PDA

View Full Version : GUN CONFISCATION IS BEGINNING-- SENATE BILL SB-2099


SCSTILLER
08-17-2009, 07:37 AM
This email was sent to me this morning! This has my blood boiling. I thought it might be a scare tactic email so I checked snopes they say it is legit. If this is true this is absolute BS. Punish the law abiding gun owners because of the criminals that will get firearms no matter how many laws you pass! :mad:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

Gun Owners Watch Out

Concerning the Blair-Holt proposed legislation: Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It may require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun.

In November, our lying president promised he was not going after our Second Amendment rights. This bill was introduced on Feb. 24. This bill will become public knowledge 30 days after it is voted into law. This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee can pass this without the Senate voting on it at all.

The full text of the proposed amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage, http://www.senate.gov// <http://www.senate.gov//> <http://www.senate.gov/ <http://www.senate.gov/>

You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099.

You know who to call; I strongly suggest you do. Please send a copy of this e-mail to every gun owner you know.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text <http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text>

Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don't fully comply.

It has started.

Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill: HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.

Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because the government is trying to fly it under the radar.

To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information.

Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless: It is registered -You are fingerprinted -You supply a current Driver's License -You supply yourSocial Security # -You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing. Each update change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail. - There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. -They would have the right to come into your home and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison. :banging:

If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family pass this along.

This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.

This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not. If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use against me. HR 45 only makes us less safe.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45 <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45> :

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show <http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show>

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45 <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45>

Please.. copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA, whether you support the Right to Bear Arms or not. YOUR rights are next. Government is taking away our right to choose, as well as the right to defend ourselves from intruders.

CALL YOUR SENATOR

revefsreleets
08-17-2009, 09:00 AM
You're doing a heckuva job, Obamie!

43Hitman
08-17-2009, 09:58 AM
"From my cold dead hand"

revefsreleets
08-17-2009, 11:13 AM
FALSE

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/taxreturns.asp

Obamie is still doin' a heckuva job, though...

The_WARDen
08-17-2009, 11:17 AM
"From my cold dead hand"
Okay.

The_WARDen
08-17-2009, 11:18 AM
FALSE

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/taxreturns.asp

Damn! Spoiled my morning!

steelreserve
08-17-2009, 12:52 PM
Yeah, not to mention anything like that would probably get sued and found unconstitutional anyway, like a poll tax or a tax on free speech.

Basically anything that's in the Bill of Rights, they can't charge you money for, or they run afoul of the "equal protection" amendment because you're holding rich and poor people to a different standard.

SCSTILLER
08-17-2009, 01:05 PM
FALSE

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/taxreturns.asp

Not really, if you would have clicked on the snopes website I listed before the article it would take you to TRUE, or you could type in HR 45 into snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

Now, I will give you that the listing firearms on your tax returns wouldn't happen like in your Snopes link, but all the other gun control points snopes listed as true in the link I provided (or the bolded items in my post).

hindes204
08-17-2009, 01:09 PM
part of this is true...the Blair Holt bill is a real bill being proposed...the tax part is false.

Read the whole snopes article here

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

it also says that this bill doesnt have a single co-sponsor, so it is unlikely this bill will see the light of day anyway

Dino 6 Rings
08-17-2009, 01:13 PM
The gun store I went to last week, had a sign up on its billboard "How's that Hopey Changey thing working out for you?"

Also inside it had a "UN Free Zone" Poster on the wall.

I'll be going there again this thursday to make a purchase and meet some of the local good ole boys. Maybe join a militia Too!

SCSTILLER
08-17-2009, 01:24 PM
it also says that this bill doesnt have a single co-sponsor, so it is unlikely this bill will see the light of day anyway

It would be political suicide if this was backed for alot of Republicans and Blue Dogs.

Dino 6 Rings
08-17-2009, 01:27 PM
Pryor in Arkanas (Blue Dog) would lose his seat in a landslide. May even be forced to resign.

