47 States Revolt Against Obama Gun Control

page: 30
245
<< 27  28  29    31  32 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 

here ya go ....

The Tommy Gun was conceived as a "Trench Broom" for use in the World War One trenches
conceived ??
hardly, read the history provided.
(the design was bought from overseas - in other words, from a different inventor)


No I didn't read your link.
obviously



If it was invented in 1919 then it was probably conceived before that, like in 1918 during WW1
hmmmm, reading the history would eliminate such 'guesswork' on your behalf, huh?


Trench warfare was in WW1, not WW2
yes, trench warfare was prevelant in WWI, however, the Tommygun WASN'T.


True, but the Tommy Gun became illegal after the Mob lost it's monopoly on alcohol, in 1934
if so, why are they still sold today ?? illegal, where ??

by 1934 - Mussolini had been booted from the Socialist party and embraced fascism, he had already been a failed dictator for nearly a decade and yet failed to perform sastisfactorily, yet again, when he finally joined WWII in 1940.
economic genius to be emulated ??? hardly

mobster, thug and oppressor ?? absolutely.


the knowledge inventions are derived from is the property of the human race and any invention will be invented eventually.
if the above is true, then why have soo many inventions been surpressed ??


You implied that the tommy gun would have been invented without its actual inventor
i didn't imply, i stated it was ... factually ... as in bought from another designer/inventor and modified/improved.

honestly, i could care less what communists agree upon.
communists aren't the topic of this thread, are they ?


Cut and paste where I said that the Thompson was used in WW1
that would be difficult since neither of us actually stated such a thing, wouldn't it ??

save your infantile sarcasm as the Wisdom of the Ages passed you by long ago.
fear not ... wiki will save you




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

Why do many of those in favor of more strict gun control always start throwing around words like, nukes, RPGs, tanks, and heavy artillery???


To point out the obvious? That the 2nd amendment does note state "guns", but rather "arms".

If we are to adopt the definition that most of the fringe, anti-regulation, anti-restriction, pro-gun lobby purports...the definition of an all-inclusive "arms" not subject to limitation, then that would indeed include everything upwards of guns including thermo-nuclear weapons.

Otherwise, if we are to allow for rational discrimination as to what "arms" encompass....then we begin at a rational starting point of discussion. "Arms"...Nuclear Weapons? Missiles? Grenades? M-16's? AK-47's? Semi-Automatic Pistols? Revolvers?...

Explain to me where you draw the line...and why...what criteria? From there the discussion is more simple....does current law...or a proposed AW Ban with it's criteria defining an AW....meet that criteria...

Otherwise...the debate is where we draw that line between banning heavy rocks and Thermo-Nuclear Weapons.

And yet...rather than that productive discussion which holds the promise of bring factual evidence to light to inform the people and it's representitives in making a less emotional decision...why have rhetoric of Hitler and Tyranny...This works against the 2nd Amendment and it's supporters. It drives the debate towards emotion and mob mentality...both for stricter gun control and opposed...and I'd prefer logic and facts driving the national discourse.


Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
Have you ever been to a grenade range? Or, how about a public tank course? Do those who have jumped through the hoops to own certain weapons above a firearm, practice using them for defense?

I can not picture a scenario where I would look down at my rifle and think, Boy! I wish I had a mortar right now!
'

And many on these forums would disagree. The Alex Jones camp would contest that when they see President Obama leading troops down thier streets, flying the swastika, kicking in doors, that a mortar launcher and bigger weapons would be neccessary.

...it's a failed argument....If only Jews in the Ghetto had guns the Holocaust might not have happened? Well I am pretty sure the National French army had guns and it didn't help them much....ditto Russia, until wind chill was factored in? Hitler was stopped through collective force of an alliance of militaries and many years of world war..


Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
Common sense dictates, that while the need for protection exists, because irradication of evil seems impossible, convenience of the choice of weapon, is the determining factor.

SO please!...Stop patronizing law-abiding citizens and apply a little logic to you argument...You may actually see things a bit differently, during the process.


