At least one Nugent has some common sense...

[Busboy Jefe]

http://tiny.cc/a9xdxw

El Jefe

[steveh99]

In article <0a6c906a-c718-432e-acb8-58bb07559d70
@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, busbo...@gmail.com says...
>
> http://tiny.cc/a9xdxw
>
> El Jefe

Ted Nugent is a NUT!

[AJ]

On May 20, 8:56 am, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://tiny.cc/a9xdxw
>
> El Jefe

Jeffrey Nugent is the former president and chief executive of Revlon.
Nuff said. When it comes to guns, I'd trust someone from the NRA over
anyone that makes makeup for women.

[FVH]

Says the guy who wore makeup to a concert, while "sharing a moment"
with another man. Fat faggot.

Hi, Killer! Hope you enjoyed reading this post!
FVH
Good ole RMAK. Where the majority swears off "scab KISS" then
wrights a review of the new album the week it comes out. LOL!-
Professor AJ
Yes I know that and I know they gained that power under Obama's
watch.-Professor AJ on China's nukes.
This was passed in 2008 under Obama.- AJ, political guru
Wait and see. Paul is not going to name the new KISS album what Gene
was
going to call his solo boxset.-AJ, KISS "expert"
Laughter is an emotion-Professor AJ Johnson, channeling his feminine
feelings.
You wrongfully misinterpreting another post noted.-AJ, English major
I love how people like you consternate so much time and effort-
Professor AJ Johnson.
10 years ago your posts were better written and your grammar was
better than what they are now.-AJ.
Pssst. Obama has been president for 7 years and you suck at math.-AJ,
2009
LOL! I doubt imergration is reading your posts.-Speeling bea
chaump, AJ.
McCain wins 2008 Election.This is what will be printed on every
newspaper next week. Wait and see.-AJ, proving that he's an idiot.
our new commander and chief.- AJ, talking politics.
Stadiums have no walls!- AJ
*Geeks with key boards aren't intimidating.-AJ
You made a boneheaded 'observation' about Ace, and you're a fool.
That's pretty much it.- Hidell, making a brilliant point about AJ.
Twinkle Toes Stanley hadn't quite picked up that Lick It Up/
Heaven's On Fire half a ballerina dance that he does.- db
How many times can the Greed Twins milk a cow? As many times as the
sheep will let them.-db

[Busboy Jefe]

On May 20, 4:25 pm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> On May 20, 8:56 am, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://tiny.cc/a9xdxw
>
> > El Jefe
>
> Jeffrey Nugent is the former president and chief executive of Revlon.
> Nuff said.

Said a fat ass who "sales" tranny videos.

And I'm guessing that Jeff didn't shit and piss himself for a month
like his brother did...

> When it comes to guns, I'd trust someone from the NRA over
> anyone that makes makeup for women.

If you'd *the very next sentence in the article*, you'd have
discovered that the guy is -- wait for it -- a member of the NRA!

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On May 20, 5:21 pm, FVH <jarjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Says the guy who wore makeup to a concert, while "sharing a moment"
> with another man. Fat faggot.

Maybe Deep Dish can't afford Revlon, hence his anger?

El Jefe

[83LowRider]

Busboy Jefe wrote:

I read that story when I got up this morning.

Some quotes -

"we legally own a large number of guns" -- no surprise
there, they've got lotsa $$$ and they like shooting.

"hunted together for decades" -- MANY people still hunt.

"agree with Ted that our constitutional right to bear arms
should not be undermined." -- good for him. Most gun
owners would say those rights have long ago been
undermined. That's open for debate tho, I suppose.

----------------------------------------------------

So we get down to your 'point' here, where he says -

"and here is where I part ways with my brother - not
everyone is qualified to own a gun, so expanded background
checks should be a legislative priority."

Fair enough, he wants more background checks.
That is also a point we can debate -- but he does NOT say
that he wants smaller clips. He does NOT say that he wants
to see a ban on ARs an AKs. What he's claiming is simple,
that we should do a 'deeper' background check and force
private sellers <gun shows and also individual-to-individual
sales>. Are we agreed up to this point?

A 'deeper' background check -- What does that mean?
You have a legal record that follows you for your entire
life. You also have a medical (including psych) record that
does the same. If these two records are clean, the SINGLE
QUESTION I'd have for you is this ---> what more should
be done?

Gun shows and individual sales -- I don't suppose I'd argue
too hard or too long over a required background check at
gun shows. But the fed gov't should NEVER have a list of
gun owners. IMO. Regarding individual-to-individual sales,
there isn't a damn thing gov't can do to enforce any kind of
compliance. Not one damn thing. What they CAN do I suppose,
is penalize someone AFTER THE FACT... and then a father
giving his son a rifle would make a criminal of them both.

How about this -- in my web-readings this week --

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/03/08/so-called-pastry-bill-would-protect-young-children-who-form-finger-food-in-shape-of-gun/

This is what happens when we get too fucking stupid with our
laws and our desire to legislate every aspect of our citizens.
------------------------------------------------------
Think that's an isolated incident? Here --
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/boy_7_suspended_for_chewing_pastry_into_shape_of_gun_pointing_it_and_saying

This kinda stupid shit has just gotten totally out of control.
No, these aren't isolated... we see this crap over and over now.
And not just with gun legislation either -- we see it in everything
we do, everywhere we go.

Here's something else from the interwebz on my page today -
Sheriffs from 54 of Colorado's 64 counties sue to stop new gun laws.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/18/colorado-sheriffs-sue-ove_0_n_3298609.html

-------------------------------------------

And regarding your figures of fewer people owning guns?
That may be true for a long term trend, but doesn't seem to
hold water for the recent years -- You said that the reason
for increased sales is due to those already owning guns, simply
stockpiling or buying more. Two seperate stories from my
browser history this week says otherwise --

"60 percent of his business has been new customers."
"There are an awful lot of new gun owners out there"

One story on Colorado, one on Utah.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/56321610-90/2012-2013-bci-checks.html.csp

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_23271547/fear-rational-or-not-leads-record-breaking-gun

[FVH]

LOL!!! Killer got busted for not reading the article. Jefe "gotcha",
fat boy.

[FVH]

I wonder if Obama would be upset knowing that Killer is using his
gov't handout to buy makeup to wear at concerts?

[Da Blue Guy]

On May 20, 9:56 am, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://tiny.cc/a9xdxw
>
> El Jefe

How anybody can argue with the position stated here us beyond me.

[Da Blue Guy]

.....aaaaaaand there he is, right on schedule.

