[quote]MaximusB wrote:
An interesting observation, the states that are most blue, have the most taxes, the fewest guns, and some of the highest violence. Coincidence ?[/quote]
Did your tax man also tell you this?
Plz cite sources with claims. tnx
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
An interesting observation, the states that are most blue, have the most taxes, the fewest guns, and some of the highest violence. Coincidence ?[/quote]
Did your tax man also tell you this?
Plz cite sources with claims. tnx[/quote]
This will come of no surprise to anyone who has actually read any of his posts, but Maximus is again talking out of his ass. I took the liberty to go ahead and compile some stats, since I know I would have a long time holding my breathe waiting for him to do it.
Here is a list of the least violent states according to the FBI’s 2011 report. Wow look at all that blue!!! As a bonus, most of these are states near an ocean that people would actually want to live in!
Water AND you won’t get rapped/mugged/assaulted/killed? Man sign me up!
And on the opposite end of the spectrum, you have the most violent. With the exception of DC, which has about as many people as T-Nation does members, the three most violent states seem to be solidly red. hrmmm…that’s odd. Even the blue states down there are mostly considered swing states with the exception of Maryland and Delaware. How weird is that?
I, for one, was highly amused by Obama’s temper-tantrum yesterday in the Rose Garden when he realized his civilian disarmament plan had hit a snag. To paraphrase Obama “you lost, now get out of the way.”
Socialists and statists like Obama view the Constitution as an impediment to their goals of re-shaping the country into their version of utopia. He basically said this, along with again embarassing himself by quoting disproven statistics.
An armed populace that would revolt is a similar impediment, and undoubtedly why armed citizens are so demonized by the socialists and their useful idiots.
^ I also thought it was pretty funny. It was like listening to a toddler through a temper tantrum. What did he say, “Seriously” or “you serious?” I can’t remember exactly how he phrased it, but it was funny.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I, for one, was highly amused by Obama’s temper-tantrum yesterday in the Rose Garden when he realized his civilian disarmament plan had hit a snag. To paraphrase Obama “you lost, now get out of the way.”
Socialists and statists like Obama view the Constitution as an impediment to their goals of re-shaping the country into their version of utopia. He basically said this, along with again embarassing himself by quoting disproven statistics.
An armed populace that would revolt is a similar impediment, and undoubtedly why armed citizens are so demonized by the socialists and their useful idiots.
[/quote]
That’s weird, 80-90% of Americans must also be socialists and statists since that is the amount of people that support expanding background checks for internet sales and gun shows. Weird how that equates to disarmament in your eyes. Personally I would love to make sure any old ex-con like one our esteemed posters here can’t go buy a gun on Ebay.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I, for one, was highly amused by Obama’s temper-tantrum yesterday in the Rose Garden when he realized his civilian disarmament plan had hit a snag. To paraphrase Obama “you lost, now get out of the way.”
Socialists and statists like Obama view the Constitution as an impediment to their goals of re-shaping the country into their version of utopia. He basically said this, along with again embarassing himself by quoting disproven statistics.
An armed populace that would revolt is a similar impediment, and undoubtedly why armed citizens are so demonized by the socialists and their useful idiots.
[/quote]
Yes that was great, I saw the news about the senate rejecting the bill or whatever as the latest headline on cnn. Literally just a headline with no article since there was no time to write one then within 10 minutes an announcement of obama doing a press conference to criticize it. After any news when has a president been so quick to do a press conference?
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I, for one, was highly amused by Obama’s temper-tantrum yesterday in the Rose Garden when he realized his civilian disarmament plan had hit a snag. To paraphrase Obama “you lost, now get out of the way.”
Socialists and statists like Obama view the Constitution as an impediment to their goals of re-shaping the country into their version of utopia. He basically said this, along with again embarassing himself by quoting disproven statistics.
An armed populace that would revolt is a similar impediment, and undoubtedly why armed citizens are so demonized by the socialists and their useful idiots.
[/quote]
That’s weird, 80-90% of Americans must also be socialists and statists since that is the amount of people that support expanding background checks for internet sales and gun shows. Weird how that equates to disarmament in your eyes. Personally I would love to make sure any old ex-con like one our esteemed posters here can’t go buy a gun on Ebay.
