Guest Guest Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 "Don't Tread On My Gun Rights" Yard Signs Available Now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddi Killowatt Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 NYS has some of the strictest gun laws and locally people het shot now and again by criminals. If or when the criminal is caught what happens to them? I don't know the answer to the following question but maybe one of you do. When someone locally is arrested and one of the charges is possession do they get additional time when convicted, or in some "deal" process? It depends I guess. If a criminal is caught with a firearm, it's a felony for them to posses it without a permit. If a criminal has a felony already, then it's a felony charge if they're caught with a firearm. I would assume that if a person is charged with that and other things, they usually 'deal'....not exactly sure how they'd do it. I guess it all depends on the person's record as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Road Warrior Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 Please enlighten us as to why anyone would need a 31 round clip for a handgun? Try and be logical now - think reasonably. The reason is one will not waste time to reload the clip.That;s the beauty of it. Hell, I wish the clips were longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 A 9 year old girl in Arizona might still be alive if they didn't let it expire. But I guess you are OK with that. More childern die in the country from swiming pools than guns. Steven Levitt a Chicago University Economics Prof. and author of Freakonmics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 Instead of making guns or bigger clips illegal, why not just make killing people illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 More childern die in the country from swiming pools than guns. Steven Levitt a Chicago University Economics Prof. and author of Freakonmics. Swimming pool weren't designed to kill thing like guns were. Don't be an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Bonham Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 Instead of making guns or bigger clips illegal, why not just make killing people illegal? Do you jonestly expect any lib on here to understand that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navin R Johnson Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 Instead of making guns or bigger clips illegal, why not just make killing people illegal? Because we have become a society where everyone is a victim. We can't place blame on the wacko. We have to have a reason why he did it. Thus the reason the liberals are blaming the right. We have to treat the wacko as a victim and be gentle with him. In the old days, they would have strung him up by his neck already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Because we have become a society where everyone is a victim. We can't place blame on the wacko. We have to have a reason why he did it. Thus the reason the liberals are blaming the right. We have to treat the wacko as a victim and be gentle with him. In the old days, they would have strung him up by his neck already. I guess you are not big on the Constitution and the 6th amendment written by our founding fathers in regards to a fair trial? And that is the liberals fault? Guess what - you are part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Simple minded? Maybe you can answer why anyone would need a 31 round clip for a handgun? You tell us what will solve the problem. Are you also of the mindset that a 60% reduction in the number of injuries and fatalities at this event doesn't make a difference? Get back to us when you get out of grade school. Your arguement is weak and sophmoric. Stay in school and just say no to drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 A 9 year old girl in Arizona might still be alive if they didn't let it expire. But I guess you are OK with that. Once again you are showing your immature thinking. So he if he had a lower round clip he wouldn't have killed the girl? Was she killed by the 11th round? If he only had a 10 round clip he would have reloaded the second one before he was tackled. So for 21 rounds instead of 31, you would restrict 300 million peoples 2nd amendment rights? How about instead: We REQIURE all intelligent, sane, law-abiding adult to be train and carry concealed weapons. This incident would have been over almost instantly. NOW GIVE ME AN INTELLIGENT ARGUEMENT AGAINST THAT!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 We don't "need" 31 round magazines for pistols like was used in AZ. I am sure this guy wouldn't have minded using his 2nd Amendment right during this incident. I am also sure that he would have wanted the 31 round magazine, assuming they don't make a bigger one. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/29/iraq-war-veteran-wife-assaulted-outside-florida-theater-teen-mob/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 I am sure this guy wouldn't have minded using his 2nd Amendment right during this incident. I am also sure that he would have wanted the 31 round magazine, assuming they don't make a bigger one. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/29/iraq-war-veteran-wife-assaulted-outside-florida-theater-teen-mob/ I'm sure this guy is more of a man than you are to want to shoot a bunch of teenage girls. But he served. And you didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 I'm sure this guy is more of a man than you are to want to shoot a bunch of teenage girls. But he served. And you didn't. Actually I did serve, loser. I can also read which you apparently can't. There were many offenders involved from both sexes. But don't let the truth get in your way. I would also point out (because you obviously didn't/can't read the article) that they were saved by a civilian who had a gun! Wow. And I can tell you right now. I absolutely would have shot one of the attackers if that is what it took to end the gang assault. You go on being a victim in waiting though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Actually I did serve, loser. I can also read which you apparently can't. There were many offenders involved from both sexes. But don't let the truth get in your way. I would also point out (because you obviously didn't/can't read the article) that they were saved by a civilian who had a gun! Wow. And I can tell you right now. I absolutely would have shot one of the attackers if that is what it took to end the gang assault. You go on being a victim in waiting though. Sure you did Poopy Pants! