Watchlords

Thanks to that fucking Lefty Freak Barack "I Can't Believe I Voted for Him" Obama, Mrs. B and I are stocking up on firearms - just like every other right thinking American. And we've been blowing our racing and watch budgets to do it! (Ya gotta love Mrs. B. She likes AR-15s, motorcycles, fast cars and booze).
Since January, our His & Hers arsenal has grown to include: 1 AK-47 (hers); 1 Colt AR-15 (hers); two Baretta Nanos (hers); 1 Sig 290RS (hers) ... noticing a pattern here?... 1 Glock 27 Gen 4 (hers); a .22-caliber Pitbull Two Shot Derringer (hers); 1 Smith & Wessen Shield (hers); PLUS his and hers .45 cal Springfield XDS; one Colt Pocketlite .380 Mustang (his); 1 H&K P2000sk .40 cal (his); 1 Glock 26 Gen 3 (his) and one .22-caliber H&K MP A5.
Take that, Obama, you foreign-born scum! (Of course ammo is hard to find....)
And, we'll probably get some others. We've been having fun going to the gun range again.
Anyone else here enjoy shooting?
I'd love to read your mini-reviews of weapons you own.
Thanks!

Love to hear this. Yes ammo in my area if very hard to get a hold of too.

Gosh, this is a great place... I will be posting my collection over the next few days

Gosh- aren't you guys worried that Obama is taking names via Eschelon of people "bold" enough to post their arsenals online or discussing them in emails? Might want to think twice.

Since your wrong-thinking courtesans in the U.S. senate voted down background checks and as a result foreign and domestic terrorists, drug cartels, schizophrenics, hostile-aggressive bi-polar folks, psychopaths, sociopaths, violent narcissists, felons, gang members, and everyone else who should be precluded can now buy all the guns, ammunition, and powder they want, you're going to need them. Don't forget plenty of heavy duty tinfoil to wrap them in to hide them from the "sniffers" and to line your hats with.

Nah, 3 flushes... I'm gonna campaign to have mandatory background checks on everyone who buys a backpack (Boston bombing, Colorado movie theater attack, collage slashing spree), pressure cooker (Boston bombing) and knives (Lone Star College slasher) and well as impose a limit on the quart-capacity of pressure cookers since smaller pots will equal smaller bombs.
Meanwhile, let's all hold hands and crusade against automobiles, which killed more than 32,000 innocent Americans last year and, oh yeah, return the National Speed Limit to 55 mph or Less.
These things are just as stupid as "gun control." Wack-jobs kill. The tool doesn't matter.
Why not push for better education, mental health etc. Things that could actually make a difference.
Lastly, I don't believe the Founding Fathers were wearing tinfoil hats when they amended the Constitution to guarantee our right to bear arms.
YOU may believe the government ain't gonna come after you - but tell that to the California Japanese (see US Supreme Court Kuramatsu Decision) that were thrown into Internment Camps for the slant of their eyes, the Russian kulaks - or the Jews who were hauled off by their governments.
This is fact. History. Not paranoia.
You can stuff your head up your ass and say it ain't gonna happen here - but I remember the Moslems and Arab-American citizens who were rounded up without arrest warrants and held without trial in Paterson, N.J. for a year after 9-11.
And, yes, it did cross my mind that I was posting in a public space. But since I already have a concealed weapons permit - verified by the federal government BTW - I know the G-Men already know I'm packing.

I won't be posting my entire arsenal, that would take too long.

That wasn't ours either.
Mrs. B is a serious gun nut

Gee, I don't own any firearms. Or ammo. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I just think it would be safer to call 911 and wait for the government appointed helpers. I can't remember where I heard it, either CNN or MSNBC or someplace on Yahoo but it seems like I've been told a bunch of times that I'm about a million times more likely to be shot with my own firearm than I am to successfully use it to defend myself. Maybe it was Jon Stewart. I know it was someone really smart. Anyway, I have been considering buying a whistle.

Guns, guns, guns . . . waste of money, money, money . . .

Background checks on firearms purchasers? Pffft! Why, that's patently unnecessary!

boscoe wrote:
(Ya gotta love Mrs. B. She likes AR-15s, motorcycles, fast cars and booze).

Gee, nothing could go wrong with that combo :8YKYHUH:

Didn't say anything about gun control; I do however support the ban on the propagandizedly so called assault rifles for reasons I've posted here in other threads. I am indeed though a zealous advocate for mandatory background checks and the re-establishment of the mental-health safety net.

Wack jobs do kill, but, to believe that the tool doesn't matter is misguided. In addition to perpetrators' perceptions regarding their possession of semi-auto rifles that I've posted about previously, potentially homicidal individuals are much more likely to act on those impulses using an available firearm. It takes a very different twitch to stick a knife in your chest or slit your throat than it does to pull a trigger. Primarily, a firearm provides distance, from the act and the target.

