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
Or was that Florida?
--
Peace! Om
"Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive." -- Dalai Lama
Tim Miller
Piglet is proof that cousins shouldn't breed.
Benj
> So Schumer gets your magazine and your Avis discount?
>
> Do you think he's kept the membership current and gets to vote
> for NRA Board members?
The only problem is he keep writing in "Diane Feinstein" for the board
each election!
RD (The Sandman)
news:0ma6h45114ma7cq1e...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 08:55:17 -0800, Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:21:51 -0800, Judge Piglet <pon...@uscb.edu>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 13:55:37 -0800 (PST), General Savage
>>><savag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Join the NRA !!
>>>>
>>>>That is, if you are not already a member. It's $35 per year, and
>>>>you get a nice monthly magazine.
>>>>
>>>>With almost 4 million members, they have had an enormous positive
>>>>effect on 2nd amendment rights.
>>>>
>>>>Add another 10 to 20 million members, and we might be able to thwart
>>>>the Obama/Reid/Pelosi fascist agenda.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, and did I say ....
>>>>Join the NRA !!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Yea ya did. What's the purpose? What's the fixation with the NRA?
>>>Why do you need to join a cult to exercise your gun rights?
>>>
>>>I have a gun but I don't need the NRA as a crutch to justify it.
>>>I see the NRA is nothing more than a bunch of hooligans who give gun
>>>owners a bad name.
>>
>>Bill Clinton is personally responsible for the tripling of membership
>>and truly vast increases in the NRA's power. I think it will be a drop
>>in the bucket compared to what Obama will accomplish.
>>
>> Bill Smith
>>
>>
>
> power?? power for what?
>
> Still don't see what a cult membership does to benefit you.
The NRA makes a whole lot of congresscritters listen that wouldn't to
just Scout and myself.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Be who you are and say what you feel...Because those that
matter...don't mind...And those that mind...don't matter."
RD (The Sandman)
> Why can't gun owners do that on their own?
In union there is strength.
RD (The Sandman)
news:Q9GdnZ2c3pin147U...@earthlink.com:
The government already has a damn good idea that I am a gun owner.
Scout
"Judge Piglet" <pon...@uscb.edu> wrote in message
news:cae6h453pfgsg8bta...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:31:37 -0800, Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Bill Clinton is personally responsible for the tripling of membership
>>>>and truly vast increases in the NRA's power. I think it will be a drop
>>>>in the bucket compared to what Obama will accomplish.
>>>>
>>>> Bill Smith
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>power?? power for what?
>>
>>Ending frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry, overturning the
>>stupid AWB, getting shall issue CCL laws in place, to name but a few.
>> Bill Smith
>>
>>
>
>
> Why can't gun owners do that on their own?
We do, and use the NRA to help coordinate our activities and to help
represent our interests.
You know, sort of how the individual American uses government rather than
simply doing everything themselves.
Big mental leap for you, but I have no doubt of your inability to make it.
Scout
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:30:26 -0800, Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:36:28 -0800, Judge Piglet <pon...@uscb.edu>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 08:58:47 -0800, Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I like the concealed carry laws that have taken hold across the SE,
>>>>> anyway, but what
>>>>>have they done lately?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Don't forget they were instrumental in getting a landmark Supreme
>>>>Court decision.
>>>>
>>>> Bill Smith
>>>
>>>
>>>That's what THEY will tell you.
>>>
>>>I don't think a gun lobby should be so instrumental in politics.
>>>Sounds to be something wrong with that.
>>
>>
>>So you think we should just lie there and allow misguided idiots to
>>run roughshod over us? Why in the hell should we do that?
>>
>> Bill Smith
>
> about it.
Don't worry, I'm sure that if they ever pass the junk gun ban, you will have
no problems disposing of that cheap, weak, Saturday Night Special. After
all, why would you need a junk gun?
Scout
"Bill Smith" <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:7j17h45ru7nb1033b...@4ax.com...
You simply have to remember that "reasonable" is a subjective standard
rather than an objective standard, and thus means nothing definitive.
Scout
That's kind of funny coming from someone living in California......
Scout
Bullshit. You told us the specific make and model.....or have the drugs
rotted your memory so much that you can't remember what you said just a
couple of weeks ago?
