On 2/21/2018 12:42 AM, Bod wrote:

We want our sovereignty back. We don't like the way the unelected EU
dictators are telling us what we can and can't do.
I'd rather starve than submit to them.
What's wrong about that?


We refuse to give up our sovereignty, that is why we also refuse to give
up our guns.

--
Maggie

On 21/02/2018 19:59, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 12:42 AM, Bod wrote:

We want our sovereignty back. We don't like the way the unelected EU
dictators are telling us what we can and can't do.
I'd rather starve than submit to them.
What's wrong about that?


We refuse to give up our sovereignty, that is why we also refuse to give
up our guns.

Making much stricter gun laws would be a start and making the vetting
more thorough.

--
Bod

Muggles wrote:

On 2/21/2018 12:42 AM, Bod wrote:

We want our sovereignty back. We don't like the way the unelected EU
dictators are telling us what we can and can't do.
I'd rather starve than submit to them.
What's wrong about that?


We refuse to give up our sovereignty, that is why we also refuse to
give up our guns.


Natasha, you folks have already surrendered, to Russia, the sovereignty
of the United States and your guns didn't do **** except murder a bunch
of innocent Americans including school children.

A real accomplishment for Vladimir.



--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On 2/21/2018 3:01 PM, Bod wrote:
On 21/02/2018 19:59, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 12:42 AM, Bod wrote:

We want our sovereignty back. We don't like the way the unelected EU
dictators are telling us what we can and can't do.
I'd rather starve than submit to them.
What's wrong about that?


We refuse to give up our sovereignty, that is why we also refuse to give
up our guns.

Making much stricter gun laws would be a start and making the vetting
more thorough.


I think raising the age where youths cannot buy guns is a good
beginning, but I don't think the adults are going to give up their
rights to guns so easily.

--
Maggie

On 2/21/2018 3:03 PM, Dove Tail wrote:


Natasha, you folks have already surrendered, to Russia, the sovereignty
of the United States and your guns didn't do **** except murder a bunch
of innocent Americans including school children.

A real accomplishment for Vladimir.



You really are an oddball. I'm still waiting for you to say something
interesting, but I don't think it's going to happen.

--
Maggie

On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 9:58:46 PM UTC-6, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 3:01 PM, Bod wrote:
On 21/02/2018 19:59, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 12:42 AM, Bod wrote:

We want our sovereignty back. We don't like the way the unelected EU
dictators are telling us what we can and can't do.
I'd rather starve than submit to them.
What's wrong about that?

We refuse to give up our sovereignty, that is why we also refuse to give
up our guns.

Making much stricter gun laws would be a start and making the vetting
more thorough.

I think raising the age where youths cannot buy guns is a good
beginning, but I don't think the adults are going to give up their
rights to guns so easily.
--
Maggie


Anti-gun nuts want government agents going door to door to confiscate guns and shoot dead anyone who refuses to surrender their firearms. Makes sense to me. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Armed Monster

On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 10:33:32 PM UTC-6, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 3:03 PM, Dove Tail wrote:

Natasha, you folks have already surrendered, to Russia, the sovereignty
of the United States and your guns didn't do **** except murder a bunch
of innocent Americans including school children.

A real accomplishment for Vladimir.

You really are an oddball. I'm still waiting for you to say something
interesting, but I don't think it's going to happen.
--
Maggie


Dove Anus is a North Korean troll. He/she/it works for Kim Jung WTF.^_^

[8~{} Uncle Amused Monster

On 22/02/2018 03:58, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 3:01 PM, Bod wrote:
On 21/02/2018 19:59, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 12:42 AM, Bod wrote:

We want our sovereignty back. We don't like the way the unelected EU
dictators are telling us what we can and can't do.
I'd rather starve than submit to them.
What's wrong about that?


We refuse to give up our sovereignty, that is why we also refuse to give
up our guns.

Making much stricter gun laws would be a start and making the vetting
more thorough.


I think raising the age where youths cannot buy guns is a good
beginning, but I don't think the adults are going to give up their
rights to guns so easily.

I gathered that :-)

--
Bod

Muggles wrote:

On 2/21/2018 3:01 PM, Bod wrote:
On 21/02/2018 19:59, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 12:42 AM, Bod wrote:

We want our sovereignty back. We don't like the way the unelected
EU dictators are telling us what we can and can't do.
I'd rather starve than submit to them.
What's wrong about that?


We refuse to give up our sovereignty, that is why we also refuse
to give up our guns.

Making much stricter gun laws would be a start and making the
vetting more thorough.


I think raising the age where youths cannot buy guns is a good
beginning, but I don't think the adults are going to give up their
rights to guns so easily.


Raising the age would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the Las
Vegas massacre.



--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

Muggles wrote:

On 2/21/2018 3:03 PM, Dove Tail wrote:


Natasha, you folks have already surrendered, to Russia, the
sovereignty of the United States and your guns didn't do ****
except murder a bunch of innocent Americans including school
children.

A real accomplishment for Vladimir.