While your pontifical advocacy for the banishment of pressure cookers, cars, and backpacks is amusing, that's all it is. It is interesting to note here that there are more laws in most states related to bladed weapons than firearms. Most if not all states restrict the possession of daggers, gravity knives, and automatic knives. Many states also restrict the length of the blade. In CA, possession of one of these restricted blades is a felony, (as is the possession of a baton)while carrying a concealed firearm, a misdemeanor.

As to the framers and what has and what could happen here, I agree. "IT" has and could. When the 2nd amendment was instituted, the masses and the military had access to basically the same weapons. Such is no longer the case and if you think for even a second that you and your old lady are going to hold off the military with your fuckin AR- AK- Glock...whatever, you're the one with his head up his ass. Should you really believe that, come out to San Diego and spend about an hour with my Navy Seal nephew while he's here on leave and you will soon be relieved of the nonsense of your notion, and if "they" decide they want the Hoi-Polloi's weapons, they are going to get them. With or without background checks, with or without registration, with or without tinfoil. You can trust and believe that.

Lastly, the Aurora perpetrator completely failed in his planned actions. Had he succeeded, their would have been hundreds of casualties. If the true magnitude of his plan had been revealed, and the epidemiology of the potential for such acts was truly understood alone, I think there'd be no resistance to background checks.

Like I said- I am against gun control for any firearm currently available to civilians, except for "assault" weapons. But you better believe that the time has surely come to take serious control of who has access to them.

I'll overlook being mocked by you 3 flushes.

You are either a LIAR or you are misinformed. I will assume the latter.

You are suggesting that the gun control bill that was defeated by the DEMOCRATIC controlled senate was a broad bill covering the prevention of gun purchases by "foreign and domestic terrorists, drug cartels, schizophrenics, hostile-aggressive bi-polar folks, psychopaths, sociopaths, violent narcissists, felons, gang members, and everyone else who should be precluded" via expanded background checks. You go to whine that because the bill was defeated they can now "buy all the guns, ammunition, and powder they want""

This is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read. Its embarrassing. The bill had nothing to do with the groups you cite above. Convicted felons and foreign terrorists can now buy all the guns they want? How fucking dumb do you think we are? (Well actually, the country is indeed pretty fucking dumb ... Consider the fact that we voted that flop-eared racist commie Kenyan Muslim into the white house not once but twice and now must pay the price.)

This bill was in fact a limited scope compromise bill that applied to some aspects of gun show and Internet sales. It would not have had any impact on the Ct or Co shootings.

The way Odumbo used those Newtown CT victim families as props to push this inane agenda was shameful. Btw, the shooter in this incident broke 22 separate CT AND Federal laws in committing this crime.

And the answer is still more laws? I don't think so.

It does not matter who controls the senate when some abuse the filibuster to prevent any business from being done. The senate should be ashamed of itself for the failing to pass the law.

Background checks, we already have that in Washington state, and oh yeah, Montana. I had to go through them to purchase my rifles, in both states. It took all of 15 minutes to go through. I own a rifle, a shotgun and 3 handguns. Ammunition is tough to obtain, 22 caliber. Walmart an Cabelas have plenty of 5.56mm and 9mm. No issues getting shotgun shells.

Guns, God, gays and Invicta all get people worked up.

3Flushes wrote:Since your wrong-thinking courtesans in the U.S. senate voted down background checks and as a result foreign and domestic terrorists, drug cartels, schizophrenics, hostile-aggressive bi-polar folks, psychopaths, sociopaths, violent narcissists, felons, gang members, and everyone else who should be precluded can now buy all the guns, ammunition, and powder they want, you're going to need them.

Apparently this *IS* rocket science.

Newsflash: the vast majority of people in the above categories DON'T PURCHASE THEIR GUNS THROUGH REGULATED METHODS THAT WOULD REQUIRE BACKGROUND CHECKS ANYWAY.

Procuring an AK with an acid-burned serial number from Tyrell in a back alley at 3AM typically does not require a background check, waiting period, or producing an FOID card.... just a bunch of Benjamins or crack cocaine.

I'd be willling to bet that Tyrell does not have an FFL either.

^^^ Yeah that. Gun laws are for law abiding citizens. Period. Waiting for some nut job to go on a killing spree with a crossbow, or just plain old long bow, and we will be doing background checks to purchase bows and arrows. Not to mention that some of the arrow speeds produced by modern compound bows are down right amazing, and equally as deadly as a gun, but produce no sound. Just wait, it's coming.

To answer the original question. Yes I like guns. Favorite, most reliable pistol, Glock 23 .40 cal. Favorite rifle, Marlin .22 cal. (Purchased with grass mowing money when I was 14 with help from Dad.) I have several others including other pistols, rifles, shotguns, and a vintage hand built muzzle loader.

