1. So What? says:

    No.

  2. ShadowRaven says:

    No!

  3. Mextli says:

    “There are people now beginning to say, yes, maybe we should look as a nation at amending the Second Amendment again, and the reason — or repealing it, because the wording has been so open to interpretation that nobody seems quite sure what it means or what the founding fathers truly intended,” Piers Morgan, February 6 edition of his show.

    • ECA says:

      Mex..
      There is a reason.
      If you read the WHOLE original thing..
      Its Layered.
      freedom of speech first.
      Then IF the gov. does not listen..
      Guns to scare them..to BACK UP the rule of law.

      The BASIC RULE of law, is that the PEOPLE create them..US/WE not THEM. We live by the RULEs we create..WE change the RULES that are WRONG..
      If you dont speak up, you GET what you GET.,

  4. Admfubar says:

    only if they took them from the NRA leadership, congress, and gun manufactures 😛 then i’d feel “safe”.

  5. Ah_Yea says:

    What frightens me is 1/3 of those in this blog said yes!

    • FU2 says:

      Sure they did. They have NO BRAIN and are clearly letting their smart phone do all the thinking. Problem is, those phones are always on Reditt!

  6. deowll says:

    You might look at a few more petitions people happily signed: http://infowars.com/californians-sign-petition-to-ban-and-confiscate-firearms/

    I suppose it is useful to get a list of people that would actually make good slaves/citizens of an all powerful police state in which they have no rights.

    • noname says:

      Wage Slave, you actually think your guns guarantee you freedom?

      Owning a gun is not just an object but a lifestyle for fools who put their freedom inanimate objects.

      I got a gun, look at me, I am free, free as bird!

      Where did we lose the touch
      that seemed to mean so much?
      It always made me feel so…

      Free as a bird!

      • The Mick says:

        No one has said that. Why do you?

      • FU2 says:

        You sound like an idiot!

        Change things up just a little and replace the words “gun owner” with the N-word and you just MIGHT see why I say that you’re nothing but a BIGGOT! (Ya, sure. Technically you didn’t say “gun owner” and I’m sure you’d RATHER focus on that INSTEAD!)

        Here’s the thing. Just cause you don’t understand why there’s a SECOND AMENDMENT to the CONSTITUTION doesn’t mean that it should be ignored. If you don’t like the idea of CITIZENS exercising their RIGHTS – like the very right to BE free – then please do us a favor and move somewhere else. Try Cuba or North Korea!!!

      • McCullough says:

        noname, so what is your answer to the question posited?

        • noname says:

          One of America’s hard won freedoms, is the freedom its citizens have not disclose my vote.

          Me owning a gun didn’t win me that freedom.

          Live by the gun, die by the gun.

          Half the “brave” gun toting chicken hawks in this thread never even served, cowards!

          • McCullough says:

            Then, as a fellow military veteran I will ask again…Would you support gun confiscation if ordered by the government? Its a simple question and you should answer it.

          • noname says:

            Who are you that I should answer your question?

          • McCullough says:

            Just someone who is interested in your opinion. So what is your opinion?

          • ± says:

            I’m interested in nonames opinion too and this blog threading sucks and was obviously created by someone related to management.

            True hierarchical posting would aid in achieving your (presumed) goal of higher traffic.

          • McCullough says:

            Don’t blame me man, I’m just a “volunteer”….I’m with you.

          • LibertyLover says:

            As a veteran, I would be curious, too.

  7. FU2 says:

    I predict this thread may exceed 200 posts…

    Should we maybe start talking about abortion? Or perhaps the good old wasteful Washington budget, Wall Street shenanigans and those lesser controversial subjects like SEX!

  8. Mextli says:

    This country is becoming increasingly governed by emotion and not careful deliberation and it works.

    Most of the time the sheep don’t even know what they are supporting. They just react to some weepy plea on the tube.

  9. Dallas says:

    Lordy lord. The gun loons are losing it

    • Hmeyers says:

      Back when the Sheriff of Nottingham was a dick, he could send 30 men to your village knowing he could win by force.

      The gun changed all of that.

      And invented the concept of government respecting its people and ideas like the “consent of the governed”.

      Our constitution is a pact and a promise — the government has limited scope and in return is embraced by the people.

      Sure an evil government could kick our ass, but most of the military is … well … Republicans from the South.

      What are you trying to do Dallas? Set us up for the next Hitler? You are far too smart (in the top 5%).

      Turn that incredible brain of yours on.