Preacher
08-17-2009, 01:28 PM
As said before... it is TRUE. http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

However, read the entire page. It is false that they could come inspect it. THey can only inspect places were guns are held for distribution. Furthermore, you are not subjected to a physical and mental examination, but, according to snopes, are required to sign a waver of right so they can check the mental background.

This IS a scary situation.

hindes204
08-17-2009, 01:36 PM
Wheres all the people that were screaming about government intrusion when President Bush was in office...At least Pres. Bush had valid reasons, he was trying to stop Americans from being killed

The Patriot
08-17-2009, 03:14 PM
Wheres all the people that were screaming about government intrusion when President Bush was in office...At least Pres. Bush had valid reasons, he was trying to stop Americans from being killed

:doh: Yes, when Bush violates the constitution it's just his patriotism.

revefsreleets
08-17-2009, 03:35 PM
:doh: Yes, when Bush violates the constitution it's just his patriotism.

When the original Patriot Act was sent to the Senate in 2001, 98 Senators voted for it...48 of them were democrats. Only one Democrat voted against it.

In 2006, 89 Senators voted to renew it, and only 9 Democrats voted against it.

2001 House? 357 to 66 R to D, with 62 of those nays being D's. 2006 280 to 138, with 13 R nays and 124 D nays (It's easier to hide from your constituents in the House amongst the 435 total votes)

Surely by 2006 they all had enough time to realize they were "violating the constitution" and that Bush was Satan, no?

Vis
08-17-2009, 03:41 PM
All of the guns taken will be put to good use by the death panels.

7SteelGal43
08-17-2009, 03:59 PM
:doh: Yes, when Bush violates the constitution it's just his patriotism.

A liberal misses the point. shock. :coffee:

Dino 6 Rings
08-17-2009, 04:11 PM
All of the guns taken will be put to good use by the death panels.

HILARIOUS!

And Slightly Scary.

7SteelGal43
08-17-2009, 04:28 PM
Do we need stricter gun control laws ? Well, let's examine a thing or three. Just because a man registers his gun as the law requires, and is otherwise a law abiding upstanding guy, doesn't mean he's not going to put a bullet in some guys head for banging his wife. Course, he could just as easily get a butcher knife from the kitchen drawer. "But if we require a background check, we can stop known felons from buying hand guns". Correction, you can stop a known felon from REGISTERING a hand gun. "We've banned citizens from legally owning AK47s". Yeah. Tell that to the coach who was shot with an ILLEGAL AK47 by an irate father whose son had been cut from the team. By the way, nice call on that story, Nancy Grace :toofunny:

Look. Gun control SHOULD be fairly simple. How bout we just say "use a gun in the perpetration of an illegal act, spend the rest of your natural born days in jail" ! :thmbup:

Vincent
08-17-2009, 04:32 PM
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Translation: all gun laws are in direct conflict with Amendment II and unconstitutional. :m16:

hindes204
08-17-2009, 04:44 PM
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Translation: all gun laws are in direct conflict with Amendment II and unconstitutional. :m16:

EXACTLY!!! End of discussion :thmbup:...............next thread

MACH1
08-17-2009, 07:42 PM
http://thetruthorthefight.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/gun_control_works21.jpg

SCSTILLER
08-18-2009, 07:12 AM
we will see another attempt at gun control, it's a matter of when and not if. I can't even imagine where we're going to be by the end of his term.

There is going to be a path of destruction behind him to be cleaned up

stlrtruck
08-18-2009, 08:41 AM
I remember and old bumper sticker:

Gun control means using both hands!

7SteelGal43
08-18-2009, 11:56 AM
I remember and old bumper sticker:

I saw one that said "first rule of gun safety....don't piss me off" :chuckle:

SCSTILLER
08-18-2009, 12:27 PM
I remember and old bumper sticker:

I saw one that said "first rule of gun safety....don't piss me off" :chuckle:

One bumper sticker I always loved was "my gun has killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car!"

I also love this dialogue from the movie Black Hawk Down.