[Da Blue Guy]

> http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/03/08/so-called-pastry-bill-would-...

>
> This is what happens when we get too fucking stupid with our
> laws and our desire to legislate every aspect of our citizens.
>  ------------------------------------------------------

> Think that's an isolated incident? Here --http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/boy_7_suspended_for_chewing_pa...

>
> This kinda stupid shit has just gotten totally out of control.
> No, these aren't isolated... we see this crap over and over now.
> And not just with gun legislation either -- we see it in everything
> we do, everywhere we go.
>
> Here's something else from the interwebz on my page today -
> Sheriffs from 54 of Colorado's 64 counties sue to stop new gun laws.
>

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/18/colorado-sheriffs-sue-ove_0_...

>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> And regarding your figures of fewer people owning guns?
> That may be true for a long term trend, but doesn't seem to
> hold water for the recent years -- You said that the reason
> for increased sales is due to those already owning guns, simply
> stockpiling or buying more. Two seperate stories from my
> browser history this week says otherwise --
>
> "60 percent of his business has been new customers."
> "There are an awful lot of new gun owners out there"
>
> One story on Colorado, one on Utah.
>

> http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/56321610-90/2012-2013-bci-check...
>
> http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_23271547/fear-rational-or-not-leads...

I disagree with you.....but respect that you took the time to find and
cite legitimate sources to back up your views.

[83LowRider]

Thanks. I'm not sure where you disagree <or if it's on
everything> but I'd like to know. I will presume you'd
like to see smaller magazines and a ban on AK type weapons.
I believe you'd said as much in the past.

So what else? Should gov't have a list of all people owning
a gun? What does that list 'give' them towards stopping ANY
of these tragic events? Should a family member have to go
thru legalities to pass on a firearm? Why do you think such a
huge majority of those CO sheriffs are against new laws,
especially with CO being one of the hardest hit states?

[Da Blue Guy]

I don't have any problem with the government knowing who owns a gun.
The government knows who owns a frigging CAR, which very few people
seem to object to, and a gun is a lot more dangerous. I also believe
family members SHOULD have to go thru legalities to transfer a
firearm, just the same as anytime 2 parties should have to. The
Newtown tragedy was caused by a family member transferring firearms to
another family member. I have acquaintances who, but for luck, might
well have been victims of that incident, so my support of gun rights
is no longer what it used to be. Your right to give a gun to your kid
ends when my kid gets shot to death by your kid. I still have no
problem with *responsible* gun ownership.....but don't see a conflict
between that concept and these regulations.

I coud care less what some Colorado sheriffs have to say. The police
in Newtown would likely disagree with them.

[AJ]

On May 20, 5:37 pm, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:
> Fair enough, he wants more background checks.
> That is also a point we can debate -- but he does NOT say
> that he wants smaller clips. He does NOT say that he wants
> to see a ban on ARs an AKs. What he's claiming is simple,
> that we should do a 'deeper' background check and force
> private sellers <gun shows and also individual-to-individual
> sales>. Are we agreed up to this point?

This is what the left can't understand. They can do all the
background checks they want, but don't ban guns, limit the amount of
ammo we can buy, limit the size of magazines we already own, or
confiscate. As we've already seen this past year, you give them an
inch they take a mile. Giving this administration any lead way on
guns will only open the floodgates to them taking more of our gun
freedoms away.

[AJ]

You said it best. It's beyond you. Again, we've seen them go from
talking about stricter background checks, to limits on ammo, to
bannings, to talks about confiscation, and now they are talking about
making gun owners pay outrageous prices for a new insurance scam they
will dream up or or face a $10,000 fine. How anyone can argue with
the position that there's more than just background checks going on
here is beyond me.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/democrats-push-bill-in-congress-to-require-gun-insurance/

[steveh99]

In article <3b22038a-9557-4dd7-93d0-5ac7937c3ac0
@dk8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com says...

You really are an idiot without a clue

[AJ]

On May 20, 5:34 pm, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe Deep Dish can't afford Revlon, hence his anger?
>
> El Jefe

Hey, I used to wear lots of makeup like this:
http://images.military.com/media/news/equipment/camouflage-face-paint-600x400.jpg

[FVH]

The left doesn't want to take guns away, you idiot. The majority of
Americans--you know "we the people"--are in favor of more in depth
background checks. Psst, the Dems love guns just as much as the Repubs
do. If you bothered paying attention to the world around you, you'd
know that your boy Obama is mostly silent on gun control for a reason.

[FVH]

I love how you think you're smarter than everyone else, yet you sit on
your ever expanding fat ass, sitting behind a register all day yapping
at a computer screen.

On May 21, 10:40 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> You said it best.  It's beyond you.  Again, we've seen them go from
> talking about stricter background checks, to limits on ammo, to
> bannings, to talks about confiscation, and now they are talking about
> making gun owners pay outrageous prices for a new insurance scam they
> will dream up or  or face a $10,000 fine.  How anyone can argue with
> the position that there's more than just background checks going on
> here is beyond me.
>

> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/democrats-push-bill-in-con...

[FVH]

I LOVE it when Killer posts pics of someone pointing a gun at the
camera. We all know that's as far as he'll ever get to fulfilling his
warped fantasy of killing us.

On May 21, 10:51 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> Hey, I used to wear lots of makeup like this:

>  http://images.military.com/media/news/equipment/camouflage-face-paint...

[steveh99]

In article <adbfc6f7-aa3a-4079-82f2-f8caad7d79c8
@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, jarj...@gmail.com says...

> On May 21, 10:29ï¿œam, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> > This is what the left can't understand. ï¿œThey can do all the

> > background checks they want, but don't ban guns, limit the amount of
> > ammo we can buy, limit the size of magazines we already own, or

> > confiscate. ï¿œAs we've already seen this past year, you give them an
> > inch they take a mile. ï¿œGiving this administration any lead way on

> > guns will only open the floodgates to them taking more of our gun
> > freedoms away.

he knows all this. It's just one more thing to ruffle his feathers over
and stick his bird chest out in defiance

[steveh99]

In article <74f46969-e5fe-4899-bd7d-ec2da88a1824
@g7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com says...

That coming from a guy that thinks its okay for congress to waste
millions of tax payers money on the attempted repealing of Obama Care
which has no chance of being repealed in the next several years LOL

[Da Blue Guy]

> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/democrats-push-bill-in-con...

Well if Fox News says it, it MUST be true. *eye roll*

[AJ]

On May 21, 1:47 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> In article <74f46969-e5fe-4899-bd7d-ec2da88a1824

> @g7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, misfitskiss...@aol.com says...