I am eager to move the debate to "common sense"! Nor am I patronizing anyone, but responding to those who have framed the discussion in nonsensical way...

So now that you have offered up the "common sense" criteria...what weapons do you think should be available to the public at large? What criteria do you employ? No to Grenades, Nuclear Weapons etc. Yes to "guns"?...Any and all "guns" manufactured in the world either for Military or Civilian use? If not...what is the criteria? Magazine size? Semi-Automatic? Fully Automatic? Please be specific...it would be awesome to have an intelligent discussion based in reality, hopefully you weren't pretending interest in the same.

edit on 21-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
... well regulated militia ...

how long has our government supported, provided for, enhanced or even met with the American militias ?


Interesting that you choose to define militia as organized collective of citizenry vs. individual and "well regulated"??...

Is that how you define "Militia"?



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by dogstar23
 

please explain how the 'black market' that is used to obtain illegal weapons by criminals is going to be "subject" to performing background checks ??

how would that work ?
TPTB cannot even identify the 'black market' ... how are they going to regulate it ?


Straw puchases...Right now in 90% of the states, there are no laws that require or penalize gun-owners for not reporting "thefts' or "losses"...nor requiring them to report private transfers or sales of guns.

So...Joe Blow can buy 12 guns from a liscensed fire-arms dealer and turn around and sell those same guns out of the back of his car for cash.

Two years later when the police find out one of his weapons was used in a crime, which rarely happens because the guns aren't tracked or registered even in legitimate sales, but lets say they are able to track the gun to the straw purchaser.

That straw purchaser simply says he "lost" that gun or it was "Stolen" years ago...and thier is no penalty, no law broken. No requirement that he report the "theft" or "loss" of his guns...No requirement that he report a private sale...nothing.

That is simply how legal guns get into the hands of criminals.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Thank you for your attempt at establishing discourse.

Please note, that while my post was partially in response to your previous one, many of my comments were directed towards the brunt of those against sensible gun ownership.

As for your request to establish a starting point for our dialog, let me offer this:
The 2nd is quite clear. I fimly uphold the right, as it is laid forth. Where I do, see room for improvement, lies in the following...

I truly believe that the type of weapon is irrelevant, with regards to ownership. But, restrictions should be placed on certain individuals, who have proven that they have no regard for human lives and the public's safety.
Also, the type of weapon should be viewed individually, and further restrictions should be implemented on how and where a particular weapon should be stored, and operated.
i.e. If someone has been deemed responsible enough to own a rocket launcher, then they, by all means, should be allowed to own one. But they should not be allowed to strap it onto their back, and go Christmas shopping...
Similarly, the Coast Guard utilizes high powered rifles, capable of penetrating the engine block of a drug runner's boat, to effectively bring a chase to an end. Should regular citizens be allowed to bolt a .50 cal to the roof of their Grand Caravan, in case a similar need arises? NO! But that shouldn't preclude them from owning one.

I think that, people smarter than me, could come up with a sound guideline, that included every weapon known to man, and separate them into catagories, which reflect their potential for collateral damage. Then, determine WHAT should be allowed to be USED, (possessed, operated, displayed) WHERE...
A RPG has no place on the street or at your job, but if you have enough land, and the money to burn, then a law-abiding citizen should be allowed to blow up a junk car for fun, if they want to. As long as they don't break any laws, who are they hurting?

Common sense, seems to be a rare commodity these days, but a sound, reasonable solution to our current situation is available. It just takes folks like you and I, to talk it through, and arrive at it!

The question is, can our elected representatives do the same?



GF~




edit on 1/21/2013 by GoOfYFoOt because: spelling...



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

Common sense, seems to be a rare commodity these days, but a sound, reasonable solution to our current situation is available. It just takes folks like you and I, to talk it through, and arrive at it!

The question is, can our elected representatives do the same?


The majority of our elected representitives (not all) respond to two primary forces..