      • bobbo, thinking with my brain and not my penis says:

        HM–governments are taking our FREEEEEEDOMS NOT BY GUNS. They use computers, laws, word games, bumperstickers, and Southern Republicans dressed in Blue thinking its “Us against Them.”

        The only freedom you protect is the ability to form an inconsequential rabble.

        Easy to control.

        Just the opposite of what you value and seek to defend.

        Silly.

        • noname says:

          bobbo, exactly…and correct!

          • bobbo, thinking with my brain and not my penis says:

            Thanks noname. But I was only following your lead. Clearly, what else could you have meant?

            It was all right there!

            Just look.

            People have a hard time just looking.

            Oil and Lube.

          • noname says:

            bobbo, you had me up until “Oil and Lube.”

            That’s more scary then some petition.

          • bobbo, telling shit from shinola says:

            I was thinking of oiling and lubing one’s gun.

            Gee, still has that ring of ambiguity.

            Depends on your life experiences I guess?

          • noname says:

            I am an old salt. I’ve seen too much and don’t expect much from people.

          • bobbo, telling shit from shinola says:

            Everybody says that.

            While each experience is unique, we are all pretty much the same.

            I hate it when that happens.

      • Dallas says:

        Agree with Bobbo and add this.
        – Nobody is going to take your (our) gun away. It won’t happen, ever. The tired, overused ‘slippery slope’ argument of background checks leading to confiscations is a hairball argument. As Bobbo put it, your (our) freedoms are being taken away while you obsess about your tommy gun. The 3% rules over the wealth and shipping jobs overseas to lowest bidder. Our Congress are puppets of lobbyists which ultimately report to the 3%.
        The save our Tommy Gun to protect us from the evil government is the wrong battle to fight. Taking up arms against the government ? Really? Is that where your head’s at?

        • bobbo, telling shit from shinola says:

          Thanks Dallas.

          All good men know how much I hate the RICH…but I think even 3% might be too low.

          Income Inequality has many ramifications and causes though. Good to review objectives sources now and then. See where YOU ARE (the thematic you) in the chart.

          No one posting here is RICH–or even close to it. Silly to argue about taxing the rich/freedom/slavery with other mutts in the pack.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

          Worse is WEALTH inequality. Different thing altogether. Hope everyone appreciates the difference ….. and lets keep this a secret from…. you know who!

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States

        • Mextli says:

          Your argument is sloppy Dallas. Guns are and have been confiscated in this country. Granted, not on a nationwide level but confiscated nevertheless.

  10. bobbo, thinking with my brain and not my penis says:

    No.

    ………………………………………………………….

    ………………………………………………………….

    “Be Honest.”…………………….OK, then………………………….Yes.

    As I sit here cracking open my six pack, what I want is SEVERE gun registration and tracking and licensing and review and insurance. I have “limited” my thinking to giving some weight to what I think the Constitution can fairly be thought of as meaning…. in its original intent. This boils down to allowing guns, but in proportion to how much damage to his neighbors a man can do with a musket.

    All the pro gun arguments can be dismissed by modern reality, computers, police, cell phones, and a compound bow.

    But its the “logic” of gun control that leads me to more honestly recognize that guns have NO PLACE in a civilized society. THE ONLY ARGUMENT for guns such as we have today is the fact of the Second Amendment. NONE of the stated reasons to have guns make any sense at all given the reality of the damage they do.

    Food? Hunting sport? Safety? Protection==statistics show these all to be lies. So==with no reason to have guns, logic moves one to opine they indeed should all be confiscated.

    Do you want to get real?===or not.

    • Hmeyers says:

      Bobbo — here’s my theory on you — no this isn’t a personal attack — hear me out —

      You think all problems can be solved by thinking about them.

      Well, it isn’t true. If it were, our greatest scientific discoveries would come from philosophers — but philosophers contribution to science is really, really poor.

      No, you have to real world test ideas to see how they really work.

      • bobbo, thinking with my brain and not my penis says:

        HM–thinking, rather than feeling, rather than not thinking and just doing what you have always done before, certainly is the ONLY pathway to truth. Truths established outside of thinking are mere coincidence.

        But thinking is only the first step.

        Are we Men of Science?====>or devolving monkeys thumping on some false dogma that will not yield its dead hand from the throttle of History?

        And SCIENCE is just as you say: “No, you have to real world test ideas to see how they really work.” /// So–what gets tested other than ideas that come from thinking?

        SCIENCE cannot prove co2 burning causes global warming.