Captain: "Sergeant, that is a hot weapon, your safety is off"

Sergeant wiggling trigger finger: "This is my safety, sir!"

7SteelGal43
08-18-2009, 01:16 PM
One bumper sticker I always loved was "my gun has killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car!"

I also love this dialogue from the movie Black Hawk Down.

Captain: "Sergeant, that is a hot weapon, your safety is off"

Sergeant wiggling trigger finger: "This is my safety, sir!"

WOOT !! :salute:

Dino 6 Rings
08-18-2009, 01:37 PM
2,000 Guns Confiscated Under Conn. Seizure LawHARTFORD, Conn. (AP) ― Police in Connecticut say they've now seized more than 2,000 firearms under a 1999 law that allows authorities to confiscate guns from people they suspect might harm themselves or others.

A report prepared for the state legislature says state and local police seized 2,093 guns from October 1999 to May 2009.

Seymour police used the law last year to take three guns away from a local man after his co-workers reported that he threatened to blow up his workplace. Police searched his computer and discovered he visited Web sites dealing with murders, violence and workplace shootings.

The gun seizure law was passed a year after a disgruntled Connecticut Lottery worker shot four top lottery officials and himself to death at the agency.

http://wcbstv.com/wireapnewscn/Police.in.Connecticut.2.1133056.html

MACH1
08-20-2009, 01:27 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9ks36c549BI/SSBc5zPBCtI/AAAAAAAAAzI/WvqpVI9T22w/s400/Liberal+Hunting+Permit.jpg

JEFF4i
08-22-2009, 01:21 AM
Oh...my god, oh no, oh no. A bill that is unfair is in committee. Wow, just..wow.

After all, all bills get out of committe like all the time. And this one is sure to, like it did last year, and the year. I mean it was introduced to committee in Q1, that means it's like right about to come out and we'll not even have squirt guns!!!

*sigh*

SteelCityMan786
08-22-2009, 01:32 PM
Oh...my god, oh no, oh no. A bill that is unfair is in committee. Wow, just..wow.

After all, all bills get out of committe like all the time. And this one is sure to, like it did last year, and the year. I mean it was introduced to committee in Q1, that means it's like right about to come out and we'll not even have squirt guns!!!

*sigh*

Yeah, but if the Supreme Court has any common sense should this be passed and signed, they will choose to cancel out this law. There is no reason for it. Just create laws that will create standards for how to obtain them.

MACH1
08-22-2009, 01:39 PM
How about they enforce the laws that are already on the books.

7SteelGal43
08-22-2009, 01:49 PM
How about they enforce the laws that are already on the books.

WHAT ?!! that's just too darned simple and choc full of common sense.........IT'LL NEVER WORK I TELL YA !!! :willy:

Preacher
08-22-2009, 04:51 PM
Oh...my god, oh no, oh no. A bill that is unfair is in committee. Wow, just..wow.

After all, all bills get out of committe like all the time. And this one is sure to, like it did last year, and the year. I mean it was introduced to committee in Q1, that means it's like right about to come out and we'll not even have squirt guns!!!

*sigh*

So you telling me that we shouldn't be upset about a bill in committee? You wouldn't be upset if a bill re-instituting separate but equal was introduced and in committee? You wouldn't be upset if a bill demanding a poll-tax for voting was in committee?

tony hipchest
08-22-2009, 05:48 PM
So you telling me that we shouldn't be upset about a bill in committee? You wouldn't be upset if a bill re-instituting separate but equal was introduced and in committee? You wouldn't be upset if a bill demanding a poll-tax for voting was in committee?i think what he is telling you is that not only should you guys be upset, but you guys should :shout: PANIC!!!!!!.

show america that the nutjobs will not be silenced! carry guns to every obama appearance! speak softly and carry a big stick! (:doh: oh wait... that doesnt apply to this current sore losers crying club.)