(1) Money...campaign contributions, promises of million dollar incomes as lobbyists after they leave office, and outright payola.

(2) Voter sentiment (emotion)...mostly because they need to hold-onto power to further reason (1) above.

Rational thought, examination of factual evidence etc. is somewhere way down on the list.

So the only way that we can expect rational decisions in DC is to demonstrate it in our public discourse and lever it through (2) in my opinion.

Now as far as what you outlined as reasonable. I think it largely aligns with what the President proposed...apart from ASKING CONGRESS (Nothing more) to consider an Assault Weapons ban...a topic that deserves to stand by itself.

...Something Reagan petitioned for...and asking congress to do anything hasn't exactly done much for the President thus far


The anti-AWB folks will talk about the irrational public view of "scary guns"...which is unfair, because despite the average non-gun owner not knowing a lot about guns, the actual legislation that defines "assault weapons" is specific. I am frustrated that the debate rarely centers on the legal criteria...because that is what actually constitutes the actual ban...not all "scary" guns...not all guns..etc.

The other question I have to honestly ask myself is...do the availability of weapons that can kill large numbers of people in a very short period of time...I believe Lanza killed 20 kids and 8 adults in less than 3 minutes?...Do these weapons factor into the planning of mass murders? Would the death toll have been lower with different weapons? Did the weapons available factor into his confidence level? Embolden him?

With Laughner in the CO Movie Theater...Did any of the men in that theater crouch in thier last moments waiting for the time when Laughner would reload, so they might have rushed him? A moment that didn't come?

I have to believe high capacity magazines factor in...but I am open to listening if you can explain why they do not. High capacity magazines are used in combat precisely because of the advantage they afford. It is strange to hear gun enthusiasts argue that they do not matter....ditto many qualities of a gun like the AR-15 and similiar models. That somehow all of the features that make the gun what it is...the same features that drive sales...are irrelevant?

Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill...yes...and doing so while preserving the 2nd amendment...yes..

This should be doable and reasonable...no restrictions will ever completely stop the flow, but there are easy places to start that would have a big impact. YES...Criminals purchase guns illegally...so background checks etc. won't limit that, BUT those guns originate with "legal" "straw" purchases...and current law in almost all the states has no law requiring gun owners to report the "loss", "sale" or "theft" of thier guns...essentially selling guns to criminals is an easy buck with no legal ramifications.

We can stop that...if the NRA would let us. Chciago confiscated over 7,000 guns from criminals last year...what do you think that number is nation wide? What would it represent in revenues to the gun manufacturing lobby?

A simple thing we can do is require the reporting of "loss", "transfer" or "sale" of firearms...we don't even have to prosecute, just fine the "straw" sellers sufficiently for not reporting it to disincentivise them. Erase their profit margin. AND we need to track weapons to enforce this. It's not being done now. If the "Tyranny" crowd is sensitive to this, we can limit tracking of guns to anyone purchasing a relatively large amount of guns or repeatedly. Someone buying a couple hundred guns a year? How about we record some serial numbers? Do an expanded background check or make them sign a legal doc stating that all the guns are still in thier personal possesion and they will notify authorites if that changes etc...etc...open to ideas, but that is where we can slow the flow to criminals...

edit on 21-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt
 


Also...Just one example of how guns go from legal purchases to criminals...


All told, C.S. bought 43 guns for $37,300 in barely 24 hours.

At least 23 of those guns have been traced to Indiana, and 13 have been traced to one Indiana firearms dealer. Some were purchased at gun shows, including the sprawling Indy 1500 Gun & Knife Show at the Indianapolis state fairgrounds. Some were bought in the parking lot of a McDonald's restaurant on the outskirts of Indianapolis.

U.S. agents brought charges against Tanksley in May. Last month, they arrested David "Big Man" Lewisbey, a former Thornton Township High School football lineman who agents say drove to Indiana to buy many of the guns. Agents say Lewisbey was able to buy guns there just by showing an Indiana state ID.

articles.chicagotribune.com...