        SCIENCE cannot prove that more guns cause more murders.

        SCIENCE cannot prove that smoking cigarettes causes cancer.

        Too many variables, no standard causation tests can be run either by the scale of the question, or the humanitarian elements involved.

        We can only go on the BEST EVIDNCE and THINKING on the subject available.

        Re gun control we have the direct causation: Guns kill people. Remove the gun, and guns no longer kill people. Iron Clad.

        The closest “proof” I see are statistical studies showing a high positive correlation of gun density to death by guns. Even some variables added are VERY PERSUASIVE: remove guns from Australia and United Kingdom==and death from guns declines. Correlation is not proof, but in the case of guns there is not even a reputable “idea” or argument how the death from guns fell so precipitously.

        In the end though, the quesiton of gun confiscation does not come down to ideas or science, but rather values. Is all the uses/benefits of gun ownership worth all the abuses and harms caused? Are there ways to secure the former while avoiding the latter?…. and so forth.

        My values are to ban and confiscate guns. As stated–the benefits are illusory or easily substituted. I shoot bows for instance. Steel tipped darts too.

        I’ve stated before, ban all the guns and then only criminals will have them. I say Good. That will make criminals easier to catch. It will take time to wash the gun culture out of our psyches.

        The sooner we start, the better.

        Your alternative to arm everybody???? Oh yeah===that’ll work. Imagine ME—drunk on my ass with a six gun rather than a keyboard.

        I think that trumps all arguments!

        • Hmeyers says:

          “My values are to ban and confiscate guns.”

          When you know why, please let me know.

          Hopefully using only a sentence or two 😉

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

            1. To save lives.
            2. To make neighborhoods safer to walk around at night.
            3. So that my own physical size and skill cannot be bested by a twerp with a Sat Night Special.

            Pure self interest. What else can you not directly perceive from my comments?

            STRIKE–any three sentences you wish===not counting this one.

            I am here, but to serve. ((Don’t count this sentence either.))

            That is only fair. ((or this one.))

            but I dither. OK, you can count this one.

            I do crack myself up.

          • Hmeyers says:

            Well, after considering how good the government has been at banning drugs or illegal immigration or during prohibition — alcohol …

            Or even stopping copper thieves, why do feel they would be any good at this one?

            I’m not arguing against your sentiment, I am very much for utopia and a world free of violence.

            But I am aware of the world I actually live in.

    • McCullough says:

      Of course you do, at least you have the balls to be honest.

      Thanks.

      • bobbo, thinking with my brain and not my penis says:

        Hey McCullough==I’ve been amused by your multiple posts on topic yet no other contributions.

        I assume you are completely sated on the subject?

        An old class of mine is having a reunion this year. Took a while to find everyone minus one from cancer. Everyone meeting in Fort Collins for the first time.

        As things will do, the subject of gun control came up in our group emailing. Seems I’m the only one of the group that thinks guns kill people. Not being a blog, it was fun to see some folks honestly wrestle with people they otherwise (used to) respect, but now they have a “difference of opinion.”

        From that group, quite a few did indeed grow up with guns. Guns taken to school to go shooting after class. Semi-automatics too were claimed but I wonder if that was the heat of the moment?

        Anyhoo, as I partially recognized in you a while back==you are conflating your own comfort and utility with that of the larger society. Two different questions entirely.

        McCullough, the private man. McCullough the citizen. Two different people. Can you think two different thoughts???

        And that provides the “crack” in my total ban. As long as you are willing to have the government up your butt, then fine===as an interim spot 1/10th the way up the slippery slope. Go ahead—have your guns while the rest of humanity avoids the scrutiny and gets on with life.

        Guns—are hardly what anyone says or thinks.

        Guns—emotional. Like a mothers tit.

        • Hmeyers says:

          He’s either had too many beers or read too many blog comments.

          Difficult to know which 😉

  11. Hmeyers says:

    No?

    WTF? What seclude urban nutball that uses their head thinks this would be a good idea but more importantly — why and with what proof this idea even makes sense?

    Are we living in dumbass-world now?

  12. Mextli says:

    There is no weapon on earth more frightening than bobbo’s opinions. He longs for Oceania.

    Someone confiscate his keyboard.

    • bobbo, thinking with my brain and not my penis says:

      I know. Science appears as magic to the knuckle dragging Science Deniers (aka those Religiously Hobbled) among us.

      But I dream not of Oceania but rather of the CITY! Where all good things happen.