>
>
>
> > On May 20, 5:34 pm, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Maybe Deep Dish can't afford Revlon, hence his anger?
>
> > > El Jefe
>
> > Hey, I used to wear lots of makeup like this:

> >  http://images.military.com/media/news/equipment/camouflage-face-paint...

>
> That coming from a guy that thinks its okay for congress to waste
> millions of tax payers money on the attempted repealing of Obama Care
> which has no chance of being repealed in the next several years LOL

Wait and see.

[AJ]

On May 21, 1:34 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> he knows all this. It's just one more thing to ruffle his feathers over
> and stick his bird chest out in defiance

Psssst, Obama is threatening to take executive orders because he
wasn't pleased his gun control bill wasn't passed. You should
really take the time to educate yourself about the man you worship,
and past and current events. Or just simply, you're wrong again.

[steveh99]

In article <883297d0-eb05-45bd-95a2-4025297a2986
@e9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com says...

>
> On May 21, 1:47ï¿œpm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > In article <74f46969-e5fe-4899-bd7d-ec2da88a1824
> > @g7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, misfitskiss...@aol.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 20, 5:34 pm, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Maybe Deep Dish can't afford Revlon, hence his anger?
> >
> > > > El Jefe
> >
> > > Hey, I used to wear lots of makeup like this:

> > > ï¿œhttp://images.military.com/media/news/equipment/camouflage-face-paint...

> >
> > That coming from a guy that thinks its okay for congress to waste
> > millions of tax payers money on the attempted repealing of Obama Care
> > which has no chance of being repealed in the next several years LOL
>
> Wait and see.

LOLOL Like I said you think it's okay that the house republicans waste
millions and millions of tax payer dollars trying to repeal a law that
doesnt stand a chance of being repealed

[steveh99]

In article <dffdbb57-c700-4ace-ae81-3bef598decd9
@g7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com says...

For corns sakes boy go download some new material

[83LowRider]

Da Blue Guy wrote:

> I don't have any problem with the government knowing who owns a gun.
> The government knows who owns a frigging CAR, which very few people
> seem to object to, and a gun is a lot more dangerous.

Thanks for the reply.

A car is indeed a registered 'item' but there are
thousands of car wrecks a day that lead to fatalities,
injuries and lawsuits unmatched by gun incidents.
There are 254 million cars in the US, about 300
million guns... and unlike guns, a car is taken out
almost daily and must interact flawlessly with
thousands of other drivers. But I get your train
of thought regardless.

> I also believe
> family members SHOULD have to go thru legalities to transfer a
> firearm, just the same as anytime 2 parties should have to. The
> Newtown tragedy was caused by a family member transferring firearms to
> another family member.

Didn't the Newtown kid kill his own mother and take
her guns? I don't think this applies in the manner you're
trying to use it.

> I have acquaintances who, but for luck, might
> well have been victims of that incident, so my support of gun rights
> is no longer what it used to be. Your right to give a gun to your kid
> ends when my kid gets shot to death by your kid. I still have no
> problem with *responsible* gun ownership.....but don't see a conflict
> between that concept and these regulations.

Things do tend to have more of an affect when it hits
closer to home in that way. I've still gotta say tho, a
kid determined to kill will find a way to get a gun. His
mother (Newtown) legally owned her weapons and was
a 'good' gun owner. The cops/gov't having her on a list
made no difference.

> I coud care less what some Colorado sheriffs have to say. The police
> in Newtown would likely disagree with them.

It's very likely many would as some certainly had friends
or loved ones involved. Cops also are more aware than
anyone at what is involved in enforcement of these new
laws and what the new laws will/won't accomplish.

[AJ]

Prove me or FOX news wrong. You can't. Roll your eyes all you want,
but one day you'll realize there are many truths and news outlets that
aren't controlled by the left. Or one day you'll wake up and realize
shooting the messenger is pretty idiotic. Do you really deny that
Dems are currently pushing for what I posted above?

On a side note to anyone else reading this: Have you noticed a common
trend with left wingers when you're debating them how little they know
about current events and common knowledge?

[steveh99]

In article <dffdbb57-c700-4ace-ae81-3bef598decd9
@g7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com says...
>

Exexutive orders? You mean the ones that Bush declared when he decided
to go against the will of the american people? The UN/ The rest of the
world when he invaded Iraq?
Isnt that ironic or what?

[AJ]

On May 21, 2:01 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> In article <883297d0-eb05-45bd-95a2-4025297a2986
> @e9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, misfitskiss...@aol.com says...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 1:47 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > > In article <74f46969-e5fe-4899-bd7d-ec2da88a1824
> > > @g7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, misfitskiss...@aol.com says...
>
> > > > On May 20, 5:34 pm, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Maybe Deep Dish can't afford Revlon, hence his anger?
>
> > > > > El Jefe
>
> > > > Hey, I used to wear lots of makeup like this:

> > > >http://images.military.com/media/news/equipment/camouflage-face-paint...
>
> > > That coming from a guy that thinks its okay for congress to waste
> > > millions of tax payers money on the attempted repealing of Obama Care
> > > which has no chance of being repealed in the next several years LOL
>
> > Wait and see.
>
> LOLOL Like I said you think it's okay that the house republicans waste
> millions and millions of tax payer dollars trying to repeal a law that
> doesnt stand a chance of being repealed

We'll see and this post will come back to haunt you.

[AJ]

On May 21, 2:11 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> In article <dffdbb57-c700-4ace-ae81-3bef598decd9

> @g7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, misfitskiss...@aol.com says...

>
>
>
> > On May 21, 1:34 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > > he knows all this. It's just one more thing to ruffle his feathers over
> > > and stick his bird chest out in defiance
>
> > Psssst, Obama is threatening to take executive orders because he
> > wasn't pleased his gun control bill wasn't passed.    You should
> > really take the time to educate yourself about the man you worship,
> > and past and current events.   Or just simply, you're wrong again.
>
> Exexutive orders? You mean the ones that Bush declared when he decided
> to go against the will of the american people? The UN/ The rest of the
> world when he invaded Iraq?
> Isnt that ironic or what?

No. You probably thought what you wrote was intelligent or would
apply here didn't you? LOL! Again, talk about current events and
a true liberal will expose himself and start blaming Bush. Really
Steve, you make this too easy.

[AJ]

On May 21, 2:03 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> In article <dffdbb57-c700-4ace-ae81-3bef598decd9

> @g7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, misfitskiss...@aol.com says...