If everyone agrees that criminals shouldn't have guns, lets start there...



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 



I concur with your sentiment regarding our electeds...

You wrote:



Now as far as what you outlined as reasonable. I think it largely aligns with what the President proposed...apart from ASKING CONGRESS (Nothing more) to consider an Assault Weapons ban...a topic that deserves to stand by itself.


I disagree, to a point. Roughly 50% of what was outlined in the EA's, is just highlighting areas that are already common practice. The need to enforce existing laws, goes without saying! My outline, would actually include repealing a majority of gun laws on the books. With strict enforcement on the remaining laws and increased penalties on those, with a few new ones, added.

I firmly believe that a new AWB is absolutely pointless, and would do nothing to address the actual problems, that currently abound in our society. It is only a feel good measure that will give it's proponents something to hang their hat on, come the mid-terms.




The anti-AWB folks will talk about the irrational public view of "scary guns"...which is unfair, because despite the average non-gun owner not knowing a lot about guns, the actual legislation that defines "assault weapons" is specific. I am frustrated that the debate rarely centers on the legal criteria...because that is what actually constitutes the actual ban...not all "scary" guns...not all guns..etc.


Again...Pointless. Our legislators have no business "defining" assault weapons. They, for the most part, know nothing about guns, themselves. And, California has proven that there are always ways to get around the definitions, and possess a rifle that shoots the same bullet, the same amount of times per minute, but just looks different from the manufacturer's original design. This becomes painfully evident, when those same legislators, are asked to explain how, barrel shrouds, fore-mounted grips, bayonet lugs, telescoping shoulder stocks, externally mounted magazines, threaded barrels and flash suppressors make a gun more deadly!



The other question I have to honestly ask myself is...do the availability of weapons that can kill large numbers of people in a very short period of time...I believe Lanza killed 20 kids and 8 adults in less than 3 minutes?...Do these weapons factor into the planning of mass murders? Would the death toll have been lower with different weapons? Did the weapons available factor into his confidence level? Embolden him?


I have an issue with the whole notion of "planning" when referring to mass murders. I can't, for the life of me, comprehend the thought processes involved, in such things. I can imagine, however losing control, and going after an individual, or a specific target. But, even then, I would think that such an act, would be spontaneous, and carried out in a more opportunistic fashion. Planning, would only consist of thoughts aroused by limitations, or roadblocks encountered in the course carrying out, such a crime. Even the most brilliant criminal minds, can not account for every conceivable variable, when considering them. And, controlling those variables, are even more improbable.
This is most evident, by the amount of weapons carried by the perpetrators, of these mass shootings. Meaning, the type of weapon, or the capacity of the magazines, is not considered adequate, in their minds. So they elect to bring as many as they can carry! A clear example of their inability to plan, as well as their obvious psychopathy. And, a solid rebuttal to your valid question, about the thought process in the consideration of the lethality of a given firearm.



With Laughner in the CO Movie Theater


I'm giong to leave this one, for now. Jared Laughner was the shooter in Arizona...



I have to believe high capacity magazines factor in...but I am open to listening if you can explain why they do not. High capacity magazines are used in combat precisely because of the advantage they afford. It is strange to hear gun enthusiasts argue that they do not matter....ditto many qualities of a gun like the AR-15 and similiar models. That somehow all of the features that make the gun what it is...the same features that drive sales...are irrelevant?


As I addressed in my last paragraphs, magazine capacity is irrelevant, because mass shooters always opt for overkill, with regard to their planning. The weight of their tools is most likely the foremost thought, in their plan. Bullets substantially outweigh magazines. Whether they have 20 five round mags, or 5 twenty round mags, it's the number and weight of the bullets that limits them! In the case of the Colorado shooter, James Holmes, having the 100 round beta mag, he probably considered it to be sufficient. But a loaded beta mag, weighs more than the rifle it was attached to. Hence it's limitation.

