Rob L. wrote on October 05, 2009 09:42 PM: aksmith wrote: "A pox on both your houses."

Nicely stated!

Rob L. wrote on October 05, 2009 09:32 PM: "I would just rather you said thanks and went on your way"

Sounds an awful lot like "You either with us or against us." or "You voted AGAINST the PATRIOT Act?"

Its amazing how quickly you have became what you hate. Shall we just start calling you "little Rove" from now on?

Ban candy for the kids wrote on October 05, 2009 04:58 PM: Gun owners spend billions every year on guns/hunting and related items.

They prevent hundreds of millions annually in agriculture losses

They support conservation of the species they hunt and the land the use and put more time and effort into protecting cleaning, and managing open spaces than any other group combined

The use of and the deterrent effect of gun ownership is not reported except when it is distorted by liberals to make the gun ban argument and don’t be fooled the goal is a total ban.

During the economic downturn the gun industry is one of a few industries doing well

It would only make sense to a liberal to attack it.

chuck heston wrote on October 05, 2009 04:17 PM: Shoe Drop,

Didn't you know that Jesus was a gunslinger and lifelong NRA member?

Wobble wrote on October 05, 2009 03:40 PM: Thomas your lack of an argument and name calling shows the lack of content on your side.

Tell me where I am wrong.

And I’m not sure if the federal cigarette tax doubled but Obama did sign an increase after promising not to raise taxes one red cent.

I guess it depends on what the definition of is, is

shoe drop wrote on October 05, 2009 03:28 PM: "Gun rights are human rights. People on the left don't recognize that this right existed before the Second Amendment did. And it still exists now."

A natural law right to a gun? Did Adam have a gun? Did God give him the gun? The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with gun rights?

thomas [and aksmith] believe that all rights come from a place separate from the law or the 2nd amendment. Please tell us where gun rights come from. Several states outlawed guns before the constitution; did they no they were wrong?

Yup, cigarette tax is the only tax Obama signed off on; aside from that everybody else got a tax cut.

thomas wrote on October 05, 2009 03:06 PM: "aksmith thinks the 2nd amendment means people can have guns..."

That's not even close to what aksmith said, and he just proved his point about liberals not having a clue where our rights come from.

Obama also DOUBLED the cigarette tax...maybe that's what wobble is smoking.

Shoe Drop wrote on October 05, 2009 02:14 PM: tater is upset that the story about Ensign willfully breaking the law is not getting enough coverage...google NYT and Ensign!

jingle is mad that unemployment hasn't reached Ronald Regan levels yet nor the 16% interest rates of his administration!

joetheplumber thinks Obama knows every Black man in America; ergo, Reagan was known to toe tap with Larry Craig

wobble says taxes have gone up under Obama but actually they went down (wobble what are you smoking?) And wobble thinks we should keep on borrowing from Communist China instead of us going out and getting a job to pay for our habit. PS "Saving" money? Americans? Not until this year did America save money; in 2007 Americans spent $101 for every $100 they made.

aksmith thinks the 2nd amendment means people can have guns even though there has never been a US Supreme Court opinion that supports his belief. NEVER! In over 235 years has there been a ruling that reads like aksmith thinks American constitution reads. There wasn't even a Heller opinion until 2008 and that only applies to the fed.

Joe C wrote on October 05, 2009 02:14 PM: The idea behind gun bans is to help law enforcement and supposedly keep people safer limiting the number of guns criminals can get their hands on.

The only effect this will have is more law abiding citizens that feel gun bans are wrong will be busted making them criminals.

The change within the criminal element ability to get guns and cause harm to society will be zero.
As they already decided the law is meaningless to them.
The possibility that there could be fewer innocent deaths caused is possible; but wouldn’t the better method to ending these types of death be, to spend more money vigorously going after gang members.

For some mentally unstable person it may be somewhat harder to get weapons but there surly will be a black market just like everything else.
Plus they really don’t need a gun to commit mass murder.
As we have seen on the strip where a person just drives up the sidewalk, or builds a bomb, numerous ways to kill people, most just a mouse click away.

A gun ban will do relatively nothing and actually hurt honest citizens that before a gun ban broke no laws. Tactical weapons are a sore spot but I still don’t believe government should stop citizens from having them either. If there was a time I had to protect my family with deadly force, I’d want the most destructive weapon I could use to keep the threat away.

A criminal will find what they need to commit their crimes and adding more laws or demonizing weapons will stop nothing and only put more money into the hands of criminal black market gun dealers.

John F wrote on October 05, 2009 01:39 PM: jortheplumber,

I'll fashion an intelligent rebuttal as soon as you make an intelligent comment.

Read All Comments