> It's a .45 and hardly junk.
Not according to those that wish to ban it for being a junk gun.
> This thing wasn't cheap.
Then why was is made of cheap plastic?
After all, that's what those seeking to ban those junk guns tell us.
Maybe you should pay more attention to what's going on in the CA
legislature?
Scout
> owners here and they don't feel oppressed.
When you grow up in a cage, you don't even notice the bars......
> Some of them think the gun
> laws here are a little silly, but they still have their guns and no
> one has come looking to pick them up.
really? Including those guns that were banned outright?
Odd, if the owners still have them, then that would make them criminals.
Pretty risky given that they were registered with the government that then
banned them.
Scout
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 05:34:05 GMT, "Scout"
> all knowing, but you really are quite ridiculous and since you've
> nothing to offer in the way of sensible conversation, this court
> pronounces you dismissed!
>
> Bailiff, take this clown outside to play with his butt buddy Klause.
> Perhaps we can find useful amusement for him there.
>
> Next case!
> [plonk]
Poor Piglet, just can't handle the truth and the fact that California has
already banned guns, and his is among those that people in California are
seeking to ban as well.
RD (The Sandman)
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:18:33 GMT, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
> I never told you what kind of gun I had.
Yes, you have. You said it was a Ruger 345.
It's a .45 and hardly junk.
> This thing wasn't cheap.
Not the most expensive .45 on the market by any stretch either.
RD (The Sandman)
> I didn't tell Scoot was kind it was.
This is an open forum. It is as private as listening to MSNBC.
>>Yes, you have. You said it was a Ruger 345.
>>
>>It's a .45 and hardly junk.
>>> This thing wasn't cheap.
>>
>>Not the most expensive .45 on the market by any stretch either.
>
>
> I never said it was. Does it have to be expensive to do the job?
> I certainly don't consider it a Saturday Night Special
Nor do I.
Kevin
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:52:30 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> I didn't tell Scoot was kind it was.
>
>>
>>Yes, you have. You said it was a Ruger 345.
>>
>>It's a .45 and hardly junk.
>>> This thing wasn't cheap.
>>
>>Not the most expensive .45 on the market by any stretch either.
>
>
> I never said it was. Does it have to be expensive to do the job?
> I certainly don't consider it a Saturday Night Special
It doesn`t mater what you consider it. It will be what the banners
decide to call it. If they decide its a cheepie its goodby. KB
>
> "Thou shalt not covet thy
> neighbor's ass....."
>
> The Semi-Honorable Judge Pontius
> Pigglesworth, presiding
>
>
>
>
--
THUNDERSNAKE #9
Protect your rights or "Lose" them
The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others
Gray Ghost
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:18:33 GMT, "Scout"
><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
> I never told you what kind of gun I had. It's a .45 and hardly junk.
> This thing wasn't cheap.
>
>
> "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's
> ass....."
>
> The Semi-Honorable Judge Pontius
> Pigglesworth, presiding
>
>
>
>
You said it was A Ruger P345. How would I know that if you didn't say it? When
did you buy it?
--
Always remember:
Bull Connor was a Democrat!
Scout
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:52:30 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
Hey, dipshit, you told the whole world what kind it was when you posted it
to a PUBLIC forum.
Hello?
Anything in that skull of yours?
>>Yes, you have. You said it was a Ruger 345.
>>
>>It's a .45 and hardly junk.
>>> This thing wasn't cheap.
>>
>>Not the most expensive .45 on the market by any stretch either.
>
>
> I never said it was. Does it have to be expensive to do the job?
It does according to those seeking to ban junk guns in California.
> I certainly don't consider it a Saturday Night Special
That's nice, but the California legislatures have different ideas.
Scout
"Kevin" <kevyN...@netins.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B508524D92C3k...@167.142.225.136...
And based on bills already introduced into the CA legislature, it is.
Scout
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 19:05:23 +0000 (UTC), Kevin <kevyN...@netins.net>
Just look into history. Attempts have already been made to declare your gun
a junk gun, and such attacks continue.
RD (The Sandman)
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 19:05:23 +0000 (UTC), Kevin <kevyN...@netins.net>
> we'll see about that.
Hmmmm, what happened to "if they pass a law, you will have to obey it."?