You really are an oddball. I'm still waiting for you to say something
interesting, but I don't think it's going to happen.


Natasha, you know what I wrote is absolutely correct. You elected and
support a man who is collaborating with a hostile foreign power,
Russia, to undermine our democratic republic.

You write about sovereignty as a justification for needing your weapons
of mass murder, but that is just a ruse. You and those like you have
surrendered the sovereignty of the United States to Russia and Vladimir
Putin, and your guns did nothing to prevent it.




--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On 02/21/2018 08:58 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 3:01 PM, Bod wrote:
On 21/02/2018 19:59, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 12:42 AM, Bod wrote:

We want our sovereignty back. We don't like the way the unelected EU
dictators are telling us what we can and can't do.
I'd rather starve than submit to them.
What's wrong about that?


We refuse to give up our sovereignty, that is why we also refuse to give
up our guns.

Making much stricter gun laws would be a start and making the vetting
more thorough.


I think raising the age where youths cannot buy guns is a good
beginning, but I don't think the adults are going to give up their
rights to guns so easily.


What age? They can vote at 18 but is that good enough? A couple of weeks
ago there was a brief flurry when a woman flushed her 'support hamster'
down a toilet at the airport when they wouldn't let her bring it on the
plane. The article said she was just a kid and just did what the adults
advised her to do. The 'kid' was 21.

Maybe 30?

On 22/02/2018 14:59, rbowman wrote:
On 02/21/2018 08:58 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 3:01 PM, Bod wrote:
On 21/02/2018 19:59, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 12:42 AM, Bod wrote:

We want our sovereignty back. We don't like the way the unelected EU
dictators are telling us what we can and can't do.
I'd rather starve than submit to them.
What's wrong about that?


We refuse to give up our sovereignty, that is why we also refuse to
give
up our guns.

Making much stricter gun laws would be a start and making the vetting
more thorough.


I think raising the age where youths cannot buy guns is a good
beginning, but I don't think the adults are going to give up their
rights to guns so easily.


What age? They can vote at 18 but is that good enough? A couple of weeks
ago there was a brief flurry when a woman flushed her 'support hamster'
down a toilet at the airport when they wouldn't let her bring it on the
plane. The article said she was just a kid and just did what the adults
advised her to do. The 'kid' was 21.

Maybe 30?

You base your judgement on *one* anecdote?

--
Bod

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 3:10:46 AM UTC-5, Dove Tail wrote:
Muggles wrote:

On 2/21/2018 3:01 PM, Bod wrote:
On 21/02/2018 19:59, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 12:42 AM, Bod wrote:

We want our sovereignty back. We don't like the way the unelected
EU dictators are telling us what we can and can't do.
I'd rather starve than submit to them.
What's wrong about that?


We refuse to give up our sovereignty, that is why we also refuse
to give up our guns.

Making much stricter gun laws would be a start and making the
vetting more thorough.


I think raising the age where youths cannot buy guns is a good
beginning, but I don't think the adults are going to give up their
rights to guns so easily.


Raising the age would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the Las
Vegas massacre.



Spoken just like the best of the gun nuts. Because something can't prevent
all shootings, let's diminish it, complain about it and do nothing. And
don't give us your solution, which is to confiscate all semi-autos, the
adults here are talking about things that could realistically be compromised
on and implemented, eg actual background checks by the local police and
laws that set a reasonable standard for the police to be able to remove
guns from those that already have them when they have warning signs like
Cruz.

On 2/22/2018 2:09 AM, Bod wrote:
On 22/02/2018 03:58, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 3:01 PM, Bod wrote:

Making much stricter gun laws would be a start and making the vetting
more thorough.

I think raising the age where youths cannot buy guns is a good
beginning, but I don't think the adults are going to give up their
rights to guns so easily.

I gathered that :-)

Do you think you can do or say anything to change that?

--
Maggie

On 2/22/2018 2:10 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
Muggles wrote:

On 2/21/2018 3:01 PM, Bod wrote:
On 21/02/2018 19:59, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 12:42 AM, Bod wrote:

We want our sovereignty back. We don't like the way the unelected
EU dictators are telling us what we can and can't do.
I'd rather starve than submit to them.
What's wrong about that?


We refuse to give up our sovereignty, that is why we also refuse
to give up our guns.


Making much stricter gun laws would be a start and making the
vetting more thorough.


I think raising the age where youths cannot buy guns is a good
beginning, but I don't think the adults are going to give up their
rights to guns so easily.


Raising the age would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the Las
Vegas massacre.

And?

--
Maggie

On 2/22/2018 2:20 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
Muggles wrote:

On 2/21/2018 3:03 PM, Dove Tail wrote:


Natasha, you folks have already surrendered, to Russia, the
sovereignty of the United States and your guns didn't do ****
except murder a bunch of innocent Americans including school
children.
A real accomplishment for Vladimir.


You really are an oddball. I'm still waiting for you to say something
interesting, but I don't think it's going to happen.