[/quote]
No, it means people are badly informed about the law. Cops, who were informed about the law, opposed it by 90% and stated overwhelmingly that would do nothing.
And, when actually told what the law does (instead of lied to in a push-poll like what you quote), the majority of citizens did not like it either.
Couple other points:
Ebay doesn’t carry guns and any intra-state sale (such as gunbroker – in fact, any sale on gunbroker) is already requires a background check.
As as been noted, this law required a gun registry to work, per Eric Holder himself and a de facto “go forward” registry was created because all background checks were going to be stored.
The explicit purpose of the registry (as stated by Feinstein and others) was as a foundation for confiscation from law-abiding citizens, just like the registry was used in Australia, England, and the various states (e.g., New York) where the registries have been created.
In short, this was a do-nothing law, except for creating the registry.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Yes that was great, I saw the news about the senate rejecting the bill or whatever as the latest headline on cnn. Literally just a headline with no article since there was no time to write one then within 10 minutes an announcement of obama doing a press conference to criticize it. After any news when has a president been so quick to do a press conference?[/quote]
Well, boy kings are quick to throw fits.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
No, it means people are badly informed about the law. Cops, who were informed about the law, opposed it by 90% and stated overwhelmingly that would do nothing.[/quote]
Precisely. I even heard this sentiment on an NPR interview. The cop said basically “Virtually 100% of the guns involved in every crime I have investigated over the course of my lengthy career have been stolen from someone who got their gun legitimately. I can’t see this new law doing anything at all”.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
In my lifetime, there has been only one occasion where I saw pure pandemonium.
In 1992, I was in high school, and all hell broke loose with the LA Riots.
Thousands of people took to the streets with weapons, stealing and destroying everything in sight.
The police did not engage (not with any kind of strength), because they saw they were severely outnumbered, and the anger with the people made them capable of doing anything.
I have to believe, that an incident like this, helped to shape the idea of gun control.
how many fights you been in ?
An interesting observation, the states that are most blue, have the most taxes, the fewest guns, and some of the highest violence. Coincidence ?[/quote]
how many fights you been in ?
[/quote]
More than I would like.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I, for one, was highly amused by Obama’s temper-tantrum yesterday in the Rose Garden when he realized his civilian disarmament plan had hit a snag. To paraphrase Obama “you lost, now get out of the way.”
Socialists and statists like Obama view the Constitution as an impediment to their goals of re-shaping the country into their version of utopia. He basically said this, along with again embarassing himself by quoting disproven statistics.
An armed populace that would revolt is a similar impediment, and undoubtedly why armed citizens are so demonized by the socialists and their useful idiots.
[/quote]
That’s weird, 80-90% of Americans must also be socialists and statists since that is the amount of people that support expanding background checks for internet sales and gun shows. Weird how that equates to disarmament in your eyes. Personally I would love to make sure any old ex-con like one our esteemed posters here can’t go buy a gun on Ebay.
[/quote]
If this is true then many politicians just killed their careers when it comes to re-election time. Either that or they are smart enough to know those polls are incorrect.
“Do you believe that if there are background checks for all gun purchases the government will or will not use that information in the future to confiscate legally-owned guns?”
3/26 - 4/1/13
Will Will not Unsure
48% 38% 14%
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
And on the opposite end of the spectrum, you have the most violent. With the exception of DC, which has about as many people as T-Nation does members, the three most violent states seem to be solidly red. hrmmm…that’s odd. Even the blue states down there are mostly considered swing states with the exception of Maryland and Delaware. How weird is that?
[/quote]
So 6 out of 10 states with the most violence are blue ?
And how many of those states you listed had about as many people as I did in my graduating class ?
Alaska really ? You want to compare that with the population density of New York ?
Really Nathaniel, you want to discuss the realities of crime strolling through a New York or Maryland suburb, versus what I might find in a place like ALASKA ?
Which place would you feel more threatened ?
Nathaniel, can I borrow your Mensa card, I just ran out of toilet paper.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I, for one, was highly amused by Obama’s temper-tantrum yesterday in the Rose Garden when he realized his civilian disarmament plan had hit a snag. To paraphrase Obama “you lost, now get out of the way.”
Socialists and statists like Obama view the Constitution as an impediment to their goals of re-shaping the country into their version of utopia. He basically said this, along with again embarassing himself by quoting disproven statistics.