>
>
>
> > On May 21, 1:34 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > > he knows all this. It's just one more thing to ruffle his feathers over
> > > and stick his bird chest out in defiance
>
> > Psssst, Obama is threatening to take executive orders because he
> > wasn't pleased his gun control bill wasn't passed.    You should
> > really take the time to educate yourself about the man you worship,
> > and past and current events.   Or just simply, you're wrong again.
>
> For corns sakes boy go download some new material

Thanks for proving once again you're not man enough to admit you're
wrong.....or that you have no fucking clue about the world around
you......or being able to admit your side has failed you.

[steveh99]

In article <397260b4-00bd-4b70-a2e1-
33966a...@m2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com
says...

LOL much like your "EVERY U.S. NEWSPAPER FRONT PAGE HEADLINE READS:
*JOHN McCAIN* BEATS OBAMA IN A CATASTROPHIC LANDSLIDE" :D?

[steveh99]

In article <1893de78-41ae-422c-8820-
442b35...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com
says...

>
> On May 21, 2:11ï¿œpm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > In article <dffdbb57-c700-4ace-ae81-3bef598decd9
> > @g7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, misfitskiss...@aol.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 21, 1:34ï¿œpm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > > > he knows all this. It's just one more thing to ruffle his feathers over
> > > > and stick his bird chest out in defiance
> >
> > > Psssst, Obama is threatening to take executive orders because he

> > > wasn't pleased his gun control bill wasn't passed. ￜ ￜYou should

> > > really take the time to educate yourself about the man you worship,

> > > and past and current events. ￜ Or just simply, you're wrong again.

> >
> > Exexutive orders? You mean the ones that Bush declared when he decided
> > to go against the will of the american people? The UN/ The rest of the
> > world when he invaded Iraq?
> > Isnt that ironic or what?
>
> No. You probably thought what you wrote was intelligent or would
> apply here didn't you? LOL! Again, talk about current events and
> a true liberal will expose himself and start blaming Bush. Really
> Steve, you make this too easy.

It more than applies!

[AJ]

On May 21, 2:21 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> In article <397260b4-00bd-4b70-a2e1-
> 33966a4f2...@m2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, misfitskiss...@aol.com

I was man enough to admit I was wrong then. Unlike you.

[AJ]

On May 21, 2:22 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> In article <1893de78-41ae-422c-8820-
> 442b35577...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, misfitskiss...@aol.com

> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 2:11 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > > In article <dffdbb57-c700-4ace-ae81-3bef598decd9
> > > @g7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, misfitskiss...@aol.com says...
>

> > > > On May 21, 1:34 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > > > > he knows all this. It's just one more thing to ruffle his feathers over
> > > > > and stick his bird chest out in defiance
>
> > > > Psssst, Obama is threatening to take executive orders because he

> > > > wasn't pleased his gun control bill wasn't passed. You should

> > > > really take the time to educate yourself about the man you worship,

> > > > and past and current events. Or just simply, you're wrong again.

>
> > > Exexutive orders? You mean the ones that Bush declared when he decided
> > > to go against the will of the american people? The UN/ The rest of the
> > > world when he invaded Iraq?
> > > Isnt that ironic or what?
>
> > No.  You probably thought what you wrote was intelligent or would
> > apply here didn't you?     LOL!  Again, talk about current events and
> > a true liberal will expose himself and start blaming Bush.  Really
> > Steve, you make this too easy.
>
> It more than applies!

Bush has nothing to do with gun laws trying to be passed in 2013.

[steveh99]

In article <de9b73d7-cd75-4410-a66e-
b776a6...@a6g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com
says...

LOL Im not wrong though.. Thats the difference! I wasnt wrong when I
said Obama was going to whoop Romney's ass. Obama has done nothing wrong
as far as Benghazi is concerned anymore than he had anything to do with
the IRS BS

[AJ]

On May 21, 2:53 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> In article <de9b73d7-cd75-4410-a66e-
> b776a62db...@a6g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, misfitskiss...@aol.com

Neither Romney or Benghazi has anything to do with the possible
overturn of Obamacare. AND the Benghazi investigation is still going
on. AND just today a CIA informant told the media that the White
House ordered a stand down and not to help those dying in Benghazi.
AND you're a fool if you think our President didn't know for seven
hours we were being attacked. AND you and other liberals are too dumb
too admit that we are just seeing how low Obama's staff are willing to
go to protect his incompetent ass.

[steveh99]

In article <23df9930-5170-4419-bdab-1ed4a92ffa79
@v3g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com says...

> > > I was man enough to admit I was wrong then. ï¿œUnlike you.

> >
> > LOL Im not wrong though.. Thats the difference! I wasnt wrong when I
> > said Obama was going to whoop Romney's ass. Obama has done nothing wrong
> > as far as Benghazi is concerned anymore than he had anything to do with
> > the IRS BS
>
> Neither Romney or Benghazi has anything to do with the possible
> overturn of Obamacare. AND the Benghazi investigation is still going
> on. AND just today a CIA informant told the media that the White
> House ordered a stand down and not to help those dying in Benghazi.
> AND you're a fool if you think our President didn't know for seven
> hours we were being attacked. AND you and other liberals are too dumb
> too admit that we are just seeing how low Obama's staff are willing to
> go to protect his incompetent ass.

LOL thats bs and you know it
More Faux bs and you believe it
I wanna see you start bashing Hillary when she becomes your next CIC!

[AJ]

On May 21, 3:10 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> In article <23df9930-5170-4419-bdab-1ed4a92ffa79
> @v3g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, misfitskiss...@aol.com says...

> > > > I was man enough to admit I was wrong then. Unlike you.

>
> > > LOL Im not wrong though.. Thats the difference! I wasnt wrong when I
> > > said Obama was going to whoop Romney's ass. Obama has done nothing wrong
> > > as far as Benghazi is concerned anymore than he had anything to do with
> > > the IRS BS
>
> > Neither Romney or Benghazi has anything to do with the possible
> > overturn of Obamacare.   AND the Benghazi investigation is still going
> > on.  AND just today a CIA informant told the media that the White
> > House ordered a stand down and not to help those dying in Benghazi.
> > AND you're a fool if you think our President didn't know for seven
> > hours we were being attacked.  AND you and other liberals are too dumb
> > too admit that we are just seeing how low Obama's staff are willing to
> > go to protect his incompetent ass.
>
> LOL thats bs and you know it
> More Faux bs and you believe it
> I wanna see you start bashing Hillary when she becomes your next CIC!

You deny that our President knew we were being attacked for seven
hours while our drones were in the air watching it live? Educate
yourself Steve.