MACH1
08-22-2009, 06:04 PM
http://open.salon.com/blog/eric_anam/2008/11/12/files/obama_gun_permit1226552578.jpg

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/2/3/633692765227488910-guncontrol.jpg

So I guess the people that want to keep their freedoms are mobs of swastika waving nutjobs now. :doh:

tony hipchest
08-22-2009, 06:20 PM
So I guess the people that want to keep their freedoms are mobs of swastika waving nutjobs now. :doh:
since when was a gun designed as a replacement for a picket sign? since when did the average citizen need to be armed for protection at a presidential rally? who goes target shooting or game hunting at a presidential rally? :noidea:

MACH1
08-22-2009, 06:29 PM
When was it against the law to exercise the 2nd amendment? Since when was it illegal to carry a firearm in public(not concealed). Prove that someone was hunting or target shooting at a presidential rally!

SteelTalons
08-22-2009, 06:33 PM
When was it against the law to exercise the 2nd amendment? Since when was it illegal to carry a firearm in public(not concealed). Prove that someone was hunting or target shooting at a presidential rally!

I dunno lets ask JFK or Lincoln. Oh wait that right...

MACH1
08-22-2009, 06:47 PM
JFK and Lincoln have what to do with this? Oh wait that's right.......:doh:

I guess disarming the public is the way to go. Wouldn't want someone to buy a gun and shoot the prez legally.

tony hipchest
08-22-2009, 07:15 PM
Since when was it illegal to carry a firearm in public(not concealed).

*dialing up plaxico burress for an answer*

freedom of speech doesnt excuse yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

MACH1
08-22-2009, 07:20 PM
*dialing up plaxico burress for an answer*


Got me there, with an illegal gun to begin with. :rolleyes:

How many nutjobs were arrested for legally carrying? 0

tony hipchest
08-22-2009, 07:29 PM
Got me there, with an illegal gun to begin with. :rolleyes:

How many nutjobs were arrested for legally carrying? 0

can a legal un -concealed weapon be carried into a manhattan nightclub? how bout into a church or school? how bout a court house?

the point is moot. i see many more nutjobs than i do gun owner rights being infringed upon. i believe in the right to bear arms. i also believe in the right to buy a yacht. it just may be a little more expensive for most people to do.

so is smoking a cig. or buying a brew or taking a prescription medicine. i am almost certain that guns are the cheapest, least taxed items of those listed above to purchase when comparing retail cost vs. the cost of manufacturing.

the right to own a gun will not go away. the price to do will most likely go up.... :shout:- PANIC!!!!

MACH1
08-22-2009, 07:38 PM
can a legal un -concealed weapon be carried into a manhattan nightclub? how bout into a church or school? how bout a court house?

the point is moot. i see many more nutjobs than i do gun owner rights being infringed upon. i believe in the right to bear arms. i also believe in the right to buy a yacht. it just may be a little more expensive for most people to do.

so is smoking a cig. or buying a brew or taking a prescription medicine. i am almost certain that guns are the cheapest, least taxed items of those listed above to purchase when comparing retail cost vs. the cost of manufacturing.

the right to own a gun will not go away. the price to do will most likely go up.... :shout:- PANIC!!!!

I've already paid taxes on them when I bought them. Why should I pay more taxes or be penalized because I own them legally now?

No, I know it's not legal to carry in schools, court houses, ect. But then that wouldn't be Legally carrying either. :busted:

7SteelGal43
08-22-2009, 11:53 PM
I dunno lets ask JFK or Lincoln. Oh wait that right...

Just a question for you "more gun laws" people. It's a two parter so put your thinking caps on. What new gun laws would you want to see passed and how would it help cut down on gun related crimes or keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people ?

tony hipchest
08-23-2009, 12:16 AM
Just a question for you "more gun laws" people.

i own 2 guns. how bout you?

SteelersinCA
08-23-2009, 04:26 AM
A law allowing a gun to be carried concealed, is 1 law. So is not allowing a concealed gun. Either way, it is 1 law. There isn't necessarily "more gun law" people. 1=1. Just my:twocents:

MACH1
08-23-2009, 02:32 PM
i own 2 guns. how bout you?

umm 18

7SteelGal43
08-23-2009, 02:36 PM
i own 2 guns. how bout you?