The Senate is comprised of people who represent their state, not the country as a whole on issues like this. At one time, Senators were not voted in by the people but the assemblies to be a representative of what the particular state desired.
Otherwise we would have two houses. Senate is run by idiots anyway.

Bkc97 wrote:I'll overlook being mocked by you 3 flushes.

You are either a LIAR or you are misinformed. I will assume the latter.

You are suggesting that the gun control bill that was defeated by the DEMOCRATIC controlled senate was a broad bill covering the prevention of gun purchases by "foreign and domestic terrorists, drug cartels, schizophrenics, hostile-aggressive bi-polar folks, psychopaths, sociopaths, violent narcissists, felons, gang members, and everyone else who should be precluded" via expanded background checks. You go to whine that because the bill was defeated they can now "buy all the guns, ammunition, and powder they want""

This is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read. Its embarrassing. The bill had nothing to do with the groups you cite above. Convicted felons and foreign terrorists can now buy all the guns they want? How fucking dumb do you think we are? (Well actually, the country is indeed pretty fucking dumb ... Consider the fact that we voted that flop-eared racist commie Kenyan Muslim into the white house not once but twice and now must pay the price.)

This bill was in fact a limited scope compromise bill that applied to some aspects of gun show and Internet sales. It would not have had any impact on the Ct or Co shootings.

The way Odumbo used those Newtown CT victim families as props to push this inane agenda was shameful. Btw, the shooter in this incident broke 22 separate CT AND Federal laws in committing this crime.

And the answer is still more laws? I don't think so.

[url=[/url]

Thanks. But even had I intended to, I could never have mocked you to the degree that your post makes a mockery of you, and those of your ilk.

No hard feelings Flushes. Your eloquent assessment of the impact of the defeat of this law has provided a lot of laughter and entertainment for me and my ilk.

Here's my ilk...

THANKS 3FLUSHES!!!!!!!

Bkc97 wrote:No hard feelings Flushes. Your eloquent assessment of the impact of the defeat of this law has provided a lot of laughter and entertainment for me and my ilk.

The bill was about background checks for criminals and people with mental disorders such as Jerrod Laughner in Phoenix.

This is the extent of the legislation, no registry of firearms would have been allowed.

Good grief!

WatchDorks.Net wrote:Newsflash: the vast majority of people in the above categories DON'T PURCHASE THEIR GUNS THROUGH REGULATED METHODS THAT WOULD REQUIRE BACKGROUND CHECKS ANYWAY.

wottime wrote:...Gun laws are for law abiding citizens...

As with the old adage: "Locks just keep honest people honest," a common misconception and myth. The number of crimes committed in the U.S. with firearms could not possibly all be perpetrated with guns stolen from citizens who once lawfully possessed them. The majority of these weapons are lawfully purchased and then unlawfully distributed. Background checks could significantly constrict such trafficking by identifying those buying large numbers of guns and ammunition and excluding those with criminal backgrounds and ties to terrorist organizations from buying any.

We can use CT to illustrate another aspect of the point, but not Newton. Very close in time to the Newton tragedy, a grandmother picked up her grandchildren, two boys, aged 7 months, and two years old (on his second birthday) from their daycare center. Rather than take them home, where a birthday party awaited the guest of honor, she drove to a local park, shot and killed the boys, then herself. The woman had a longstanding history of Bipolar disorder, psychiatric hospitalizations and occasional violent behavior. In severely disturbed people like this murderer, the presence of a previously obtained firearm significantly increases the likelihood that they will act on a violent or homicidal impulse (as it does with crimes of passion). The pistol she used was lawfully purchased for her home; CT does not require background checks for firearms bought for home use or sport. The current laws there only require background checks for those applying for concealed weapons permits. The Public Information Officer I spoke to lamented that CT law enforcement had been trying to get the law changed for more than a decade, but that the public and lawmakers just don't get it.

We can also look at the Aurora shootings. Mr. Holmes lawfully purchased every firearm, every round of ammunition, every clip and every chemical, grain of powder and the bomb making devices that he obtained despite being a known and reported threat. We could certainly make the argument that hell bent for leather to do this evil deed, this twitch could have obtained these items on the black market. True, but, in so doing, there is a significantly increased likelihood of detection and intervention by law enforcement, particularly in the case of bomb making materials. Additionally, except for cheap pistols, "cold" (untraceable) sophisticated firearms are considerably more expensive on the black market and would preclude many, including Mr. Holmes, from buying the ordinance to carry out an attack of the magnitude he intended and partially carried out. If CO had the reporting and background check requirements that were enacted following this tragedy, it is highly likely it never would have occurred.

Perhaps one percent of the homicides that occur in this country receive national attention. They are by and large sensational cases that do not accurately represent this pox on our society. Background checks do not in any way prevent those entitled to possess firearms from obtaining them and to the extent they could significantly reduce the overall level of violence inflicted with firearms in the U.S., the time has surely come for background checks to be universally and mandatorily enacted.

Never mind.