[steveh99]

In article <b13d8155-09f7-4f4d-b94f-75c4fbcbce39
@gm7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com says...

> > > overturn of Obamacare. ￜ AND the Benghazi investigation is still going
> > > on. ï¿œAND just today a CIA informant told the media that the White

> > > House ordered a stand down and not to help those dying in Benghazi.
> > > AND you're a fool if you think our President didn't know for seven

> > > hours we were being attacked. ï¿œAND you and other liberals are too dumb

> > > too admit that we are just seeing how low Obama's staff are willing to
> > > go to protect his incompetent ass.
> >
> > LOL thats bs and you know it
> > More Faux bs and you believe it
> > I wanna see you start bashing Hillary when she becomes your next CIC!
>
> You deny that our President knew we were being attacked for seven
> hours while our drones were in the air watching it live? Educate
> yourself Steve.

The only people that are making that claim, and are being heard are the
cronies at Fox news who are still asshole sore from the loss in Nov

[Da Blue Guy]

Oh, please. All of the major news outlets are owned by very large
corporations. The "left wing media" is a myth.

[Da Blue Guy]

I had read that the mother purchased the guns for her son. This may
have been an early and/or inaccurate report. I'll try to track down
some confirmation of its accuracy or lack thereof.

[Da Blue Guy]

On May 21, 11:40 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 12:46 am, Da Blue Guy <adola...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 20, 9:56 am, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://tiny.cc/a9xdxw
>
> > > El Jefe
>
> > How anybody can argue with the position stated here us beyond me.
>
> You said it best.  It's beyond you.  Again, we've seen them go from
> talking about stricter background checks, to limits on ammo, to
> bannings, to talks about confiscation, and now they are talking about
> making gun owners pay outrageous prices for a new insurance scam they
> will dream up or  or face a $10,000 fine.  How anyone can argue with
> the position that there's more than just background checks going on
> here is beyond me.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/democrats-push-bill-in-con...

Oh, and FYI this idea (as described in the story, not your hysterical
'paraphrase') sounds fine to me too, or at the very lest worthy of
further investigation.

[Flying Fickle Finger of Fate]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:49:53 -0400, steveh99 wrote:

> You really are an idiot without a clue

Said the biggest moron in the history of this news group.

[FVH]

Psssst, you should learn how to execute proper grammar and spelling
before you spout off about "educating yourself".

You're getting upset, fatso. Roll away from the fat computer and find
something else to do before you blow up again.

Hi, Killer! Hope you enjoyed reading this post!
FVH
Good ole RMAK. Where the majority swears off "scab KISS" then
wrights a review of the new album the week it comes out. LOL!-
Professor AJ
Yes I know that and I know they gained that power under Obama's
watch.-Professor AJ on China's nukes.
This was passed in 2008 under Obama.- AJ, political guru
Wait and see. Paul is not going to name the new KISS album what Gene
was
going to call his solo boxset.-AJ, KISS "expert"
Laughter is an emotion-Professor AJ Johnson, channeling his feminine
feelings.
You wrongfully misinterpreting another post noted.-AJ, English major
I love how people like you consternate so much time and effort-
Professor AJ Johnson.
10 years ago your posts were better written and your grammar was
better than what they are now.-AJ.
Pssst. Obama has been president for 7 years and you suck at math.-AJ,
2009
LOL! I doubt imergration is reading your posts.-Speeling bea
chaump, AJ.
McCain wins 2008 Election.This is what will be printed on every
newspaper next week. Wait and see.-AJ, proving that he's an idiot.
our new commander and chief.- AJ, talking politics.
Stadiums have no walls!- AJ
*Geeks with key boards aren't intimidating.-AJ
You made a boneheaded 'observation' about Ace, and you're a fool.
That's pretty much it.- Hidell, making a brilliant point about AJ.
Twinkle Toes Stanley hadn't quite picked up that Lick It Up/
Heaven's On Fire half a ballerina dance that he does.- db
How many times can the Greed Twins milk a cow? As many times as the
sheep will let them.-db

[FVH]

Have you noticed how delusional you are? Of course not, because you're
blind to the fact that you're a schizo.

[FVH]

You mean like the quotes of you in my sig? LOL!!!!!

[FVH]

It's so funny that you're being schooled by Steve, yet you've
convinced yourself you're "winning". Priceless. It's got to be
frustrating knowing you're the dumbest person in RMAK.

[FVH]

Hi, Killer!

On May 21, 6:32 pm, Flying Fickle Finger of Fate <he...@socks.r.us>
wrote:

[steveh99]

In article <pan.2013.05...@socks.r.us>, he...@socks.r.us
says...

>
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:49:53 -0400, steveh99 wrote:
>
> > You really are an idiot without a clue
>
> Said the biggest moron in the history of this news group.

How many more names are you going to create here AJ?

[Flying Fickle Finger of Fate]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 22:47:19 -0700, Da Blue Guy wrote:

> .....aaaaaaand there he is, right on schedule.

AJ believes that any executive who doesn't head up a "manly" company must
be gay.

I personally happen to believe that AJ might be a closet queen.

[steveh99]

In article <pan.2013.05...@socks.r.us>, he...@socks.r.us
says...
>

You like talking to yourself AJ?

[AJ]

On May 21, 9:40 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> In article <pan.2013.05.22.02.24...@socks.r.us>, he...@socks.r.us

I don't use sock puppets.

[AJ]

What sounds fine to me is " the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed."

[AJ]

While you're looking that up, also try to find out who the other two
men were they arrested that day and why the media is still lying about
an AR-15 being used that day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqpjJ6P-NSQ

[steveh99]

In article <97e116ce-64e9-4b10-9342-6c00b966d955
@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com says...
>
> On May 21, 3:52ï¿œpm, Da Blue Guy <adola...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 21, 11:40ï¿œam, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 21, 12:46ï¿œam, Da Blue Guy <adola...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > > > On May 20, 9:56ï¿œam, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >http://tiny.cc/a9xdxw
> >
> > > > > El Jefe
> >
> > > > How anybody can argue with the position stated here us beyond me.
> >

> > > You said it best. ï¿œIt's beyond you. ï¿œAgain, we've seen them go from

> > > talking about stricter background checks, to limits on ammo, to
> > > bannings, to talks about confiscation, and now they are talking about
> > > making gun owners pay outrageous prices for a new insurance scam they

> > > will dream up or ï¿œor face a $10,000 fine. ï¿œHow anyone can argue with

> > > the position that there's more than just background checks going on
> > > here is beyond me.
> >
> > >http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/democrats-push-bill-in-con...
> >
> > Oh, and FYI this idea (as described in the story, not your hysterical
> > 'paraphrase') sounds fine to me too, or at the very lest worthy of
> > further investigation.
>
> What sounds fine to me is " the right of the people to keep and bear
> arms shall not be infringed."

background checks dont have jack to do with gun rights

[Tattoo Vampire]

AJ <misfits...@aol.com> wrote:

> What sounds fine to me is " the right of the people to keep and bear
> arms shall not be infringed."