Natasha, you

When you call me "Natasha", you pretty much negate anything you say
after that. If you want your thoughts and ideas to be discussed, act
like it.

I'm willing to discuss most topics if the individual I'm discussing it
with is intelligent and does not need to resort to childish tactics. I
already raised my children.

--
Maggie

On 2/21/2018 11:09 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 9:58:46 PM UTC-6, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 3:01 PM, Bod wrote:
On 21/02/2018 19:59, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 12:42 AM, Bod wrote:

We want our sovereignty back. We don't like the way the unelected EU
dictators are telling us what we can and can't do.
I'd rather starve than submit to them.
What's wrong about that?

We refuse to give up our sovereignty, that is why we also refuse to give
up our guns.

Making much stricter gun laws would be a start and making the vetting
more thorough.

I think raising the age where youths cannot buy guns is a good
beginning, but I don't think the adults are going to give up their
rights to guns so easily.


Anti-gun nuts want government agents going door to door to confiscate guns and shoot dead anyone who refuses to surrender their firearms. Makes sense to me. o_O

The left is losing it, I think.

--
Maggie

On 2/21/2018 11:12 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 10:33:32 PM UTC-6, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 3:03 PM, Dove Tail wrote:

Natasha, you folks have already surrendered, to Russia, the sovereignty
of the United States and your guns didn't do **** except murder a bunch
of innocent Americans including school children.

A real accomplishment for Vladimir.


You really are an oddball. I'm still waiting for you to say something
interesting, but I don't think it's going to happen.


Dove Anus is a North Korean troll. He/she/it works for Kim Jung WTF.^_^

He believes his own press about himself, I think.

--
Maggie

On 2/22/2018 8:59 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/21/2018 08:58 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 3:01 PM, Bod wrote:
On 21/02/2018 19:59, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 12:42 AM, Bod wrote:

We want our sovereignty back. We don't like the way the unelected EU
dictators are telling us what we can and can't do.
I'd rather starve than submit to them.
What's wrong about that?


We refuse to give up our sovereignty, that is why we also refuse to
give
up our guns.

Making much stricter gun laws would be a start and making the vetting
more thorough.


I think raising the age where youths cannot buy guns is a good
beginning, but I don't think the adults are going to give up their
rights to guns so easily.


What age? They can vote at 18 but is that good enough? A couple of weeks
ago there was a brief flurry when a woman flushed her 'support hamster'
down a toilet at the airport when they wouldn't let her bring it on the
plane. The article said she was just a kid and just did what the adults
advised her to do. The 'kid' was 21.

Maybe 30?

geez LOL I see your point.

--
Maggie

On 22/02/2018 18:00, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2018 2:09 AM, Bod wrote:
On 22/02/2018 03:58, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 3:01 PM, Bod wrote:

Making much stricter gun laws would be a start and making the vetting
more thorough.

I think raising the age where youths cannot buy guns is a good
beginning, but I don't think the adults are going to give up their
rights to guns so easily.

I gathered that :-)

Do you think you can do or say anything to change that?

I doubt it.

--
Bod

trader_4 wrote:

Raising the age would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the
Las Vegas massacre.



Spoken just like the best of the gun nuts. Because something can't
prevent all shootings, let's diminish it, complain about it and do
nothing. And don't give us your solution, which is to confiscate all
semi-autos, the adults here are talking about things that could
realistically be compromised on and implemented, eg actual background
checks by the local police and laws that set a reasonable standard
for the police to be able to remove guns from those that already have
them when they have warning signs like Cruz.


Simply because you are afraid of losing your mechanical manhood in the
form of a semiautomatic sidearm does not mean it is impossible for the
nation to legislate a ban on civilian owned semiautomatic weapons.

I get it, you have low testosterone and need your little black pal to
make you feel as if you are safe and secure. However, you can can
still put a chubby in your chinos with a revolver, pump action shotgun
or bolt action rifle.

Keeping track of the mental health of 330+ million people in an ongoing
fashion, relying on police departments and other agencies to accurately
keep track of highly personal data is absurd. Not to mention the
significant issue of "sane" people owning weapons in a household with
unstable or evil residents.

Las Vegas is the kind of event that must be considered when looking at
prevention. The shy, quiet ones who go off the rails without anyone
paying attention. People like you, Bowman and Dickless who get a wild
hair up their ass one day and decide to play domestic terrorist.

The school, movie theater, shopping mall shootings are horrific, but
Vegas was a new pinnacle. When it comes to defense, one must prepare
for worst case scenarios, not just the most common.

Vegas resulted in 58 dead and 851 wounded, this is what we should be
striving to prevent.





--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

Muggles wrote:

On 2/22/2018 2:20 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
Muggles wrote:

On 2/21/2018 3:03 PM, Dove Tail wrote:


Natasha, you folks have already surrendered, to Russia, the
sovereignty of the United States and your guns didn't do ****
except murder a bunch of innocent Americans including school
children.
A real accomplishment for Vladimir.


You really are an oddball. I'm still waiting for you to say
something interesting, but I don't think it's going to happen.