      What is the wilderness good for except shitting without toilet paper?

  13. bobbo, telling shit from shinola says:

    Hmeyers making the best argument I can think of says:
    4/14/2013 at 8:25 pm

    Well, after considering how good the government has been at banning drugs or illegal immigration or during prohibition — alcohol … /// True dat. But who here thinks the gubment “really” wants to ban drugs or illeagles? Why would the gubment then want to “really” ban guns? How much the same are these three different issues? Well, its a crap shoot isn’t it? I’m guessing the POLICE would actually have an interest in grabbing all the guns, regardless of what the gubment might think otherwise. Comes down to that experiment you want to run?

    Or even stopping copper thieves, why do feel they would be any good at this one? /// Copper thieves can be shot on sight when they arise to any real problem. They aren’t. Every law made has violators. Calling attention to that is a fools argument.

    I’m not arguing against your sentiment, /// I think you are. A question of emPHAsis?

    I am very much for utopia and a world free of violence. /// The obvious foolishness of your statement belies your position of innocence. Cover that ass up…. its obscene.

    But I am aware of the world I actually live in. /// I don’t think so. If you were, you would be against guns AND recognize the hard work it will take to get rid of them.

    Ipso Dipsit.

    • bobbo, telling shit from shinola says:

      You know, doing the devil thing (thinking) the Australian and British experience shows “it is possible” to ban guns while still having drugs and sick eagles flying all over the place.

      Not proof it will work, only that it can work.

      Contra–or even in concordance??–thinking of Somalia elsewhere where guns are VERY prevalent. No society at all. Somalia is often mentioned as a place where “no government” is shown not to work===but isn’t it just as valid an example of what happens when a society is awash in guns?

      I think so.

      • Hmeyers says:

        According to the stats, Britain has double our level of violence crime.

      • Hmeyers says:

        “Somalia .. isn’t it just as valid an example of what happens when a society is awash in guns?”

        If I think of Detroit as a role model city, yeah sure.

        Where are these “red states” mass murders or even crime problems?

        Shouldn’t Utah and Montana and Nebraska and Oklahoma and South Dakota and Alaska be ripe with violence according to your dogma?

  14. orchidcup says:

    The government confiscating guns would work as well as the government confiscating marijuana.

    As in the days of alcohol prohibition, the government will learn that citizens will ultimately do as they damn well please.

    • bobbo, telling shit from shinola says:

      How come all the real world examples go the other way?

      You know what it says about YOU when all the real world examples go the other way?

      • Hmeyers says:

        Citation needed. If the facts support what you say, surely this shouldn’t be difficult.

  15. orchidcup says:

    If the government shows up at my home to confiscate my guns, they can have them as soon as I am finished with them.

    That is a promise.

    • bobbo, telling shit from shinola says:

      A crap. Just more flesh for the flesh eating robots.

      Puleassssse—-think of the children.

  16. Hmeyers says:

    WordPress needs to charge Bobbo by the word.

    That way he compresses whatever he has to say into a short and brief argument. Brevity is the soul of wit.

    • bobbo, telling shit from shinola says:

      Sadly, brevity is also the total understanding of Right Wingnut Loons.

      You’ve made several entries above denying the Australian and United Kingdom experience of banning guns that took place after mass shootings in the 1990’s.

      Do “facts” matter at all to you HMyers? Surely you’ve seen/read/discussed this reality before, but right now/right here you post as totally ignorant…. part of the brevity you demand?????

      Yes, violent crimes went up…. as I recall…. a change in definition not even trying to hide that murders from guns was still about 1/30 the per capita rate than USA==same as Australia.

      What difference do facts make in your world HMYers?

      Too smart to be this stupid. What else is going on????

      Bringing in the call for censoring when your ignornance fails to bully anyone into silence?

      Silly Hooman Thug.

      • Hmeyers says:

        My thoughts and interest on this topic derive from sociological factors and cause/effect.

        One example: Chicago has a ton of murders and is supposed to be “gun-free”. But it isn’t gun-free.

        Laws won’t make this country gun-free, it will have a predatory effect on law-abiding citizens.

        Criminals do not like high risk targets. A potentially armed residence is a high risk target.

      • Grey Bird says:

        Ok. I passed up commenting when you said it the first time, but since you don’t seem to understand a flaw in some of your reasoning I’ll say it now. You said that in Australia and the UK guns were banned and removed. Then you said, (essentially) gun deaths went down, showing guns lead to violence. That’s faulty reasoning. With fewer guns, of course gun deaths went down. If there were absolutely _no_ guns, then there would be _zero_ gun deaths. That has nothing to do with whether guns cause violence or not. What are the violent crime statistics before and after the gun bans? That’s the numbers you need to be comparing to determine the effect of guns on violence.