CONTINUED:


GF~
edit on 1/21/2013 by GoOfYFoOt because: text



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 





Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill


I agree that something HAS to be done, with regards to the "straw purchases"... Contray to popular belief, there are many laws at both national and state levels, that stipulate punishments, for those that contribute to legal guns falling into illegal hands. The problem arises, when the Feds want to create a National gun registry. Historically, centralized lists of law-abiding citizens, has never led to any good, for the country or those on the list. I would be for a way to track weapons, that did not result in such a list, but trusting Govt, is not one of my strong points. How a system could be designed, and policed, that ensured that such lists were only utilized for their intended purpose, is beyond my ability, at the present time.

As for the NRA, while they can do some good for gun owners nationwide, their ultimate goals are self-serving. And, they are more about preserving themselves, than the rights of their members. That's all I'm going to say about that...



...we can limit tracking of guns to anyone purchasing a relatively large amount of guns or repeatedly. Someone buying a couple hundred guns a year?


This, does not infringe on the rights of the average citizen, as far as I can tell. And, while I personally, couldn't afford to be affected by such a law, those that can and are simply adding to their personal collection, shouldn't mind the intrusion. But, if they are in fact, selling a majority of those guns, then they should be complying with the same standards, in effect for all legal gun dealers, and should be required to acquire an FFL!

Those who deal, and make a living selling their "personal" collection, must be held accountable, the same as a legitimate gun store owner. Fair is fair....

But, closing the gun show loophole, and forcing private sales, to initiate a background check on the buyer, SHOULD NOT increase the price of the weapon, nor should it penalize the seller, for abiding by the law! If we must step up, to prove ourselves, to do our share to protect the populace, then the taxpayers as a whole, should foot the bill!

Again, fair is fair...



GF~


edit on 1/21/2013 by GoOfYFoOt because: n



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

I have an issue with the whole notion of "planning" when referring to mass murders. I can't, for the life of me, comprehend the thought processes involved, in such things. I can imagine, however losing control, and going after an individual, or a specific target. But, even then, I would think that such an act, would be spontaneous, and carried out in a more opportunistic fashion. Planning, would only consist of thoughts aroused by limitations, or roadblocks encountered in the course carrying out, such a crime. Even the most brilliant criminal minds, can not account for every conceivable variable, when considering them. And, controlling those variables, are even more improbable.
This is most evident, by the amount of weapons carried by the perpetrators, of these mass shootings. Meaning, the type of weapon, or the capacity of the magazines, is not considered adequate, in their minds. So they elect to bring as many as they can carry! A clear example of their inability to plan, as well as their obvious psychopathy. And, a solid rebuttal to your valid question, about the thought process in the consideration of the lethality of a given firearm.

...

As I addressed in my last paragraphs, magazine capacity is irrelevant, because mass shooters always opt for overkill, with regard to their planning. The weight of their tools is most likely the foremost thought, in their plan. Bullets substantially outweigh magazines. Whether they have 20 five round mags, or 5 twenty round mags, it's the number and weight of the bullets that limits them! In the case of the Colorado shooter, James Holmes, having the 100 round beta mag, he probably considered it to be sufficient. But a loaded beta mag, weighs more


Not sure on this and will have to ponder and respond when I have time, but without a doubt the most solid and well articulated rebuttal to the high capacity magazine argument thus far...

back soon.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Thank you!

I also accept stars (***) as payment, in lieu of written reverence...




GF~




edit on 1/21/2013 by GoOfYFoOt because: text...



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


what is the criteria?
simple questions deserve simple answers, so ... equal force.
if the oppressor has it, then so should the oppressed.

if you don't want extreme arms in the hands of the people, then remove them from govt, first.
easy compromise, are you willing ?

if not, then what are you offering ?
a compromise involves much more than "obey".

so, what are you willing to relinquish in order to 'meet in the middle'

personally, i prefer the standard return to what is stated ... shall not be infringed, period.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by Honor93
... well regulated militia ...

how long has our government supported, provided for, enhanced or even met with the American militias ?