Natasha, you

When you call me "Natasha", you pretty much negate anything you say
after that. If you want your thoughts and ideas to be discussed, act
like it.

I'm willing to discuss most topics if the individual I'm discussing it
with is intelligent and does not need to resort to childish tactics. I
already raised my children.

Not very concerned about discussing anything with you Natasha. I offer
commentary on the B.S. you post. If you wish to rebut, that is fine,
but I have no interest in soliciting replies from you.



--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

Muggles wrote:

The left is losing it, I think.

2018 midterms and the Mueller investigation are going to be a very big
shock to your system.



--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 1:07:02 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2018 2:20 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
Muggles wrote:

On 2/21/2018 3:03 PM, Dove Tail wrote:


Natasha, you folks have already surrendered, to Russia, the
sovereignty of the United States and your guns didn't do ****
except murder a bunch of innocent Americans including school
children.
A real accomplishment for Vladimir.


You really are an oddball. I'm still waiting for you to say something
interesting, but I don't think it's going to happen.


Natasha, you

When you call me "Natasha", you pretty much negate anything you say
after that. If you want your thoughts and ideas to be discussed, act
like it.

I'm willing to discuss most topics if the individual I'm discussing it
with is intelligent and does not need to resort to childish tactics. I
already raised my children.

--
Maggie

ROFL

That's really special coming from you Muggles. You mean intelligent
discussion like when you told us that Trump was being truthful when he
said that he met Putin, got to know him, when they did 60 Minutes at
the same time. "We were stablemates"! Never happened, it's a big,
whopping lie or else Trump is very delusional. But you came here
and said it's true, because the totally different segments, taped
at different times and places, happened to air on 60 Mins the same
night! That's your "intelligent discussion"? ROFL God help your children.

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 2:09:04 PM UTC-5, Dove Tail wrote:
trader_4 wrote:

Raising the age would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the
Las Vegas massacre.



Spoken just like the best of the gun nuts. Because something can't
prevent all shootings, let's diminish it, complain about it and do
nothing. And don't give us your solution, which is to confiscate all
semi-autos, the adults here are talking about things that could
realistically be compromised on and implemented, eg actual background
checks by the local police and laws that set a reasonable standard
for the police to be able to remove guns from those that already have
them when they have warning signs like Cruz.


Simply because you are afraid of losing your mechanical manhood in the
form of a semiautomatic sidearm does not mean it is impossible for the
nation to legislate a ban on civilian owned semiautomatic weapons.

I think it's time you check your manhood. You've been going back and
forth about penises with Uncle for weeks now. And now, out of nowhere,
YOU are trying to start that BS with me. I simply pointed out that you
do sound like the gun nuts. Muggles, who I rarely agree with, suggested
raising the age to buy a gun to 21. Pelosi proposed it for semi-auto
rifles. It's a step that could help. So, what do you do, pee all over
it and instead tilt at windmills, ie the confiscation of all semi-autos.





I get it, you have low testosterone and need your little black pal to
make you feel as if you are safe and secure. However, you can can
still put a chubby in your chinos with a revolver, pump action shotgun
or bolt action rifle.

Here you are again, so fascinated on starting attacks about manhood.
Nuff said. Look in the mirror pal. And go play with your little pecker
that is obviously on your mind so much, while dreaming about confiscating
all the guns.

trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 2:09:04 PM UTC-5, Dove Tail wrote:
trader_4 wrote:

Raising the age would have done absolutely nothing to prevent
the Las Vegas massacre.



Spoken just like the best of the gun nuts. Because something
can't prevent all shootings, let's diminish it, complain about it
and do nothing. And don't give us your solution, which is to
confiscate all semi-autos, the adults here are talking about
things that could realistically be compromised on and
implemented, eg actual background checks by the local police and
laws that set a reasonable standard for the police to be able to
remove guns from those that already have them when they have
warning signs like Cruz.


Simply because you are afraid of losing your mechanical manhood in
the form of a semiautomatic sidearm does not mean it is impossible
for the nation to legislate a ban on civilian owned semiautomatic
weapons.

I think it's time you check your manhood. You've been going back and
forth about penises with Uncle for weeks now. And now, out of
nowhere, YOU are trying to start that BS with me. I simply pointed
out that you do sound like the gun nuts. Muggles, who I rarely agree
with, suggested raising the age to buy a gun to 21. Pelosi proposed
it for semi-auto rifles. It's a step that could help. So, what do
you do, pee all over it and instead tilt at windmills, ie the
confiscation of all semi-autos.





I get it, you have low testosterone and need your little black pal
to make you feel as if you are safe and secure. However, you can
can still put a chubby in your chinos with a revolver, pump action
shotgun or bolt action rifle.

Here you are again, so fascinated on starting attacks about manhood.
Nuff said. Look in the mirror pal. And go play with your little
pecker that is obviously on your mind so much, while dreaming about
confiscating all the guns.



Trader, if you are so insecure about your manhood that you cannot take
such gentle reciprocal jibes in stride, then you should eliminate the
histrionics from your posts.