An armed populace that would revolt is a similar impediment, and undoubtedly why armed citizens are so demonized by the socialists and their useful idiots.
[/quote]
That’s weird, 80-90% of Americans must also be socialists and statists since that is the amount of people that support expanding background checks for internet sales and gun shows. Weird how that equates to disarmament in your eyes. Personally I would love to make sure any old ex-con like one our esteemed posters here can’t go buy a gun on Ebay.
[/quote]
If this is true then many politicians just killed their careers when it comes to re-election time. Either that or they are smart enough to know those polls are incorrect.
“Do you believe that if there are background checks for all gun purchases the government will or will not use that information in the future to confiscate legally-owned guns?”
3/26 - 4/1/13
Will Will not Unsure
48% 38% 14%
[/quote]
Save yourself the time and just go back and read the exchange VT and I had where I asked the same thing and he ignored it. He’ll just say you’re a tin foil hat wearing loony bin.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
And on the opposite end of the spectrum, you have the most violent. With the exception of DC, which has about as many people as T-Nation does members, the three most violent states seem to be solidly red. hrmmm…that’s odd. Even the blue states down there are mostly considered swing states with the exception of Maryland and Delaware. How weird is that?
[/quote]
So 6 out of 10 states with the most violence are blue ?
And how many of those states you listed had about as many people as I did in my graduating class ?
Alaska really ? You want to compare that with the population density of New York ?
Really Nathaniel, you want to discuss the realities of crime strolling through a New York or Maryland suburb, versus what I might find in a place like ALASKA ?
Which place would you feel more threatened ?
Nathaniel, can I borrow your Mensa card, I just ran out of toilet paper.
[/quote]
I question your ability to see the big picture . Things are more complex than the partisan stance of a state . there are many more important factors , Population , density, Industry or the lack, age , education . I would bet the partisan stance would be for the most part poor vote Democrat as opposed to the Democrats run Government into the ground .
Hope that helps 
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
And how many of those states you listed had about as many people as I did in my graduating class ?
Alaska really ? You want to compare that with the population density of New York ?
Really Nathaniel, you want to discuss the realities of crime strolling through a New York or Maryland suburb, versus what I might find in a place like ALASKA ?
[/quote]
Actually, dumbass, the two least populated states, Vermont and Wyoming, were among the SAFEST states on the list (Top 7 actually). So your “but uhhh…they’s less people and stuff” is pretty irrelevant. Not that I would expect anything else from you. Here’s an idea, try going on your own to get a Mensa card. I’d pay money to watch that.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I, for one, was highly amused by Obama’s temper-tantrum yesterday in the Rose Garden when he realized his civilian disarmament plan had hit a snag. To paraphrase Obama “you lost, now get out of the way.”
Socialists and statists like Obama view the Constitution as an impediment to their goals of re-shaping the country into their version of utopia. He basically said this, along with again embarassing himself by quoting disproven statistics.
An armed populace that would revolt is a similar impediment, and undoubtedly why armed citizens are so demonized by the socialists and their useful idiots.
[/quote]
That’s weird, 80-90% of Americans must also be socialists and statists since that is the amount of people that support expanding background checks for internet sales and gun shows. Weird how that equates to disarmament in your eyes. Personally I would love to make sure any old ex-con like one our esteemed posters here can’t go buy a gun on Ebay.
[/quote]
If this is true then many politicians just killed their careers when it comes to re-election time. Either that or they are smart enough to know those polls are incorrect.
“Do you believe that if there are background checks for all gun purchases the government will or will not use that information in the future to confiscate legally-owned guns?”
3/26 - 4/1/13
Will Will not Unsure
48% 38% 14%
[/quote]
Save yourself the time and just go back and read the exchange VT and I had where I asked the same thing and he ignored it. He’ll just say you’re a tin foil hat wearing loony bin.[/quote]
lol DUDE…you posted about 10 posts in an HOUR after I had left the forum and gone about living my life. What exactly that you posted did I ignore? If it is even worthy of a response, I will take the time to do so. If it has ANYTHING to do with the future possibility of confiscation of guns, I will not answer it and I already explained to you why that was. I put the odds of that somewhere around being present to the manifestation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don’t waste my time philosphizing about things that have around a 0% chance of occurring.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
If this is true then many politicians just killed their careers when it comes to re-election time.