Scout
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B50906EE...@216.196.97.131...
Liberal attitude, laws are only for other people...........
Scout
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 15:11:59 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
we'll see about that.
> What I'm saying is, I don't see that type of law
> making it through.
Heck, I didn't think they would have prohibit semi-auto rifles because of
APPEARANCE, but they did. I didn't think they would prohibit magazines
because they held too many rounds, but they did.
Odd how they still seem to pass stuff that once once considered to be unable
to "make it through", until it did, and then damn, we have to live with it.
> It's kind of like prostitution and drugs. Both
> are illegal but both are very much in evidence and will NEVER go away.
So what you are saying is that even if they ban your gun.....you will still
keep it because it will "NEVER go away"...so much for your obeying the law.
RD (The Sandman)
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 15:11:59 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> I do obey the law. What I'm saying is, I don't see that type of law
> making it through. It's kind of like prostitution and drugs. Both
> are illegal but both are very much in evidence and will NEVER go away.
Then you should talk to some other California folks who registered their
(then) legal firearms and later were told to remove them from the state
or get them confiscated. What is on that list as an illegal firearm is
purely up to the CA AG.
tankfixer
pon...@uscb.edu says...
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:52:30 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>
I see, so you think only the person you reply to can read what you post?
Interesting...
--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>In article <ijkbh4571qjn79q6n...@4ax.com>,
>pon...@uscb.edu says...
>> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:52:30 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Judge Piglet <pon...@uscb.edu> wrote in
>> >news:aeo9h45m9jql3lbfq...@4ax.com:
>> >> I never told you what kind of gun I had.
>>
>> I didn't tell Scoot was kind it was.
>>
>
>I see, so you think only the person you reply to can read what you post?
>Interesting...
Nobody ever accused him of being smart, and I don't see that day
coming any time soon.
_____
"D.C. v. Heller is a single law that will not stand the test of time."
-pig, trying to figure out the difference between a
law and a court decision
Scout
Poor little piggy, getting all upset when his stupidity is pointed out......
Scout
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 10:42:56 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> I've heard of.
Your ignorance isn't our problem.
RD (The Sandman)
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 10:42:56 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> Well, they have handguns and rifles and they've receive no hassle that
> I've heard of.
There is a list of firearms kept by the CA AG. Originally, the state
told the folks that had certain firearms that they had to register them
or they would be illegal. Several months late, many of the firearms on
the "had to register" list moved to the "banned" list. At that point, it
was get them out of the state or lose them.
Our point is that California has already practiced, register your
firearms and later lost them. The fact that most on that list were what
were called "assault weapons" doesn't change the fact that California has
already practiced banning and confiscation. All that is necessary is for
the AG to decide that a Ruger 345 is a banned firearm and you lost your
right to own it.
tankfixer
klausscha...@yahoo.com says...
> In talk.politics.guns tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
> >In article <ijkbh4571qjn79q6n...@4ax.com>,
> >pon...@uscb.edu says...
> >> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:52:30 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> >> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Judge Piglet <pon...@uscb.edu> wrote in
> >> >news:aeo9h45m9jql3lbfq...@4ax.com:
>
> >> >> I never told you what kind of gun I had.
> >>
> >> I didn't tell Scoot was kind it was.
> >>
> >
> >I see, so you think only the person you reply to can read what you post?
> >Interesting...
>
> Nobody ever accused him of being smart, and I don't see that day
> coming any time soon.
So very true.
tankfixer
pon...@uscb.edu says...
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 09:21:41 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.comm>
> wrote:
>
Oh look, I hurt it's feelings.
Stupid wanker.
jf...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:31:37 -0800, Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Bill Clinton is personally responsible for the tripling of membership
>>>>and truly vast increases in the NRA's power. I think it will be a drop
>>>>in the bucket compared to what Obama will accomplish.
>>>>
>>>> Bill Smith
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>power?? power for what?
>>
>>Ending frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry, overturning the
>>stupid AWB, getting shall issue CCL laws in place, to name but a few.
>> Bill Smith
>>
>>
>
>
>Why can't gun owners do that on their own?
>
Strength is in the numbers and concentrated in an organization but
you know that because that is how the gun control organizations
attempt to make themselves seem greater by lying about their
membership. Sort of like the supposed "Million Mom March" bunch that
merged with Brady and they still don't have the numbers.