If you can't take being insulted, then you shouldn't cast the first
stone. Otherwise, man-up and grow a pair.



--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On 2/22/2018 12:36 PM, Bod wrote:
On 22/02/2018 18:00, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2018 2:09 AM, Bod wrote:
On 22/02/2018 03:58, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 3:01 PM, Bod wrote:

Making much stricter gun laws would be a start and making the vetting
more thorough.

I think raising the age where youths cannot buy guns is a good
beginning, but I don't think the adults are going to give up their
rights to guns so easily.

I gathered that :-)

Do you think you can do or say anything to change that?

I doubt it.


So, wouldn't it be more pleasant to just talk about other things?

--
Maggie

On 2/22/2018 1:16 PM, Dove Tail wrote:
Muggles wrote:

The left is losing it, I think.

2018 midterms and the Mueller investigation are going to be a very big
shock to your system.




I thought you "have no interest in soliciting replies from" me?

At this point, I only read random posts coming from you. I am on the
fence as to whether to completely ignore you for a while or to keep
reading random posts to see if your technique has improved. shrugs

From this point on, I won't respond to any posts from you that include
your silliness when referring to me as "Natasha." Grow up. If I keep
seeing that, I will just block posts from you that contain "Natasha."

For that matter I can set up a filter to block you posting other useless
silliness, too. Eventually, I imagine you will become invisible altogether.

--
Maggie

Muggles wrote:

On 2/22/2018 1:16 PM, Dove Tail wrote:
Muggles wrote:

The left is losing it, I think.

2018 midterms and the Mueller investigation are going to be a very
big shock to your system.




I thought you "have no interest in soliciting replies from" me?

At this point, I only read random posts coming from you. I am on the
fence as to whether to completely ignore you for a while or to keep
reading random posts to see if your technique has improved. shrugs

From this point on, I won't respond to any posts from you that include
your silliness when referring to me as "Natasha." Grow up. If I keep
seeing that, I will just block posts from you that contain "Natasha."

For that matter I can set up a filter to block you posting other
useless silliness, too. Eventually, I imagine you will become
invisible altogether.



Natasha, I didn't solicit a response from you, I asked you no
questions, I simply commented on your absurd post.

As for ignoring me, please, by all means. However, when you make your
anti-America, unpatriotic posts, when you parrot the Russian
propaganda, when you come to the support of your partner, Boris, etc.;
I will feel free to comment.




--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:07:02 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

When you call me "Natasha", you pretty much negate anything you say
after that. If you want your thoughts and ideas to be discussed, act
like it.


Licked the red right off the lolly pop. Spanked his ass good.

I'm willing to discuss most topics if the individual I'm discussing it
with is intelligent and does not need to resort to childish tactics. I
already raised my children.


The discussion HAS to also include real facts and being honest.
Honesty first. No deceptions allowed.

On 2/22/2018 2:56 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:07:02 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

When you call me "Natasha", you pretty much negate anything you say
after that. If you want your thoughts and ideas to be discussed, act
like it.


Licked the red right off the lolly pop. Spanked his ass good.

I'm willing to discuss most topics if the individual I'm discussing it
with is intelligent and does not need to resort to childish tactics. I
already raised my children.


The discussion HAS to also include real facts and being honest.
Honesty first. No deceptions allowed.


^5

--
Maggie

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 09:01:24 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 3:10:46 AM UTC-5, Dove Tail wrote:
Muggles wrote:

On 2/21/2018 3:01 PM, Bod wrote:
On 21/02/2018 19:59, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2018 12:42 AM, Bod wrote:

We want our sovereignty back. We don't like the way the unelected
EU dictators are telling us what we can and can't do.
I'd rather starve than submit to them.
What's wrong about that?


We refuse to give up our sovereignty, that is why we also refuse
to give up our guns.

Making much stricter gun laws would be a start and making the
vetting more thorough.


I think raising the age where youths cannot buy guns is a good
beginning, but I don't think the adults are going to give up their
rights to guns so easily.


Raising the age would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the Las
Vegas massacre.



Spoken just like the best of the gun nuts. Because something can't prevent
all shootings, let's diminish it, complain about it and do nothing. And
don't give us your solution, which is to confiscate all semi-autos, the
adults here are talking about things that could realistically be compromised
on and implemented, eg actual background checks by the local police and
laws that set a reasonable standard for the police to be able to remove
guns from those that already have them when they have warning signs like
Cruz.

If you are talking about getting better control over crazy people I am
with you but just trying to put everything they might use on a high
shelf is only playing whack a mole with the problem and preventing the
last attack, not the next one.

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 19:16:10 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

Muggles wrote:

The left is losing it, I think.

2018 midterms and the Mueller investigation are going to be a very big
shock to your system.

It might be like the shock you had in 2016 tho. I would not bet the
farm either way at this point.

Muggles wrote:

On 2/22/2018 5:30 PM, Dove Tail wrote:


Actually, it is called an educated prediction, but I can see where
you wouldn't understand the difference.