Tony, not everything is about you, so if the question doesn't apply, cool. Owning two guns doesn't necessarily have a bearing on wether one sees current or proposed regulation/gun control law as good or bad.

I'm asking those who support current or proposed regulation/gun control law in an effort to understand where they are coming from. I really am curious to hear their views on what laws they support or would like to see and how they think those laws will cut down on gun crime or keep guns outta bad guys hands.

Discuss.

7SteelGal43
08-23-2009, 02:41 PM
A law allowing a gun to be carried concealed, is 1 law. So is not allowing a concealed gun. Either way, it is 1 law. There isn't necessarily "more gun law" people. 1=1. Just my:twocents:

I mean laws like bans on certain types of weapons, waiting period, registering weapons, criminal background checks.etc.

I'm not stating wether I personally am for or against any of those, just giving examples. I'm sure there's more examples I'm missing.

JEFF4i
08-23-2009, 08:49 PM
So you telling me that we shouldn't be upset about a bill in committee? You wouldn't be upset if a bill re-instituting separate but equal was introduced and in committee? You wouldn't be upset if a bill demanding a poll-tax for voting was in committee?

Nope, not really. Maybe if it was my Senator tossing it out there, but if not, I wouldn't care. Thousands and thousands of bills are in committee, and die there.

tony hipchest
08-23-2009, 09:24 PM
I'm asking those who support current or proposed regulation/gun control law in an effort to understand where they are coming from. I really am curious to hear their views on what laws they support or would like to see and how they think those laws will cut down on gun crime or keep guns outta bad guys hands.

Discuss.:yap:

write a freaking letter to the congressmen who wrote the bill and their constituents, then. :dang:

otherwise i think you are barking up the wrong tree. i think you suffer the same disease as revs. you both see EVERYBODY who doesnt agree with EVERYTHING you all believe as one in the same :mg: therefore you are way to willing to pigeonhole ANYBODY.

anyways, this is another (of many, many, many) panic threads that can be put to rest.

Preacher
08-23-2009, 10:14 PM
i think what he is telling you is that not only should you guys be upset, but you guys should :shout: PANIC!!!!!!.

show america that the nutjobs will not be silenced! carry guns to every obama appearance! speak softly and carry a big stick! (:doh: oh wait... that doesnt apply to this current sore losers crying club.)

You know Tony... your minimalizing of everything said which you disagree with is getting quite tiring.

tony hipchest
08-23-2009, 11:25 PM
You know Tony... your minimalizing of everything said which you disagree with is getting quite tiring. :huh: so what youre saying is that you disagree with the way in which i disagree with anyone who doesnt agree with what i agree with, in the same fashion they disagree with anything i agree with?

:noidea:

i still think this is a panic thread. i will wait for the things stated in the OP to come to pass before i go ballistic though.

Preacher
08-24-2009, 12:18 AM
:huh: so what youre saying is that you disagree with the way in which i disagree with anyone who doesnt agree with what i agree with, in the same fashion they disagree with anything i agree with?

:noidea:

i still think this is a panic thread. i will wait for the things stated in the OP to come to pass before i go ballistic though.

Nope.. That pretty much any thread in the political forum you disagree with becomes a "panic thread"

Just once, I would like to see you actually and truly engage the topic instead of dismissing and twisting issues. You and Revs seem to have a dance going on.