        If you want to strengthen your argument against gun ownership, then you need to compare violent crimes or deaths in total before and after. Not just gun deaths or violent crimes involving guns. If the before and after figures looking at both gun and non-gun crimes are significantly different, then you have a cause and effect. Otherwise you have nothing conclusive at all.

  17. msbpodcast says:

    Bogative… This is a badly worded compound sentence.

    Would You Support Gun Confiscation if Ordered by the Government.

    Lets take the first part: Would You Support Gun Confiscation

    Under certain circumstances, such as demonstrable mental instability, (like Do you believe that there’s a invisible guy, who lives up in the sky?,) you bet your fuckin’ ass I would. (And keep your nose outta my crotch.)

    Lets take the second part: if Ordered by the Government

    NO! I do not defer to anyone just because of some relative position on some bullshit hierarchy. Convince me.

    • bobbo, telling shit from shinola says:

      Hey MPod–I was right there with you… so I answered No. I do have an initial knee jerk reaction to defy authority.

      But then, McCullough cleverly said to be honest.

      I hate it when that happens.

      I can’t be honest without using my intellect to make a poorly formed question make the best sense I can.

      THAT means of course, not to dodge the issue as you have done.

      Only the government can order a confiscation. That comes by way of an act of congress that has been approved by the Sup Ct. Any other understanding is Social Fiction. Surely you don’t play that game?

      In my mind, I still made exceptions, like for the Armed Forces? Like for Police?? ((Even though in Best America, Like most of England. “most” cops would not be armed==that all goes to gun culture doesn’t it==much better anti-crime techniques and tools exist.))

      Maybe another way to look at the issue: how many innocent kiddies per year murdered in their class rooms is gun nuttery allowed to take? Round off to the nearest 100 if the number is not unlimited?

      Because guns don’t do anything otherwise uniquely worthwhile, my number is 20.

  18. bobbo, neutering gun nuts with their own lack of ammunition says:

    Hmeyers kidding himself, but no one else, says:
    4/15/2013 at 1:36 am

    My thoughts and interest on this topic derive from sociological factors and cause/effect. /// Yeah, yeah==same as everyone else. All arriving at whatever they do. Why don’t you use “Science” instead of whatever you find yourself thinking and then being unwilling to think any farther?

    One example: Chicago has a ton of murders and is supposed to be “gun-free”. But it isn’t gun-free. /// How could it be with gun lax counties surrounding it to the West?–or indeed, the Rest of the USA. Just plain stupid HMyers to argue so myopically. The Gun Challenge in the USA is a COUNTRY WIDE PROBLEM. Not State, Not County, not City, not Neighborhood, not Household.

    Laws won’t make this country gun-free, it will have a predatory effect on law-abiding citizens. /// BS example of Magical Thinking. Why don’t people have Thompson Sub-Machine gunes, flame throwers, grenades, Missles etc? You can’t be more stupid than to say “Laws don’t …..(whatever)” without listing all the assumptions/limitations/defintions going into such a bald statement. Any law works or doesn’t work based on a myriad of conditions. Don’t be a Dolt.

    Criminals do not like high risk targets. A potentially armed residence is a high risk target. /// I agree. That is however not the only variable. You can juggle more than the point on your head can’t you HMyers? Another High Risk Target: Homes with Security Lights, Camera, and an Homeowner with the phone number to the police.

    Do you believe or not believe the Stat that a gun in the home is more likely to be used against a member of the Home than against an intruder? —–What says your pretend reliance on Sociology and cause and effect? Tell us—what effect does having a gun at home cause?

    • Hmeyers says:

      “Do you believe or not believe the Stat that a gun in the home is more likely to be used against a member of the Home than against an intruder?”

      It is true, so why would it matter if I believe it.

      I don’t selectively pick information to believe or disbelieve in. Information is information.

      I also think if everything you wanted happened on this issue, you would discover you were wrong in the future.

      And I think you selectively dismiss important factors to the equation like police response times in rural/suburban areas, etc.

      Shouldn’t conceal-carry cause a great deal of crime and violence according to your perspective, for instance?

  19. moss says:

    Is this a paranoid self-help group?