[/quote]
It might not kill their careers because I’m sure there are other issues they will highlight over this, or somehow spin that into a positive.
But what it does show is that special interests have our politicians by the balls and they are too big of pussies to do anything about it. When special interests are getting their way over the will of some 90% of the public, something is definitely wrong.
This is a problem on both sides. It makes me mad as hell–you might not care.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I, for one, was highly amused by Obama’s temper-tantrum yesterday in the Rose Garden when he realized his civilian disarmament plan had hit a snag. To paraphrase Obama “you lost, now get out of the way.”
Socialists and statists like Obama view the Constitution as an impediment to their goals of re-shaping the country into their version of utopia. He basically said this, along with again embarassing himself by quoting disproven statistics.
An armed populace that would revolt is a similar impediment, and undoubtedly why armed citizens are so demonized by the socialists and their useful idiots.
[/quote]
That’s weird, 80-90% of Americans must also be socialists and statists since that is the amount of people that support expanding background checks for internet sales and gun shows. Weird how that equates to disarmament in your eyes. Personally I would love to make sure any old ex-con like one our esteemed posters here can’t go buy a gun on Ebay.
[/quote]
If this is true then many politicians just killed their careers when it comes to re-election time. Either that or they are smart enough to know those polls are incorrect.
“Do you believe that if there are background checks for all gun purchases the government will or will not use that information in the future to confiscate legally-owned guns?”
3/26 - 4/1/13
Will Will not Unsure
48% 38% 14%
[/quote]
Save yourself the time and just go back and read the exchange VT and I had where I asked the same thing and he ignored it. He’ll just say you’re a tin foil hat wearing loony bin.[/quote]
lol DUDE…you posted about 10 posts in an HOUR after I had left the forum and gone about living my life. What exactly that you posted did I ignore? If it is even worthy of a response, I will take the time to do so. If it has ANYTHING to do with the future possibility of confiscation of guns, I will not answer it and I already explained to you why that was. I put the odds of that somewhere around being present to the manifestation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don’t waste my time philosphizing about things that have around a 0% chance of occurring. [/quote]
Okay, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
- I’d like to hear your comments on the veteran being disarmed.
- I’d like to hear your comments specifically on the Sergeant’s comment about no caring what the law is in the video.
- I would like to hear your comments as to why more school shootings will not lead to the restriction of rights the way the Patriot Act did.
I’d like a comment on this:
VTBalla34 wrote:
Soooooooo prohibiting people from buying new assault weapons (current owners are not affected) = systematic rounding up and destruction of all privately owned firearms?
Usmc wrote: Actually current owners are affected. In NY Assault rifles have to be registered.
I’d like a comment on this:
usmc @ vtball
"Who said the constitution would need to be completely dissolved? "
ann this:
usmc @ vtball
In MD you have to be fingerprinted to buy a handgun now. I wonder what the state will do with that info?
and this
Usmc @ Vtballa
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed into law a sweeping package of gun-control measures on Tuesday, significantly expanding a ban on assault weapons and making New York the first state to change its laws in response to the mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school.
The expanded ban on assault weapons broadens the definition of what is considered an assault weapon and reduces the permissible size of gun magazines to 7 rounds, from 10.
http://www.nytimes.com/…-york.html?_r=0
ANNAPOLIS, Md. ? Sweeping restrictions on gun ownership passed the Maryland General Assembly on Thursday, including a ban on new purchases of assault weapons, a 10-bullet limit on magazines and requirements that handgun buyers undergo fingerprinting and target training.
http://www.nytimes.com/...egislature.html
You’re right VT, Newton didn’t cause any changes to gun laws. More school shooting will also not lead to further laws.
No anti gun culture in America either:
Biden Aids Governor in Push for New Gun Laws in Connecticut
http://www.nytimes.com/...w-gun-laws.html
Oh what’s this limits the right to keep and bear arms. Not possible VT, that piece of paper 3 blocks from you says so.
A New Jersey statute limits purchases of firearms in the state to one handgun a month
http://www.nytimes.com/…-month-law.html
Some of this was after you, “left,” whatever that means. You can answer/not answer whatever you want big guy.
For the record, I never expect an answer from anyone. Whether its 3 minutes or 3 weeks later the response is always appreciated.
Unless its an insult that is.