The sad thing about it, is that the two of you, when you both actually choose to debate and discuss instead of doing stuff like this, can be a couple of the most informative posters for these kind of issues.

tony hipchest
08-24-2009, 01:03 AM
but most threads that i disagree with in the political forum are infact "panic threads".

obama's wailing wall prayer.

obama's airplanes tail fin logo.

obama is muslim.

obama's lapel pin.

obama is communist.

obama wants your guns...

the list goes on and on.

i find this thread (like many others) to be quite meaningless and not worthy of actual discussion. its much to do about nothing (especially being that it was exposed as mostly rhetoric and propoganda).

on the flipside, i find the terrorism going on in juarez, mexico to be quite striking and topic worthy. not many find that discussion worthy either. just because nobody wants to discuss it or bow down to my beliefs, doesnt mean im gonna bitch about it.

if people can post "sky is falling" pictures in the football forum, i can most certainly post :shout:- PANIC!!!! in the political forum, right?


if not, please let me know. last i checked, disagreeing with revs isnt a sin on this board. :noidea:

do you really want an honest discussion on the topic of this thread?

fine. do i believe that all guns should be confiscated or their sales be outlawed to all? answer is NO.

there. end of discussion.

:hunch:

MasterOfPuppets
08-24-2009, 01:19 AM
you forgot obama wasn't born an american, and he's giving money to palestine terrorist ....:chuckle:

Preacher
08-24-2009, 02:32 AM
but most threads that i disagree with in the political forum are infact "panic threads".

obama's wailing wall prayer.

obama's airplanes tail fin logo.

obama is muslim.

obama's lapel pin.

obama is communist.

obama wants your guns...

the list goes on and on.

i find this thread (like many others) to be quite meaningless and not worthy of actual discussion. its much to do about nothing (especially being that it was exposed as mostly rhetoric and propoganda).

on the flipside, i find the terrorism going on in juarez, mexico to be quite striking and topic worthy. not many find that discussion worthy either. just because nobody wants to discuss it or bow down to my beliefs, doesnt mean im gonna bitch about it.

if people can post "sky is falling" pictures in the football forum, i can most certainly post :shout:- PANIC!!!! in the political forum, right?


if not, please let me know. last i checked, disagreeing with revs isnt a sin on this board. :noidea:

do you really want an honest discussion on the topic of this thread?

fine. do i believe that all guns should be confiscated or their sales be outlawed to all? answer is NO.

there. end of discussion.

:hunch:

Interesting. If you don't think the thread is worth posting in... then why post? Many threads I just look over as well.

Funny thing.. I never said disagreeing with Rev is a sin... matter of fact, I said that you both do the same thing... and it is a shame because an honest discussion would benefit many others.

As far as you "honest discussion" well, that isn't what the thread was about, which makes me wonder if you even really read through the first post or just react after reading a couple words.

The thread is actually about a specific post bill sent to congress which is being argued is the first step of actual confiscation... The fact that the govt. will require a bunch of information from everyone that owns a gun, regardless of purchase.

Now, Snopes agrees with most of it, while showing that part of the original message was restricted to commercial gun sellers. Now, do you think that it is worth while to call or write a congressman or woman to express your disaproval for this bill? I think it is a worthy discussion, because someday, a bill like this will make it out of committee and to the floor. When that happens, it becomes harder to stop the bill, and more politicized. So why wait until then?

Now, how exactly is that a panic article? Seems to me, it has the facts pretty straight (except for one minor place) and brings up a good point.

May be a little less obama flagwaving and a little more reading of the actual original posts would help? :noidea:

that or we can just keep posting Arians sucks in every other thread.

revefsreleets
08-24-2009, 09:19 AM
:yap:



otherwise i think you are barking up the wrong tree. i think you suffer the same disease as revs. you both see EVERYBODY who doesnt agree with EVERYTHING you all believe as one in the same :mg: therefore you are way to willing to pigeonhole ANYBODY.



This is about as valid as a pile of pig vomit. I'm sorry I've caught you being full of shit a bunch of times and have had the temerity to (gasp!) actually call you on it, but PLEASE for the love of Christ stop retaliating with personal attacks, especially groundless ones...

Funny thing.. I never said disagreeing with Rev is a sin... matter of fact, I said that you both do the same thing... and it is a shame because an honest discussion would benefit many others.

I also take umbrage with this, preach...sure, I may be tad bombastic when I get a little fired up, but that's largely based on my frustration at people who argue angrily from a position of either ignorance or simplicity. I think the biggest "sin" on this board is we have a bunch of checkers players (not all, but a lot) trying to play chess, and I WILL "impeach the witness" when I see something like that happening...