It doesn't mean "unlimited arms" or "no background checks".

And you forgot the part that says "well REGULATED militia".

[FVH]

LOL!!!!!!

[FVH]

That's not what the 2nd amendment says, idiot. That's part of what it
says. You can't cherry pick something to make it fits your views.
Dumbass.

[FVH]

Note Killer nevers uses reliable sources to back his arguments.

[FVH]

Gun lovers seems to not realize there's another part to the 2nd
amendment. That's what happens when you're not informed.

[Busboy Jefe]

On May 22, 2:10 pm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

No, you just use other screen names and try to fool people into
thinking you have mass support by replying to your own posts with
agreement...Ragman.

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On May 21, 3:44 pm, Da Blue Guy <adola...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh, please.  All of the major news outlets are owned by very large
> corporations.  The "left wing media" is a myth.

The very point I've tried to make many times. But believe me, the ones
in here who want to believe it's true will never stop.

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On May 21, 10:40 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 12:46 am, Da Blue Guy <adola...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > On May 20, 9:56 am, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://tiny.cc/a9xdxw
>
> > > El Jefe
>
> > How anybody can argue with the position stated here us beyond me.
>

> You said it best.  It's beyond you.  Again, we've seen them go from

> talking about stricter background checks, to limits on ammo, to
> bannings, to talks about confiscation, and now they are talking about
> making gun owners pay outrageous prices for a new insurance scam they

> will dream up or  or face a $10,000 fine.  How anyone can argue with

> the position that there's more than just background checks going on
> here is beyond me.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/democrats-push-bill-in-con...

Your own article says the bill is unlikely to go anywhere.

I bring this up because whenever I mention how frequently repubs
introduce invasive abortion legislation, your mentor is very quick to
point out that the bills don't go anywhere, etc. etc. I guess that
makes it OK.

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

From what I know, she had given him a holiday check intended to
purchase a handgun/pistol. However, she did take him to learn to shoot
despite his mental issues, and he clearly had easy access to her
stash. She also chose to ignore some warning signs weeks before the
shooting. I suppose it's hard to see your own kid as a potential mass
murderer, but still.

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On May 20, 5:37 pm, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:
> Busboy Jefe wrote:
>
> I read that story when I got up this morning.

Let me ask you this. What in the Manchin/Toomey proposal did you
disagree with? This was crafted by two moderate gun rights supporters,
after all. What specifically was an affront to you about it?

You posted some links to extreme and ridiculous proposals/no tolerance
rules. So does that mean we shouldn't try to enact sensible law? Some
dope has has a problem with a pastry, but despite the fact that his
bill will likely go nowhere, fuck background checks? I really don't
understand that mentality.

I again find it fascinating that you're fretting about legislating
every aspect of our lives when it comes to this, but seem perfectly
fine with laws being proposed in which a woman would be be required to
have a wand jammed up her twat before she has an abortion. Are you
really more offended by the pastry shit?

And like DBG, I really couldn't give a shit what some rural sheriffs
think.

El Jefe

[Dr. John Grubor]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:53:42 -0700, Busboy Jefe wrote:

> No, you just use other screen names and try to fool people into thinking
> you have mass support by replying to your own posts with
> agreement...Ragman.

Under Web TV alone he had 4-5 aliases.

[Da Blue Guy]

On May 22, 5:53 pm, Tattoo Vampire <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:

They always forget that part.

[FVH]

The "liberal media" meme is yet another crutch idiots use when they
have nothing of real value to offer to the conversation. When these
clowns don't understand something, they cliche everything to death
until the sounds of reality are drowned out.

[83LowRider]

Numerous/almost all polls disagree.
Numerous/almost all statistical comparisons disagree.
Donations/questionaires by reporters disagree.
Common sense disagrees.

If you can't honestly say that MSNBC, CNN, NBC and
many others aren't liberal biased... then you're simply
in denial.

[83LowRider]

Busboy Jefe wrote:

> Let me ask you this.

You ask me far more than you answer me... but okay.

> What in the Manchin/Toomey proposal did you
> disagree with? This was crafted by two moderate gun rights supporters,
> after all. What specifically was an affront to you about it?

I said in another recent post that if we were to require
background checks at gun shows that I wouldn't
complain too loudly... so that addresses the main
point of their bill. But let's go on with it --

"As under current law, transfers between family, friends
and neighbors do not require background checks. You
can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor,
your co-worker without a background check. You can
post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your
church or your job without a background check,"

Their bill then says - as long as the sale was not
advertised online or in a publication that a background
check will not be required. Okaaaaay... so what the
hell is this gaining us? Let's say a guy has a record and
cannot legally own a gun. So now (if the bill passes)
the guy cannot go to a gun show, but he can buy
from an individual. My local sporting goods/gun shop
has a bulletin board devoted to nothing but customers
putting up their used guns for sale. He can still get a
gun from a family member, a guy off the street, a friend
or a co-worker. What the hell has this portion of the bill
really accomplished? A man wanting a gun WILL find a
gun. In ANY country, including those where penalties
are VERY severe. If gun shows are the objective, let
them draft a bill strictly dealing with gun shows. Even
then tho, many will say it is simply an attempt (like
many other things) to take just a liiiiiiiittle more control.

Another part of the bill - "a specific ban on a gun registry".

Many years ago I bought a pistol from a very good
friend that worked in a gun store. It was policy then
(and still today AFAIK) that the required paperwork
would not leave his possession. That is to say that no
record of the transaction would be given to federal
authorities. Well, that was all fine and good until a few
years later when the shop went out of business. When
I asked about records I was then told that the owner
was required to hand them over to the BTF (Bureau of
Tobacco and Firearms). Now -- SUPPOSEDLY the
BTF just 'sits' on this info and doesn't "use" it. I call
bullshit. The state of NY has since then used such
records to locate and claim firearms. Altho this bill says
there would be "extra" enforcement of the gov't not
having a registry --> it's a paper trail that can be
over-ruled against later or used by the gov't regardless
of the law. Kinda like they're not supposed to target
specific groups within the IRS or they're not supposed
to steal AP records.

