Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

blueveined throbber says

Quote:

good deal...give the ducks a sporting chance

Right, the whiners are complaining because NY is planning on bannin semi-auto shotguns, which may be a "hunting weapon" but are also really good at killing lots of people in a confined space. Means duck hunters can only use single shot shotguns, double barrel shotguns, over and under shotguns, pump shotguns...
Good idea, make the lazy SOBs work a little for their sport, have to move around a little to reload every once in awhile. Oh, the horror... How can they stand it? Exercise is good for their souls.

1 Reply

@blueveinedthrobber,

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

oralloy wrote:
oralloy wrote:
MontereyJack wrote:
will be banned, as well as semi-automatic shotguns

In other words, they are trying to ban hunting weapons too.

Worth repeating.

Hey New York duck hunters. Guess whose hunting weapons just got banned?

good deal...give the ducks a sporting chance.

Gun Control: They Want To Ban Hunting Weapons Too

0 Replies

Gee, that only leaves them single barrel shotguns, double barrel shotguns, over and under shotguns, pump shotguns. Oh, the horror! How can they possibly stand to be restricted to the same sporting weapons hunters have used for two centuries? Blueveined throbber called it: give the ducks a sporting chance. Oralloy doesn't support sport. He supports slaughter.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Right, the whiners are complaining because NY is planning on bannin semi-auto shotguns, which may be a "hunting weapon" but are also really good at killing lots of people in a confined space.

No more so than most other hunting weapons.

MontereyJack wrote:

Means duck hunters can only use single shot shotguns, double barrel shotguns, over and under shotguns, pump shotguns...
Good idea, make the lazy SOBs work a little for their sport,

Remember to vote when they ban your hunting weapons.

0 Replies

The number of hunters has been in decline for years. Another demographic you're losing, oralloy.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Gee, that only leaves them single barrel shotguns, double barrel shotguns, over and under shotguns, pump shotguns. Oh, the horror! How can they possibly stand to be restricted to the same sporting weapons hunters have used for two centuries?

How's your war on America's sportsmen coming along? Looks like you're after the duck hunters today, huh?

Think the hunters will remember to vote when you ban their hunting weapons?

0 Replies

single barrel shotguns, double barrel shotguns, over and unders, pumps are legal. Some ban, huh? Keep in mind, too, that as America gets built up, and it is, people are less and less willing to accept people shooting indiscriminately in their backyards. NY is gonna get a lot more suburbanites relieved at having some of the bangs go away then it's gonna get hunters losing one weapon among many alternatives. You're on the losing side here, oralloy.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

The number of hunters has been in decline for years. Another demographic you're losing, oralloy.

Let's see how the Democratic Party declines when America's sportsmen all turn out to vote.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

This the "game" spits on the graves of Newtown victims. as titled by the NY Daily News.

Now they are going after the first amendment as well as the second amendment <video games> so one can wonder how must of the constitution would remain if the Fireflies of the world would get their wish.

A complete police state.

0 Replies

Yeah, let's see how Democrats win more elections when people feel safer. (And don't forget, the NY laws passed with Republicans in the Senate voting for them).

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

single barrel shotguns, double barrel shotguns, over and unders, pumps are legal.

So? That is not going to make the hunters any happier about you banning their hunting weapons.

MontereyJack wrote:

Some ban, huh?

Should be more than enough to get all the hunters out to vote.

0 Replies

Hey, Bill, it was the NRA that condemned violent video games. NRA police state a-comin'.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Keep in mind, too, that as America gets built up, and it is, people are less and less willing to accept people shooting indiscriminately in their backyards. NY is gonna get a lot more suburbanites relieved at having some of the bangs go away then it's gonna get hunters losing one weapon among many alternatives. You're on the losing side here, oralloy.

No. I have the NRA and the Supreme Court on my side.

And you've just declared open war on America's sportsmen.

I'm not about to lose anything.

0 Replies

Read Heller. Read Scalia's interview comments. You don't have the Supreme Court. The NRA is getting outpublicized and outmaneuvered. Their hubris betrayed them.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Yeah, let's see how Democrats win more elections when people feel safer.

You're not going to need to worry too much about winning elections anymore. (At least, not for the next 50 years or so.)

0 Replies

@oralloy,

I didn't bother going back up the thread to find instances of you not answering questions because I knew I could soon get you to not answer another one. Another few actually.

Terrorists, democracy and Islam have nothing to do with the principle of freedom. You might just as well as said "cabbages, hammers and moondust". They have as much to do with freedom as terrorists, democracy and Islam. Nothing.

Quote:

No, I think the terrorists and the gun control movement have much in common. And both sets of Freedom Haters belong at Guantanamo strapped to a waterboarding table.

Does the NRA approve of the manner in which you defend it? If it does it should be a proscribed organisation.

I asked you what the kick was in target practice. It's not like Alan Ladd shooting Indians out of the saddle with a six-gun whilst guiding his galloping horse with one hand. The engineering is the expert.

I don't believe its a sensuous thrill except maybe for a few odd-balls. I suppose the recoil has been expertly damped.

So I'll cite my last post as one you have failed to answer.

Tell me why I shouldn't guffaw when I see on our news shots of po-faced middle-aged gents ejaculating, determinedly po-faced, their money at white cards with black circles printed on them in an environment which might easily be thought of as being the safest location in town.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Read Heller. Read Scalia's interview comments. You don't have the Supreme Court.

Yes I do.

MontereyJack wrote:

The NRA is getting outpublicized and outmaneuvered. Their hubris betrayed them.

The NRA isn't getting outvoted in rural Congressional districts.

And now that you've shown your true colors to the hunters, the NRA will only be more powerful on election day.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Winston Smith was not permitted to own guns because Mr Orwell thought fit to not have him be.

Could there possibly be any other reason?

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I didn't bother going back up the thread to find instances of you not answering questions because I knew I could soon get you to not answer another one. Another few actually.

You mean your questions about knitting and various stitches? They seemed pretty silly.

spendius wrote:

I asked you what the kick was in target practice.

I don't recall that question.

Anyway, people enjoy target practice for the same reason they enjoy any sport. It's a challenge to try to overcome.

spendius wrote:

So I'll cite my last post as one you have failed to answer.

Maybe next time don't ask about knitting. It's not a subject I have a lot to say about.

0 Replies

No, you don't have SCOTUS. 6-3 upholing gun bans is entirely probable.

And by the way, you consider that guy a serious refutation on the connection between guns and suicides? Every single study in the Harvard review I cited post-dates his book, every single one. And among them, those that consider directly the question of guns and suicides do in fact find the more guns, the more suicides.

Your guy is also a piss-poor statistician. He cites the dramatic increase in number of guns over the last decades and notes there's not a corresponding increase as dramatic in the number of gun suicides, completely ignoring the fact that the increase in number of guns is not spread randomly amongst the population. The percentage of households containing guns has in fact fallen over tha last decades, which means those guns tended to go to households that already contained guns, giving potential suicides in those households a richer choices of ways to do the deed, (which by its nature they can only do once), but not increasing the odds overall. Bad statistics. Ih he blows something as simple as that, I wouldn't trust him on anything more complex. Not to mention the fact that there's been fifteen years of research he doesn't even touch, since his book came out in 1997. Nice try, oralloy. Not in the least convincing or relevant.

1 Reply

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know