Interesting that you choose to define militia as organized collective of citizenry vs. individual and "well regulated"??...

Is that how you define "Militia"?

double-speak much ?

i don't recall defining militia and apparently neither do you ...

Is that how you define "Militia"?

so, which is it ... are you telling me or asking me ??



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 

do even know what a 'straw purchase' is ??
from your commentary, i seriously doubt it.
straw purchases are made 'legally', until found out, if ever.

how would any of the proposed EAs reduce or prevent straw purchases?
i can go make a straw purchase today ... if the weapon is not used in a crime, no one would ever know the better.

private transactions are just that ... private, get it ?


So...Joe Blow can buy 12 guns from a liscensed fire-arms dealer and turn around and sell those same guns out of the back of his car for cash.
yeah, it happens alot so which of the EAs would address this problem ?


That is simply how legal guns get into the hands of criminals

so, are you oblivious to the actions of Eric Holder or just pretending ???



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 

please, permit me to point out the gaping holes in your theory.


A simple thing we can do is require the reporting of "loss", "transfer" or "sale" of firearms
compliance is key, isn't it?
good luck with that.


Erase their profit margin
if this were even possible, the black market wouldn't exist today



AND we need to track weapons to enforce this.
we can't even mandate hobbyists to report their builds, what makes you think weapons could be tracked ??

and, since the ATF was supposedly tracking the F&F weapons, why haven't they been able to retrieve them to date ?

quantity is a personal preference and not subject to regulation, period.


make them sign a legal doc stating that all the guns are still in thier personal possesion and they will notify authorites if that changes
because, in America, the people are the final authority so who else would we be reporting to ?? the oppressors ?



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 

no, because they were 'legal' purchases by a private citizen.
if you want to keep felons out of the gun shows, stop them at the door


this idiot broke the laws by selling them and to an undercover operative at that.

we will NEVER keep guns out of the hands of those who want them, criminal or not ... why won't ppl grasp this concept ?



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Massive Boycott in NY planned


Assault-rifle owners statewide are organizing a mass boycott of Gov. Cuomo’s new law mandating they register their weapons, daring officials to “come and take it away,” The Post has learned.

Gun-range owners and gun-rights advocates are encouraging hundreds of thousands of owners to defy the law, saying it’d be the largest act of civil disobedience in state history.

“I’ve heard from hundreds of people that they’re prepared to defy the law, and that number will be magnified by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, when the registration deadline comes,’’ said Brian Olesen, president of the American Shooters Supply, one of the largest gun dealers in the state.


www.nypost.com...



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide
Massive Boycott in NY planned


Assault-rifle owners statewide are organizing a mass boycott of Gov. Cuomo’s new law mandating they register their weapons, daring officials to “come and take it away,” The Post has learned.

Gun-range owners and gun-rights advocates are encouraging hundreds of thousands of owners to defy the law, saying it’d be the largest act of civil disobedience in state history.

“I’ve heard from hundreds of people that they’re prepared to defy the law, and that number will be magnified by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, when the registration deadline comes,’’ said Brian Olesen, president of the American Shooters Supply, one of the largest gun dealers in the state.


www.nypost.com...


I'm just glad that I don't live in NY, where I would be subjected to such a ridiculous law that I would be forced to make the same decision!



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Sure, there will be no arguments, at all. At, say, the L.A. County gun show, there are literally thousands of armed people walking around the 14 miles of table displays of various weapons and accessories.

Not one incident...except nervous country policeLOL. Even they are relaxed by day three.

Lots of guns=good manners...polite conversation and amicable agreements to disagree.

It really works!
edit on 21-1-2013 by nwtrucker because: spelling error



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightTide
 

considering what Cuomo has already annouced publicly, i too am very happy i don't reside there. one Waco was enough in my lifetime.
Cuomo warning

now that's one kook who should be restricted from all arms ... even his own 2 hands ... then he can't sign any more ridiculous legislation either





 
245
<< 27  28  29    31  32 >>

log in

join