You can call it whatever you want, but it is still an assumption.

If you want to be taken seriously, re-phrase your statement and
eliminate assumption.

If you disagree with the prediction, feel free to post your argument
and supporting logic.

Your prediction is irrelevant, and does not warrant any counter
argument.

Translation Natasha, you have no argument or counter-point.

Keep it up and your Russian handlers will have to be apprised of your
laxity and dereliction of duty.

--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 3:04:44 PM UTC-5, Dove Tail wrote:
trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 2:09:04 PM UTC-5, Dove Tail wrote:
trader_4 wrote:

Raising the age would have done absolutely nothing to prevent
the Las Vegas massacre.



Spoken just like the best of the gun nuts. Because something
can't prevent all shootings, let's diminish it, complain about it
and do nothing. And don't give us your solution, which is to
confiscate all semi-autos, the adults here are talking about
things that could realistically be compromised on and
implemented, eg actual background checks by the local police and
laws that set a reasonable standard for the police to be able to
remove guns from those that already have them when they have
warning signs like Cruz.


Simply because you are afraid of losing your mechanical manhood in
the form of a semiautomatic sidearm does not mean it is impossible
for the nation to legislate a ban on civilian owned semiautomatic
weapons.

I think it's time you check your manhood. You've been going back and
forth about penises with Uncle for weeks now. And now, out of
nowhere, YOU are trying to start that BS with me. I simply pointed
out that you do sound like the gun nuts. Muggles, who I rarely agree
with, suggested raising the age to buy a gun to 21. Pelosi proposed
it for semi-auto rifles. It's a step that could help. So, what do
you do, pee all over it and instead tilt at windmills, ie the
confiscation of all semi-autos.





I get it, you have low testosterone and need your little black pal
to make you feel as if you are safe and secure. However, you can
can still put a chubby in your chinos with a revolver, pump action
shotgun or bolt action rifle.

Here you are again, so fascinated on starting attacks about manhood.
Nuff said. Look in the mirror pal. And go play with your little
pecker that is obviously on your mind so much, while dreaming about
confiscating all the guns.



Trader, if you are so insecure about your manhood that you cannot take
such gentle reciprocal jibes in stride, then you should eliminate the
histrionics from your posts.


Your the one here who keeps starting discussions about penises and manhood,
first it was with others, now you're trying to pull that **** with me.
I'm beginning to think some of the others are right.




If you can't take being insulted, then you shouldn't cast the first
stone. Otherwise, man-up and grow a pair.


Go **** yourself, how;s that? Time to start talking about penises
again, eh? Manhood? Poor little lib gets beaten up, starts talking
about penises. Go figure. I'm starting to think most of the others
here are right about you.

wrote:


I guess it would shock you to know there are 175,977 legal machine
guns in civilian hands, (the current post 86 BATF registry) quite a
few are thompsons but I don't want to interrupt your rant.


I guess it would shock you to learn the vast majority of civilians who
legally possess fully automatic weapons, Thompsons, BARs, Ma Dueces,
and fully functional tanks, etc are those with class 3 Federal Firearms
Licenses. These are very special licenses issued to a very select
group of people, most are dealers and collectors and are screened more
thoroughly than people working in Trump's White House.

There are also no legally owned fully automatic firearms in civilian
hands that were manufactured after 1986.



Just exactly how do you figure the government will get those
250,000,000 or so SA weapons out there? SAs have been the most popular
guns for about 50 years and we sold a ****load of them.
Where do you figure the government would get the $100-150 BILLION for
"just compensation" if this is just a "taking".

I have no objection to providing reasonable compensation to those who
voluntarily submit their illegal weapons within a specified grace
period.

Where does the money come from? If it were up to me, I would impose a
special tax on the sale of all other firearms and ammunition, to
civilians, rather like the significant taxes imposed on cigarettes by
federal and state governments.

If, as so many gun advocates claim, the vast majority of gun owners are
law abiding citizens, then the vast majority of these owners will abide
by the new laws.

Those who do not comply with the laws would receive regular reminder
letters (if recorded in any registry), those who continue to not comply
with the law would be committing a felony(ies) and would be subject to
fines and or imprisonment if apprehend outside of their residence with
such a weapon or if discovered during the course of a court ordered
search. There would be ample opportunity for owners to comply with the
new laws.

There would be even greater penalties for transferring ownership of
these illegal weapons to anyone but the governing authority. There
would be no way to legally bequeath or inherit such weapons.

Lastly and most importantly, I would criminalize the sale of complete
cartridges and components of ammunition for the most common calibers of
used in these SA weapons. Off hand, I think it would include 9mm, .45
acp, .40, .223 (5.56mm), 7.62x39 (AK ammo), etc.



--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 14:45:57 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

wrote:


I guess it would shock you to know there are 175,977 legal machine
guns in civilian hands, (the current post 86 BATF registry) quite a
few are thompsons but I don't want to interrupt your rant.