  20. bobbo, neutering gun nuts with their own lack of ammunition says:

    Hmeyers says:
    4/15/2013 at 4:25 am

    “Do you believe or not believe the Stat that a gun in the home is more likely to be used against a member of the Home than against an intruder?”

    It is true, so why would it matter if I believe it. /// Because you post in disregard of its truth.

    I don’t selectively pick information to believe or disbelieve in. Information is information. /// Thats impossible. Think again or do you read Astrology with the same belief as Science?

    I also think if everything you wanted happened on this issue, you would discover you were wrong in the future. /// Who knows what the future will bring?

    And I think you selectively dismiss important factors to the equation like police response times in rural/suburban areas, etc. // I think, but don’t actually know for 100% sure that NATIONAL STATISTICS include rural and suburbanareas, etc. You certainly are dumbostrating the thickness of a Rightwing Nut trying to justify their position. Disregard the truth, make up nonsense. Next you’ll make a call to Patriotism.

    Shouldn’t conceal-carry cause a great deal of crime and violence according to your perspective, for instance? // The whole point DingBat is that the USA DOES HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF CRIME. Thats the whole point and motivation to remove guns from our society. Haven’t you been reading this thread?

    Sheesh!!! You have the attention span of a gnat! FYI==thats not much.

    Gun Nuts………. they would enjoy it if you shot them.

    • deegee says:

      bobbo said:

      “Do you believe or not believe the Stat that a gun in the home is more likely to be used against a member of the Home than against an intruder?”

      It is true, so why would it matter if I believe it.”

      Stats can be cherry-picked to say anything they want to.

      The huge majority of gun related murders are gang related.
      The number of home invasions and break-ins is smaller in areas where home owners are allowed to own guns.
      So the likelihood that your gun would be used against an invader becomes statistically smaller.
      So let’s cherry-pick that “stat” to show our agenda…

      This “stat” is EXACTLY the same kind of idiotic stat as having a swimming pool at your home has a higher statistical rate of child drowning.

      In our modern moronic pampered society, no one wants to take the blame for their mistakes, schools don’t grade children, sports games don’t keep score, all because we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or “oppress” anyone for any little thing, even if it is their fault.

      Let’s blame owning a swimming pool for the cause of death (instead of the real causes, typically improper parental care or child training).

      And let’s blame owning a gun for the cause of some idiot who happens to use it as their means to hurt another.

      And for the record, in countries where firearms are banned or heavily restricted, you are more likely to be attacked by someone with a large knife. Which is why in countries like the UK there are groups who now want kitchen knives banned as well.

      If you agree with the direction of this type of thinking, where working down through banning anything and everything that may be used as a weapon will eventually stop all crime and turn the world in a loving place filled with rainbows and unicorns, then you really should get some professional help.

  21. MikeN says:

    Democrats have been trying to disarm blacks for over a century.

    http://youtube.com/embed/9RABZq5IoaQ

  22. orchidcup says:

    Gun Nuts………. they would enjoy it if you shot them.

    Sober up, bobbo, you have had three too many.

    I own guns because I have that right. I speak freely because I have that right. I don’t go to church and believe in magical beings because I have that right.

    If bobbo drives a car, is bobbo a Car Nut? If bobbo flies an airplane, is bobbo a Plane Nut? If bobbo drinks a beer, is bobbo a Beer Nut?

    Silly Bobbo.

  23. The0ne says:

    Had to think about this one for a bit. I didn’t want to take anyone’s right away but couldn’t help myself by voting the opposite because I still think there are too many lunatics out there to be having them. I can understand, if you’re not that type of person, that some people may want to carry them though and that’s perfectly fine. What’s not fine is that I don’t know you or anyone else out there.

  24. Ken says:

    Do you mean gun confiscation from private citizens? No. From government agents? Most certainly.

  25. cubicleman says:

    It’s time for the gun nuts and NRA scum to eff off. The 21st century doesn’t need them. A modern, civilised country doesn’t need an armed populace.

    • Mextli says:

      I see what you mean. I can detect your civility by the use of “NRA Scum”, “gun nuts”, and “eff off”. You must reside in this modern, civilized country.

    • alex says:

      Nor does a modern, civilized country need armed criminals. Eliminate that variable and then your illogical opinion will make some logical sense.

  26. jim g says:

    Stunning!

  27. MikeN says:

    All the more reason to oppose anything that requires gun registration. The instant background check is probably a bad idea for the same reason.


1

Bad Behavior has blocked 9232 access attempts in the last 7 days.