chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 6:27 AM

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity” Sigmund Freud

:-) /

:D
@anti

I got ya.

bazil9 on January 31, 2013 at 9:12 AM

Love ya, b9! :)

AC, caught the gilled one in the headlines. She must be pining for you. ;-)

tommy71 on January 31, 2013 at 9:15 AM

lol

I just saw the thread – dam, she is an obsessed nut!

I have to say, I was looking forward to her posting her daily thought/quote here – she’s done so only twice, and left me hanging since! :(

annoyinglittletwerp on January 31, 2013 at 9:34 AM

A well armed family is a happy one:) Wait, my kids are older than yours, man I started early:)

Don’t forget Spawn:)

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 8:17 AM

Spawn owns a 70 year old Russian Nagant(sp)and is a decent shot. Next time I got to the range-probably next week since i want to get in some practice for my CHL class-I might let him try my .38. It’s too bad that he can’t buy his own for another 2 years. *In Texas you have to be 21 to purchase a handgun. Spawn is almost 19.*

I got ya.

Sorry Anti, I disagree.

You should be! =P

I witnessed him serving here under Jeb.

This isn’t the only issue I have disagreed with him over
but like TXann- a deal breaker for me.

bazil9 on January 31, 2013 at 8:58 AM

Seriously though, if he is a phony on the issue, I am not going to disagree with you – I’ve just thought that he was being spineless, not duplicitous, by shifting.

kingsjester on January 31, 2013 at 8:57 AM

Yeah, well, such is the world we live in these day, statesmen live no longer, rugged individualism is seen as a collectively unacceptable, and passivity is the new hotness!

Sorry Anti, I disagree.
I witnessed him serving here under Jeb.

This isn’t the only issue I have disagreed with him over
but like TXann- a deal breaker for me.

Yep. And, disrupting Conservative Conversation.

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 8:10 AM

Can you at least agree that if a weapon with less recoil which is easier to handle for the average women or senior is available, said person will have a greater chance of defending themselves should the need arise?

Do you prefer they use a shotgun which will more than likely either take the persons head off completely, or use a .223 caliber weapon which actually may drop an attacker but leave them with a chance of living.

Pro-choice extends to all choices, not just “reproductive health”.

kingsjester on January 31, 2013 at 8:44 AM

Just a game to them KJ, just a game, they want to get folks riled and then make fun, use names, those kinda things. I was quite impressed with his names that he offhandedly used to discredit me, seeing as how anyone who regularly post here knows what I do for a living, and how I feel about that, but hey, it is truly all about pranking people, nothing more nothing less.

As I’ve said before, in America, moviegoers, mall patrons and first-graders will be sacrificed on the altar of the 2nd Amendment so that armchair revolutionaries, gun fetishists, fake commandos and paranoid preppers can stockpile all the guns and ammo they want.

Even the most reasonable constraints on magazine size equates to “they’re trying to take my guns away!” Forget the sippery slope. It’s a zero sum game in the eyes of the NRA.

If a few school kids have to go down occasionally, it’s worth it so people like you will have the ability to fight the U.S. military with small arms, or fight off the inevitable zombie apocalypse.

This is America now.
This is how we are.

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 7:40 AM

.
“Reasonable” and “magazine restrictions” are mutually exclusive.

Defying the government does NOT mean fighting the military.

BTW, how much more arms and ammo do “paranoid preppers” have to stockpile before you flee the country?

Could we have a Rubio-free day, HotGas? He and the Maverick are boring.
tommy71 on January 31, 2013 at 8:11 AM

Amen to that! MORE EGGS!!

That’s okay. Has Mama fixed your bowl of Frankenberries, yet?

listens2glenn on January 31, 2013 at 8:32 AM

No, he thinks that restricting guns from the law abiding will protect us from the sicker members of our society.

But he’s the logical one here. /

“Scary looking guns”?

If we have to tolerate the occasional slaughter of moviegoers and first graders so that people can own “scary looking guns” then ours is a very sick society, indeed.

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 6:27 AM

.
No, you need to learn how to use “scary looking guns” to prevent the next “slaughter of moviegoers and first graders”.

You stopped making sense three posts back.

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 8:10 AM

Well, at least you admit it. I’ll give you that much.

Never. I guess because the conservative media is too afraid to question him.

I really want to see him asked!

I actually sent him $25 when he was running until my brother informed me of his dubious past as speaker, then I called the campaign HQ and demanded my money back. To their credit, they refunded me the money.

That looks awful if they refunded your money without being able to defend him. :(

Amnesty = dealbreaker for me.

TxAnn56 on January 31, 2013 at 8:07 AM

There are a lot of people like you – if the GOP doesn’t get its act together on this and the debt ceiling, how could anyone honestly believe it’s going to survive?

annoyinglittletwerp on January 31, 2013 at 7:51 AM

Don’t forget Spawn:)

Against:

1. Passing a bill that makes illegals legal, effectively making them citizens even if there is some fake waiting period after that that means little or nothing;

2. Passing a bill that doesn’t secure the border;

3. Living in a country where the people in Congress actually have the pearls to pass laws in two sections, where the second section begins with anything remotely like, “If anyone actually did the first part we wrote, this part is valid”;

4. Trying to sacrifice this Rubio fellow like a sacrificial lamb, claiming it was his job to fix the problem and he somehow mucked it up, when the people sacrificing him are cowardly ghouls that wouldn’t fix the problem themselves and have been eying his boots the whole time he’s been shoved forward;

*poof*

Axe on January 31, 2013 at 2:17 AM

I’m not a huge fan of Rubio, but throwing him into a meat grinder seems wrong, tasty, but wrong.

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 8:02 AM

Good, then just pass those type laws in your state, and I will live in mine, you see that was the whole purpose of this experiment we call America, sovereign states bonded together for mutual security from outside menaces, but free to govern independent of the federal government within their own borders. One other point, the shooter picked the targets they did for a reason, it was because they wouldn’t face resistance, period! The more sheep dogs you have out, the less the wolves will attack, and if they don’t know who is, they can’t calculate strength, so therefore they either quit, or move to where they can.

Good to see that you’re an anti-illegal immigration guy like we are, Chump.

Cleombrotus on January 31, 2013 at 8:06 AM

You stopped making sense three posts back.

Quit while you’re behind.

Did you ever hear him try to explain that?

Anti-Control on January 31, 2013 at 7:58 AM

Never. I guess because the conservative media is too afraid to question him. I actually sent him $25 when he was running until my brother informed me of his dubious past as speaker, then I called the campaign HQ and demanded my money back. To their credit, they refunded me the money. Amnesty = dealbreaker for me.