I guess it would shock you to learn the vast majority of civilians who
legally possess fully automatic weapons, Thompsons, BARs, Ma Dueces,
and fully functional tanks, etc are those with class 3 Federal Firearms
Licenses. These are very special licenses issued to a very select
group of people, most are dealers and collectors and are screened more
thoroughly than people working in Trump's White House.

There are also no legally owned fully automatic firearms in civilian
hands that were manufactured after 1986.

Actually they are not "licensed" they simply have a properly filled
out BATF form 4 with a tax stamp affixed and they paid $200. The
background check essentially the same as what happens when you buy a
single shot .22 rifle. It just takes a lot longer because BATF sits it
on a shelf for months.
Nobody asks you why you need the machine gun. The process is exactly
the same for a short barreled rifle or shotgun or a suppressor.
I have done it.

Just exactly how do you figure the government will get those
250,000,000 or so SA weapons out there? SAs have been the most popular
guns for about 50 years and we sold a ****load of them.
Where do you figure the government would get the $100-150 BILLION for
"just compensation" if this is just a "taking".

I have no objection to providing reasonable compensation to those who
voluntarily submit their illegal weapons within a specified grace
period.

Where does the money come from? If it were up to me, I would impose a
special tax on the sale of all other firearms and ammunition, to
civilians, rather like the significant taxes imposed on cigarettes by
federal and state governments.

If, as so many gun advocates claim, the vast majority of gun owners are
law abiding citizens, then the vast majority of these owners will abide
by the new laws.

Those who do not comply with the laws would receive regular reminder
letters (if recorded in any registry), those who continue to not comply
with the law would be committing a felony(ies) and would be subject to
fines and or imprisonment if apprehend outside of their residence with
such a weapon or if discovered during the course of a court ordered
search. There would be ample opportunity for owners to comply with the
new laws.

There would be even greater penalties for transferring ownership of
these illegal weapons to anyone but the governing authority. There
would be no way to legally bequeath or inherit such weapons.

Lastly and most importantly, I would criminalize the sale of complete
cartridges and components of ammunition for the most common calibers of
used in these SA weapons. Off hand, I think it would include 9mm, .45
acp, .40, .223 (5.56mm), 7.62x39 (AK ammo), etc.

You still never said where the money comes from. Nobody will be paying
your proposed tax if the transfers are banned along with most of the
guns. Bear in mind you are talking about more than $100 billion and
that is a very conservative estimate. $30-40 dollars from every man,
woman and child in the country. The value of the guns you want to
"justly compensate" for generally start at $500 each and can easily be
worth over a thousand.

Basically you are also making ammunition illegal too. It is pretty
hard to think of a caliber that someone does not make a SA for. Good
luck. That worked so well with drugs.
You can see why we think we need an NRA when there are people like you
around.

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 11:17:07 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 14:45:57 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

wrote:


I guess it would shock you to know there are 175,977 legal machine
guns in civilian hands, (the current post 86 BATF registry) quite a
few are thompsons but I don't want to interrupt your rant.


I guess it would shock you to learn the vast majority of civilians who
legally possess fully automatic weapons, Thompsons, BARs, Ma Dueces,
and fully functional tanks, etc are those with class 3 Federal Firearms
Licenses. These are very special licenses issued to a very select
group of people, most are dealers and collectors and are screened more
thoroughly than people working in Trump's White House.

There are also no legally owned fully automatic firearms in civilian
hands that were manufactured after 1986.

Actually they are not "licensed" they simply have a properly filled
out BATF form 4 with a tax stamp affixed and they paid $200. The
background check essentially the same as what happens when you buy a
single shot .22 rifle. It just takes a lot longer because BATF sits it
on a shelf for months.
Nobody asks you why you need the machine gun. The process is exactly
the same for a short barreled rifle or shotgun or a suppressor.
I have done it.

Just exactly how do you figure the government will get those
250,000,000 or so SA weapons out there? SAs have been the most popular
guns for about 50 years and we sold a ****load of them.
Where do you figure the government would get the $100-150 BILLION for
"just compensation" if this is just a "taking".

I have no objection to providing reasonable compensation to those who
voluntarily submit their illegal weapons within a specified grace
period.

Where does the money come from? If it were up to me, I would impose a
special tax on the sale of all other firearms and ammunition, to
civilians, rather like the significant taxes imposed on cigarettes by
federal and state governments.

If, as so many gun advocates claim, the vast majority of gun owners are
law abiding citizens, then the vast majority of these owners will abide
by the new laws.

Those who do not comply with the laws would receive regular reminder
letters (if recorded in any registry), those who continue to not comply
with the law would be committing a felony(ies) and would be subject to
fines and or imprisonment if apprehend outside of their residence with
such a weapon or if discovered during the course of a court ordered
search. There would be ample opportunity for owners to comply with the
new laws.

There would be even greater penalties for transferring ownership of
these illegal weapons to anyone but the governing authority. There
would be no way to legally bequeath or inherit such weapons.