James F. Mayer
President
J F M Electronic Systems, Inc. Surge Protection for Access Control
E-Mail jf...@ix.netcom.com
Web Page http://home.netcom.com/~jfma/
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
jf...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:53:13 -0600, Fift...@abcnnbcbs.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 16:23:03 -0800 (PST), kuikahi
>><datal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Fuck you..you lost..deal with it.
>>>You can suck Bush's cock when he leaves office.
>>
>>Nah. We don't "swing" that way. You do know that Obammy opposes
>>queer marriage, don't you? That leaves you and your butt buddies
>>outted in the cold.
>
>
>Ultimately, it's not up to him.
>
>Actually I'd be worse off as part of the NRA cult. They serve no
>useful purpose.
>
Really? Then why are so many congress critters afraid of them?
Why are they now more powerful than the AARP. Is it because they have
the numbers of members to back up their mouth? You just wish they
served no useful purpose. You just want to deny that they have the
power that they do.
Why did Clinton blame them for the loss of the congress to the
republicans in 1996?
"The fights I fought... cost a lot --the fight for the
assault-weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress."
--President Bill Clinton, Cleveland Plain-Dealer, January 14, 1995
jf...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:41:00 -0500, jf...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:56:50 -0800, Judge Piglet <pon...@uscb.edu>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:53:13 -0600, Fift...@abcnnbcbs.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 16:23:03 -0800 (PST), kuikahi
>>>><datal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Fuck you..you lost..deal with it.
>>>>>You can suck Bush's cock when he leaves office.
>>>>
>>>>Nah. We don't "swing" that way. You do know that Obammy opposes
>>>>queer marriage, don't you? That leaves you and your butt buddies
>>>>outted in the cold.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ultimately, it's not up to him.
>>>
>>>Actually I'd be worse off as part of the NRA cult. They serve no
>>>useful purpose.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Really? Then why are so many congress critters afraid of them?
>
>They're not. Why should they be 'afraid'? Who is the NRA that people
>should fear them. They were not set up as the governing body that
>runs this country.
>
>>Why are they now more powerful than the AARP. Is it because they have
>>the numbers of members to back up their mouth? You just wish they
>>served no useful purpose. You just want to deny that they have the
>>power that they do.
>
>Yea I do. They've lost some of their punch and the current
>administration doesn't seem terribly shaken by them.
>>
>> Why did Clinton blame them for the loss of the congress to the
>>republicans in 1996?
>
>
>>
>> "The fights I fought... cost a lot --the fight for the
>>assault-weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress."
>>--President Bill Clinton, Cleveland Plain-Dealer, January 14, 1995
>
>Shouldn't bow to an entity who is not put in charge. The nation
>shouldn't run at the whim of the NRA. There are far greater
>priorities at the moment anyway.
>
>Sorry, I'm just not in awe of the NRA.
>
>
Then don't be but they wield more power that you are willing to
give them credit for.
Danct
>
> In fact, the NRA was an obstacle in getting the Heller case to move
> forward.
>
> This month's Reason magazine has a long article, "How the Second
> Amendment Was Restored." In it they say:
>
> "The Heller case quickly found a powerful opponent in the National Rifle
> Association. This surprises nearly every layman I discuss the case with,
> most of whom assume the NRA was behind the lawsuit in the first place."
>
> The NRA was more afraid of the effects of losing than they were hopeful
> of the effects of winning.
I really must give the NRA credit here. As previously stated here we
all know they are are a powerful political lobby, but few realize how
shrewd and clever they are. Like when they managed to get a top level
spy in the Brady Center, or when they (as stated above) were against
the Heller case because they knew that if it won, it might take away
their favorite and most effective argument; the fear that the
Government will come into their members homes and take away their
guns. They knew eventually that they had to come on board with the
Heller case because to do otherwise would be hard to explain to both
their friends & foes.
The really amazing thing to me, and I must say it both impresses AND
confounds me, is how it seems their members STILL fear a gun
confiscation. The Supreme Court's Heller ruling was historic and
decisive for gun owners everywhere. For the first time in the history
of our Country the Supreme Court chose to clearly rule on the Second
Amendment and nobody's happy?