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Sure you did Poopy Pants! Come on now. We can't all be cowardly leeches of society like you. I notice that you didn't attack any of the other facts in the post. I guess you recognize what a failure your arguement (as weak as it was)was a total failure. Go back to class junior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Actually I did serve, loser. I can also read which you apparently can't. No, you didn't. There were many offenders involved from both sexes. But don't let the truth get in your way. Not on the couple. I would also point out (because you obviously didn't/can't read the article) that they were saved by a civilian who had a gun! No, they weren't. - Freire said one bystander stepped forward and told the couple to follow him to his car, saying he could scare the crowd off with a gun. But before the two reached the man's vehicle, one of the teenagers said, "I'm going to knock your wife out," before punching Freire's wife to the ground, the couple said. Wow. And I can tell you right now. I absolutely would have shot one of the attackers if that is what it took to end the gang assault. You go on being a victim in waiting though. Of course you would. And you would be in jail because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 No, you didn't. Not on the couple. No, they weren't. - Freire said one bystander stepped forward and told the couple to follow him to his car, saying he could scare the crowd off with a gun. But before the two reached the man's vehicle, one of the teenagers said, "I'm going to knock your wife out," before punching Freire's wife to the ground, the couple said. Of course you would. And you would be in jail because of it. I can see that you are suffering from your liberal mental disorder. There is no other explanation for your inability to read the article and see what is actually printed and instead formulate your own "facts" to support your lack of logical theory. You also have no knowledge of Article 35 or you would know that it would be perfectly legal to shoot someone who was part of a large group of people assaulting you or a third person. YOU LOSE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 I can see that you are suffering from your liberal mental disorder. There is no other explanation for your inability to read the article and see what is actually printed and instead formulate your own "facts" to support your lack of logical theory. You also have no knowledge of Article 35 or you would know that it would be perfectly legal to shoot someone who was part of a large group of people assaulting you or a third person. YOU LOSE. Help me! That little girl is hurting me! What a pussy you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Help me! That little girl is hurting me! What a pussy you are. Sure thing junior. I bet you are fast and just run away on the playground. Have a fun life as a victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Sure thing junior. I bet you are fast and just run away on the playground. Have a fun life as a victim. Enjoy your time in prison, Rambo. Maybe they can teach you how to be a real man while you are in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Enjoy your time in prison, Rambo. Maybe they can teach you how to be a real man while you are in there. Truly, you are as ignorant as you are cowardly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Truly, you are as ignorant as you are cowardly. How could a "man" like you who is afraid of teenage girls think they have the right to call someone else cowardly? When you get to prison for your inability to defend yourself properly, I'm sure you will make a fellow inmate very happy with your effeminate ways. Will you cry when they pull your hair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navin R Johnson Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 I guess you are not big on the Constitution and the 6th amendment written by our founding fathers in regards to a fair trial? And that is the liberals fault? Guess what - you are part of the problem. I am all for the constitution and the rights to a fair and speedy trial. What i am not for is the appeal process that drags on and on. I am not for the person who pulled the trigger treated as a victim either. He is in custody. Get him to trial and prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty. Then lock him away with no appeals. Done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 I am all for the constitution and the rights to a fair and speedy trial. What i am not for is the appeal process that drags on and on. I am not for the person who pulled the trigger treated as a victim either. He is in custody. Get him to trial and prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty. Then lock him away with no appeals. Done. You said - "Because we have become a society where everyone is a victim. We can't place blame on the wacko. We have to have a reason why he did it. Thus the reason the liberals are blaming the right. We have to treat the wacko as a victim and be gentle with him. In the old days, they would have strung him up by his neck already." After all - if they are arrested, they are guilty, right? Since 2001, Texas has freed 41 wrongly convicted inmates through the use of DNA. But I guess that's the liberals fault too. You are part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.