Lastly and most importantly, I would criminalize the sale of complete
cartridges and components of ammunition for the most common calibers of
used in these SA weapons. Off hand, I think it would include 9mm, .45
acp, .40, .223 (5.56mm), 7.62x39 (AK ammo), etc.

You still never said where the money comes from. Nobody will be paying
your proposed tax if the transfers are banned along with most of the
guns. Bear in mind you are talking about more than $100 billion and
that is a very conservative estimate. $30-40 dollars from every man,
woman and child in the country.

Your math is off by an order of magnitude. It would be ~$300 to work
out to $100 bil.




The value of the guns you want to
"justly compensate" for generally start at $500 each and can easily be
worth over a thousand.

Basically you are also making ammunition illegal too. It is pretty
hard to think of a caliber that someone does not make a SA for. Good
luck. That worked so well with drugs.
You can see why we think we need an NRA when there are people like you
around.

What gets me is how quickly he ****es all over any other ideas other than
his confiscation. He complains that comprehensive background checks by
the local police are no good, because the LV shooter would have passed.
If that's the standard, that we have to stop it ALL in order to take steps
that would stop some of it, then we might as well give up right now.
We may get to confiscation at some point, if the right wing continues to
refuse to do anything, which is what I've warned about, but right now it's
tilting at windmills when even Nancy isn't anywhere near that.

wrote:


You still never said where the money comes from. Nobody will be paying
your proposed tax if the transfers are banned along with most of the
guns. Bear in mind you are talking about more than $100 billion and
that is a very conservative estimate. $30-40 dollars from every man,
woman and child in the country. The value of the guns you want to
"justly compensate" for generally start at $500 each and can easily be
worth over a thousand.

A. the money will come from a tax on the sale any legal firearm and
ammunition.


B. Once SA weapons are criminalized, those people who feel the need to
own a firearm will be able to purchase non-semiautomatic rifles,
shotguns and sidearms. People can adequately protect themselves that
class of weapon.


C. If it were up to me, I would not compensate people anywhere near the
numbers you are speaking about. The weapons are now illegal and as
such have no legal value.


D. Our government would have no obligation to financially compensate
people for their now illegal weapons.



Basically you are also making ammunition illegal too.

Not "basically", I am proposing that certain types of ammunition be
made illegal.


It is pretty
hard to think of a caliber that someone does not make a SA for. Good
luck. That worked so well with drugs.
You can see why we think we need an NRA when there are people like you
around.

No one is suggesting that you shouldn't have the NRA, but, it will come
to the point where no amount of lobbyist money will be able to
hold-back the flood of citizens that want change. The NRA only has 5
million members, which sounds like a lot, until you realize just how
many people reside in the USA.

My idea will not come to pass immediately, there will likely be more
mass shootings; concerts, day care centers, grammar and secondary
schools, movie theaters, political rallies, colleges, universities,
malls, places of work, etc. Eventually, the nation will have enough
and will take serious action.

It is only a matter of time for firearms that are tools of the trade
for mass murderers.



--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 17:04:29 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

wrote:


You still never said where the money comes from. Nobody will be paying
your proposed tax if the transfers are banned along with most of the
guns. Bear in mind you are talking about more than $100 billion and
that is a very conservative estimate. $30-40 dollars from every man,
woman and child in the country. The value of the guns you want to
"justly compensate" for generally start at $500 each and can easily be
worth over a thousand.

A. the money will come from a tax on the sale any legal firearm and
ammunition.


So you would create a massive tax on each round, not a problem for a
criminal who doesn't really shoot often but it is always at someone
else. OTOH it pretty much shuts down the recreational shooting
business where a serious skeet or target shooter goes through
thousands of rounds a year.


B. Once SA weapons are criminalized, those people who feel the need to
own a firearm will be able to purchase non-semiautomatic rifles,
shotguns and sidearms. People can adequately protect themselves that
class of weapon.

.... and commit their crimes with them.

C. If it were up to me, I would not compensate people anywhere near the
numbers you are speaking about. The weapons are now illegal and as
such have no legal value.

Then it is not just compensation then is it.


D. Our government would have no obligation to financially compensate
people for their now illegal weapons.

Thank god we have the NRA to protect us from nazis like you. I may
just send them a check.




Basically you are also making ammunition illegal too.

Not "basically", I am proposing that certain types of ammunition be
made illegal.


It is pretty
hard to think of a caliber that someone does not make a SA for. Good
luck. That worked so well with drugs.
You can see why we think we need an NRA when there are people like you
around.

No one is suggesting that you shouldn't have the NRA, but, it will come
to the point where no amount of lobbyist money will be able to
hold-back the flood of citizens that want change. The NRA only has 5
million members, which sounds like a lot, until you realize just how
many people reside in the USA.

My idea will not come to pass immediately, there will likely be more
mass shootings; concerts, day care centers, grammar and secondary
schools, movie theaters, political rallies, colleges, universities,
malls, places of work, etc. Eventually, the nation will have enough
and will take serious action.

It is only a matter of time for firearms that are tools of the trade
for mass murderers.