1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Tortured Reasoning

Cappmann Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 3:33 PM
So a law-abiding citizen of America challenging the atrocities and absolute disdain for human life of terrorists is comparable to the Nazis? Really? The Jews did nothing to bring on Nazi atrocities. Terrorists have willingly discarded their humanity. Take this rave and shove it straight up your smelly liberal A$$!
I'm just glad I only have an AR-10 (10 is smaller - hence "better" than 15 right?). I guess I'm safe from this and future attempts to sue or ban AR-15s... [sarc - off]
I'm still waiting on a standard, clear definition of "assault rifle". What makes a rifle an "assault rifle"? "The suit argues that the gun is a military assault weapon that never should have been on the general market." Exactly how, besides cosmetics, is the semi-auto Bushmaster different from virtually ANY semi-automatic rifle?
Yeah, but lawsuits aren't free, especially to the company that has to defend itself from BULLCHIT frivolous lawsuits. This was a liberal tactic several years ago to drive gun manufacturers out of business. Then along came the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. So this lawsuit, no matter how much it helps the "grieving process", should be thrown out of court before it even gets started.
It's cliché but true - Gun Control is NOT about guns. It's about control. A government cannot totally control an armed populace. These politicians and activist leaders know what we know. Gun laws do not work. They use dupes to push their agenda. Every FACT points to their blatant lies, yet they still have numerous people believing them. The reason is either pure ignorance (people who have never been in the same room as a gun) or people who have had bad experiences with firearms (lost loved ones, etc.). So it is ignorance and emotion they use to push their agenda. The have to - they have NO facts to back up their position.
In response to:

Tortured Reasoning

Cappmann Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 11:15 AM
Well said. It's called the US Constitution as it applies to US citizens. Just as foreign law applies to US citizens in that respective country. Did anyone apply the US Bill of Rights to Sgt Tahmooressi? No. Mexican law applied. Also, these enhanced interrogations were not conducted on US soil. Finally, who defines what is or is not torture? At the time, enhanced interrogations were deemed to NOT be torture. Now, under a liberal regime, that determination has been reversed. What will the definition be in 2 or 3 years? According to Feinstein and her ignorant, self-righteous ilk, harsh words and failure to say please would be considered torture.
In response to:

Tortured Reasoning

Cappmann Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 11:07 AM
Let me put this as plainly and simply as possible - terrorists have NO rights. They are not human. They are far below animal. They are toilet scum. I don't concern myself that toilet scum might feel pain when I hit it with chlorine. I don't concern myself about the feelings (physical or mental) of terrorists. They give up any and all human rights when they take those rights away from innocents. Just as they treat innocents (and prisoners), so shall they be treated. Anything goes to get whatever information is contained within their miniscule gray matter (I won't justify it by calling it a "brain" - that would imply actual thought). Torturing for the sake of inflicting pain (as they do) is the ONLY line I draw.
I flat-out DARE any doctor or medical person to ask about or challenge me about gun ownership. I will light them up. The only thing health professionals need to know is my health information. Not what kind of car I drive, not if I have pets (unless I'm there for an allergic reaction), not my relationship with my wife, and most DEFINITELY not if I own firearms.
I was the southern states for continiguity of the book. Had nothing to do with "southerners" or otherwise. The main character is from Indiana and lived in Louisiana when the books take place. The SUSA is from the east coast up to South Carolina and over to Texas, including many central states. My point is that many speculations in this article could have been taken right out of the books.
In response to:

Selling Sex (Allegations)

Cappmann Wrote: Dec 15, 2014 12:39 PM
Besides the fact that she's turned out to be a self-serving liar (BIG surprise, no?), what does her fantasy rapist being a republican have to do with anything at all? Hanky-stomping liberal democrats never rape?
1 - 10 Next