Lastly -- it proposes "the creation of a commission to
study the causes of violence, including mental health,
guns, school safety and portrayals of violence in the media."

Well fuck... there's another 20 million or more wasted.
Haven't we examined video games and tv and movies
hundreds of times already? And to what conclusion?
School safety? What can they possibly do to add to
school safety that isn't already being examined/done?

> You posted some links to extreme and ridiculous proposals/no tolerance
> rules. So does that mean we shouldn't try to enact sensible law? Some
> dope has has a problem with a pastry, but despite the fact that his
> bill will likely go nowhere, fuck background checks? I really don't
> understand that mentality.

The point was very simple. When we legislate by emotion
rather than logic we get to the point where we just turn stupid.
There's numerous of those types of stories of kids being
sent home for an aspirin in their purse or a pop tart shaped
into a pistol, or pointing a finger and going 'bang bang'.
It's no different than mandatory sentences and putting a
first time offender in prison for twenty years. (I just watched
the movie Snitch)

> I again find it fascinating that you're fretting about legislating
> every aspect of our lives when it comes to this, but seem perfectly
> fine with laws being proposed in which a woman would be be required to
> have a wand jammed up her twat before she has an abortion. Are you
> really more offended by the pastry shit?

You've either got a really bad memory or choose to forget.
I've said many times that abortion is a decision to be left with
the woman. That is not to say that I agree with abortion in
general... no one "likes" abortion. I also don't agree much
with late-term abortions. But it doesn't affect me, nor any
other man having no relationship with the <pregnant> woman.

> And like DBG, I really couldn't give a shit what some rural sheriffs
> think.

That's because you don't see their reasoning. Almost every
sheriff in CO is against stricter laws. You know why? Because
they are making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Because it isn't practical to enforce it. Because it won't make
one damn bit of difference in crime. A man willing to break the
laws against murder sure as hell ain't going to give a damn about
the gun laws.

[83LowRider]

Busboy Jefe wrote:

> I bring this up because whenever I mention how frequently repubs
> introduce invasive abortion legislation, your mentor is very quick to
> point out that the bills don't go anywhere, etc. etc. I guess that
> makes it OK.

The will of a majority is what gives us every law we have.
A majority of constituents want gay marriage? a majority
of officials makes it happen. A majority want new pot
laws, the congress will eventually pass new pot laws.
There is no majority of citizens OR lawmakers wanting to
overturn abortion. There is no majority of citizens OR
lawmakers wanting massive new gun laws. As far as how
often that kinda shit is brought to the floor? it's what they
do... and many of them are very persistant motherfuckers
too, depending on how important any given subject is to
them. How many times did the pot laws come up in CA?
or WA? or CO?

[Tattoo Vampire]

FVH <jarj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The "liberal media" meme is yet another crutch idiots use when they
> have nothing of real value to offer to the conversation. When these
> clowns don't understand something, they cliche everything to death
> until the sounds of reality are drowned out.

They also think "TheBlaze" is a reliable source of information.

[83LowRider]

>> I had read that the mother purchased the guns for her son. This may
>> have been an early and/or inaccurate report. I'll try to track down
>> some confirmation of its accuracy or lack thereof.
>
> From what I know, she had given him a holiday check intended to
> purchase a handgun/pistol. However, she did take him to learn to shoot
> despite his mental issues, and he clearly had easy access to her
> stash. She also chose to ignore some warning signs weeks before the
> shooting. I suppose it's hard to see your own kid as a potential mass
> murderer, but still.

I hate to refer to a dead victim as being at 'fault'.. so let's call
her complicit.. That mother should have NEVER let her
son have guns, nor should she have ever owned them
herself knowing he was a loon. But this very story shows
how ineffective these types of gun restrictions are... she
made LEGAL gun purchases. If that gun was registered
<or not> made no difference in the act he commited. The
gov't having a list of gun owners would have made no
difference. If she had bought the guns from an individual
or from a gun show -- it would have made no difference.

Once the crime is commited - it doesn't make a damn bit
of difference if the gun was registered, stolen, homemade,
borrowed or found in a trash can. And if you think someone
who is determined to murder --> won't do it because they
can't legally buy a gun... then I gotta bridge or two I'd like
to sell ya. If you can plot out/plan a mass-murder -- you can
sure as hell steal grandpas guns or find one via a classmate
or on the streetcorner.

Where'd they get the guns?
http://www.vpc.org/studies/wguncont.htm

[83LowRider]

steveh99 wrote:

> LOLOL Like I said you think it's okay that the house republicans waste
> millions and millions of tax payer dollars trying to repeal a law that
> doesnt stand a chance of being repealed

It doesn't cost a single penny to put a bill up... you want
to explain those 'millions and millions of taxpayer dollars'?

[83LowRider]

Tattoo Vampire wrote:

>> What sounds fine to me is " the right of the people to keep and bear
>> arms shall not be infringed."
>
> It doesn't mean "unlimited arms" or "no background checks".

Our founding fathers sure as hell wouldn't have put a
'limit' on the guns we were using. Not on the type, the
clip size, nor the number of guns we owned. It was their
intent that gov't would fear the citizens - not the other
way around. True fuckin' dat!

> And you forgot the part that says "well REGULATED militia".

And the Supreme Court says that is NOT restricted to
an "official" army.

It's no wonder you claim I'm plonked by you. I wouldn't
want to have to deal with being p0wned every post either.

[83LowRider]

>> It doesn't mean "unlimited arms" or "no background checks".

And regarding background checks??? Really?

They didn't need background checks when they
wrote that shit -- as soon as the town thought you
were a loon they put yer ass in a cell or in a noose.

These pussies doing these school shootings almost
always fit the same mold... some repressed, misunderstood,
goth-lookin', poor-ol'-fucking me types that can't
get any attention from mommy or daddy. What a sad
and fucked-up country we've become since those first
days... men wanna be women, women wanna be men,
look at me, look at me. In a hundred years we will
all be a bunch of asexual retards wearing the same
clothes and makeup, fat as fuck, floating around staring
at our iPads... like something out of WALL-E.

[83LowRider]

Tattoo Vampire wrote:

> They also think "TheBlaze" is a reliable source of information.

And just how many times does TheBlaze come up as
reference? And when it does, is it reporting facts or
giving an opinion? I'll take any story of FACT from
the HuffPo... 'cause you know, facts are facts. Who
gives a damn what site carries the story?

And howzabout that Brietbart site you hate so badly...
until of course, they ran that single story about
the gov't making ammo purchases -- and it happened
to go a direction that you liked. Fucking hypocrite much?