Preacher
08-24-2009, 05:20 PM
I also take umbrage with this, preach...sure, I may be tad bombastic when I get a little fired up, but that's largely based on my frustration at people who argue angrily from a position of either ignorance or simplicity. I think the biggest "sin" on this board is we have a bunch of checkers players (not all, but a lot) trying to play chess, and I WILL "impeach the witness" when I see something like that happening...

Just what HAVE you two agreed on?

Well, OTHER than LITP? :rofl:

HometownGal
08-24-2009, 06:13 PM
sure, I may be tad bombastic when I get a little fired up,

:jawdrop: A tad? Nah . . . say it aint so! :wink: :chuckle:

tony hipchest
08-24-2009, 08:32 PM
Interesting. If you don't think the thread is worth posting in... then why post? Many threads I just look over as well. because pointing out obvious :shout:- PANIC!!!!is just so much fun!


As far as you "honest discussion" well, that isn't what the thread was about, which makes me wonder if you even really read through the first post or just react after reading a couple words.
.

of course i read the original article (which even the OP suggested he felt might be a "scare tactic"). i still dont see gun confiscation beginning. :hunch: basically what i see is a bill being proposed (that will never pass) that says gun owners will be criminals if they chose to break the law. :noidea:


Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don't fully comply.

you rob a bank with a gun, you are a criminal. in most cases if you murder a person with a gun, you are a criminal. those above the age of 16 have the right to drive a car, and those over the age of 21 have the right to drink a case of brew, but if you chose to do both at the same time....

well, youre a criminal.

dont like the laws???, well then dont vote for them or the representatives who support it, but to say gun confiscation is beginning is pure panic. i call em how i see em.

:point:

This is about as valid as a pile of pig vomit. I'm sorry I've caught you being full of shit a bunch of times and have had the temerity to (gasp!) actually call you on it, but PLEASE for the love of Christ stop retaliating with personal attacks, especially groundless ones...



I also take umbrage with this, preach...sure, I may be tad bombastic when I get a little fired up, but that's largely based on my frustration at people who argue angrily from a position of either ignorance or simplicity. I think the biggest "sin" on this board is we have a bunch of checkers players (not all, but a lot) trying to play chess, and I WILL "impeach the witness" when I see something like that happening...

speaking of "arguing angrily".... :coffee:

whos playing games, revs? you take this stuff WAY to seriously to be playing anything, and i seem to be the only one having fun.

but i gotta admit, its kinda cute to see you all livid, and red in the face, storming out of the dugout like billy martin or lou pinella, tossing bases, and trying to kick dirt on my shoe.

despite the tirades, remember, while you think youre the manager who sends people to the bench, i am like the umpire. while i cant throw you out of the game (and never would, or want to) i can definitely throw you off of it.

revefsreleets
08-25-2009, 09:06 AM
I'm not thrown off my game at all...still very much on point. Just saw a "teaching moment" and took it. Calling a steaming pile of pig vomit a steaming pile of pig vomit is definitely apropos in this case. I'm perfectly willing to stand here and be accused of anything as long as it has a shred of legitimacy to it...your reference to me above did not.

Preach, I think Tony and I have agreed on a thing or two, and agree on a LOT of things on the football side. I'm just tired of the partisan party lock-step being exhibited on this board (and not just by him, and NOT just by Democrats). I feel like climbing to the top of a large hill with a bullhorn and screaming into it "Think for yourself!!!!!".

It gets a little frustrating...

ARKIESTEEL
08-25-2009, 09:26 AM
How about make it simple; if you want to own guns buy them if you dont want to own guns leave the folks that do alone.


Just a thought

HometownGal
08-25-2009, 09:30 AM
How about make it simple; if you want to own guns buy them if you dont want to own guns leave the folks that do alone.


Just a thought

:applaudit::thumbsup::applaudit:

AMEN!

(But - I do support legislation with stricter background checks on those who want to purchase firearms)