[steveh99]

In article <e5dcecbf-495f-4cb2-b1a8-ebd987b50129
@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, jarj...@gmail.com says...

> On May 22, 2:28ï¿œpm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> > While you're looking that up, also try to find out who the other two
> > men were they arrested that day and why the media is still lying about
> > an AR-15 being used that day.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqpjJ6P-NSQ

i cant believe he values anything shown on Youtube
constantly grasping

[steveh99]

In article <9294501a-3be6-43aa-968f-ef77c0b57111
@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, busbo...@gmail.com says...
>
> On May 21, 3:44ï¿œpm, Da Blue Guy <adola...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh, please. ï¿œAll of the major news outlets are owned by very large
> > corporations. ï¿œThe "left wing media" is a myth.

>
> The very point I've tried to make many times. But believe me, the ones
> in here who want to believe it's true will never stop.
>
> El Jefe

they know its not true they just try and use it for leverage that doesnt
exist

[steveh99]

In article <knl232$ad1$1...@dont-email.me>, 83low...@nywilldo.com says...

congress is paid to debate, vote, discuss bills, laws.
They spend their time debating and voting on reversing a law that stands
no chance of being reversed when they could be discussing, debating
something that has value and a chance of being voted for.
Anytime congress is in session it costs tax payers

[FVH]

That's all you need to know about the tin foil hat wearing community.

[FVH]

Oh I can because Killer doesn't live in reality. He lives in that la
la land bubble that he's too stupid and afraid to get out of.

[steveh99]

In article <f38c06a3-efce-4e9a-a09e-
2196d7...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, jarj...@gmail.com says...

> On May 23, 12:02ï¿œpm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > i cant believe he values anything shown on Youtube constantly grasping

I never watch anything "news" related on Youtube.
If I want the news I watch my local affiliate

[AJ]

BTW, Since liberal media is finally covering Benghazi now and the
other Obama scandals, FOX just changed their slogan of "Fair and
Balanced" to "See, I told you so." LOL!

[AJ]

AND, Jay Carney is married to ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman.

[AJ]

On May 23, 12:04 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> In article <9294501a-3be6-43aa-968f-ef77c0b57111

> @e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, busboyj...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 3:44 pm, Da Blue Guy <adola...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Oh, please. All of the major news outlets are owned by very large
> > > corporations. The "left wing media" is a myth.

>
> > The very point I've tried to make many times. But believe me, the ones
> > in here who want to believe it's true will never stop.
>
> > El Jefe
>
> they know its not true they just try and use it for leverage that doesnt
> exist

Do you have any idea how many liberals own corporations and are in
league with mainstream media? Gene Simmons would cut off his left nut
to have Al Gore's money. Liberals like you just can't handle you've
been lied to by media outlets you trusted.

[AJ]

Exactly. Like Obamacare. In all polls I've ever seen, when the
public was asked if they wanted it, the majority said no.

[AJ]

On May 22, 4:53 pm, Tattoo Vampire <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:

> AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> > What sounds fine to me is " the right of the people to keep and bear
> > arms shall not be infringed."
>

> It doesn't mean "unlimited arms" or "no background checks".
>

> And you forgot the part that says "well REGULATED militia".

How about the part, "If it aint broke don't try fixing it?" Guns
built this country and statistics show that gun crime has actually
gone down over the last few years.

Take a look at that British soldier that was beheaded in the streets
yesterday by Muslims. No one around the victim had a gun and had no
way of stopping his attacker. It took 20 minutes for armed policemen
to arrive and shoot the dumb asses. If a citizen was packing, that
shit could have been prevented and that soldier might be alive
today. There are thousands of stories where a law abiding citizen
has saved themselves or someone else by using their gun. Name me one
incident where a criminal was prevented from fulfilling his goal of
killing someone because his background check wasn't approved? AND
life proves it doesn't matter. Again, Chicago is a gun free zone and
currently has the highest rate of gun crime in America. AND wherever
you have the highest rate of registered gun owners you have the lowest
crime rate.
If shit works, leave it alone.

[AJ]

On May 22, 3:10 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> background checks dont have jack to do with gun rights


If they passed a law saying you can't own a gun if you're too sorry to
work for a living and are receiving welfare and food stamps, you would
be bitching like a mofo.

[AJ]

> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:53:42 -0700, Busboy Jefe wrote:
> > No, you just use other screen names and try to fool people into thinking
> > you have mass support by replying to your own posts with
> > agreement...Ragman.

I've always told this NG when I've used a different screen name here.
BUT, are you idiots too stupid to know how to trace a IP, especially
after I told everyone here how to trace a IP years ago? Well hell,
what was I thinking? This is RMAK, of course you're that stupid.
Like I said years ago, if you're stupid enough to think I'm using a
sock puppet here, then killfile them.

[FVH]

You sure seem to watch a lot of the "liberal media", Killer. I wonder
why that is? Liberal.

[FVH]

You're jealous because Carney doesn't have to fuck guys in the ass
because his wife won't go near him. LOL!!!!

[FVH]

Considering you have no clue what a liberal is, you're not exactly
qualified to talk about this. Fat faggot.

[FVH]

That's because you were looking at polls that fit your warped view.

[FVH]

On May 23, 6:09 pm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> How about the part, "If it aint broke don't try fixing it?"  Guns
> built this country and statistics show that gun crime has actually
> gone down over the last few years.

No they didn't and you're f(l)at out wrong, Professor.

> Take a look at that British soldier that was beheaded in the streets
> yesterday by Muslims.  No one around the victim had a gun and had no
> way of stopping his attacker.  It took 20 minutes for armed policemen
> to arrive and shoot the dumb asses.   If a citizen was packing, that
> shit could have been prevented and that soldier might be alive
> today.    There are thousands of stories where a law abiding citizen
> has saved themselves or someone else by using their gun.  Name me one
> incident where a criminal was prevented from fulfilling his goal of
> killing someone because his background check wasn't approved?   AND
> life proves it doesn't matter.  Again, Chicago is a gun free zone and
> currently has the highest rate of gun crime in America.  AND wherever
> you have the highest rate of registered gun owners you have the lowest crime rate.
> If shit works, leave it alone.

What's funny is you think you're making perfect sense, when in reality
you have your "fa(c)ts" all wrong, gravy tits. You're fat argument
holds no water, not to mention you can't comprehend the 2nd amendment.
You're simply a fat, dumb redneck who lives in constant fear and is
pro guns because you think "liberals" and OBAMA are anti-gun. Simple
as that.

[FVH]

So would you, considering you get gov't handouts, fat boy.