Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

commie_kalafornian
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:48 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by commie_kalafornian »

http://www.outdoors.net/site/images/ima ... page+10663

That is anti-gun Senator from New York having a good time with a gun???
commie_kalafornian
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:48 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by commie_kalafornian »

flopstock wrote: Is this gun illegal? If so where and why was he firing it? If it's not illegal, so what? :confused:


Here is the big deal. This is his record and opinions on guns:

http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/searchre ... un+control



If he is in New York yes the gun is illegal. Unless he has a permit. Of couse that would not be so, Charles Schumer is an anti-gun Senator. Now that would not be right wouldn't it? An anti-gun senator with a gun permit? You should ask Charles Shumer himself why he is shooting a gun and having a good time. I can not understand it myself.
commie_kalafornian
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:48 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by commie_kalafornian »

flopstock wrote: So you can't or won't say where he was and what the purpose of the pic was. And you don't know if he has a permit. I guess i don't have a problem with him or anyone else for that matter having a good time doing something that is legal. But if you don't know any particulars about the photo, how do you even know that he is having a good time? The photographer may have simply captured his face 'mid grimace'.

i think my problem with both sides of this 'type' of issue is this apparent need for 1upsmanship. If you want to argue the issue fine, but this 'your mama' crap both sides pull is really beneath all of you. :-6


First off, what the heck is he even doing with a gun? Does he have a permit? An anti-gun senator with a permit is that possible? Why would an anti-gun senator have a permit?

The point? He is a gun hypocrite. No I don't think that is a grimace? Noticed the relaxed arms. When I shoot a BIG handgun with lots of recoil, I grimace too, but my arms are NOT floppy like that.
commie_kalafornian
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:48 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by commie_kalafornian »

flopstock wrote: You're asking the same questions I asked you to answer for me! You still haven't!

You tell me the context of that picture. And I notice that this is 2001 also..what's up with that?


Let me answer your question with a question:

Do you think he has a permit?
User avatar
abbey
Posts: 15069
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:00 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by abbey »

Who Cares!!
User avatar
abbey
Posts: 15069
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:00 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by abbey »

Far Rider wrote: hahaha Abbey!You know just what to say! :yh_rotfl
Always a pleasure, never a chore x ;)
commie_kalafornian
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:48 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by commie_kalafornian »

flopstock wrote: No idea what-so-ever. But then- i am not making a representation to anyone that he is doing anything wrong, am i?

Sorry, but that picture, without the story behind it is just meaningless to me. The fact that you use it without presenting it's context actually raises more suspicions about where your head is at then his.

For all I know, the context is harmful to his position. But you don't offer that context and so your use of the picture ends up being more harmful to 'your' position in my eyes.


This is not debateable. That is a smile on his face. A grimace in response to heavy pounding recoil would be to position your body in a very agressive posture to fight recoil. He is not doing that. That is a smile.

Is there anything wrong with what I just posted? Is there anything misleading with what I just posted? Is there anything wrong with the logical deduction I made?

Then why is a person with a very aggresive anti-gun position trying to stop gun hobby-ist from doing the same exact thing he is doing in the picture with a smile on his face? Do we have a hypocrite here?
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by Accountable »

flopstock wrote: i think my problem with both sides of this 'type' of issue is this apparent need for 1upsmanship. If you want to argue the issue fine, but this 'your mama' crap both sides pull is really beneath all of you. :-6


Big hugs to you, Floppy! :yh_hugs
User avatar
BabyRider
Posts: 10163
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:00 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by BabyRider »

Where can I get a gun like that??!!! :yh_rotfl

Actually, it's pretty apparent this guy has no idea what he's doing. Shooting a high-caliber gun like that with his arms bent the way they are is a good way to break your nose. He looks like a total novice to me.
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]










Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????


We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.




User avatar
BabyRider
Posts: 10163
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:00 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by BabyRider »

Far Rider wrote: Looks like a 9mm to me, probaly one of those tech weapons, I think they are desigated by tech 9 or tech 10, I can't remember. I do remember its a cheap peice of crap.



I dont think there much kick to them, there a anti recoil spring in it.I was wondering if that's what that was. I have a 9mm, but it looks nothing like that.

Even with very little kick, would you ever shoot your weapon with your arms positioned like that? I sure wouldn't!

I just looked at the picture, I didn't read the article. Maybe I should do that!

You know guns, too, Far. What do you think? Does he look like he has any idea what he's doing?



Edit: There is no article, just the picture. Hmmm...
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]










Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????


We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.




User avatar
BabyRider
Posts: 10163
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:00 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by BabyRider »

commie_kalafornian wrote: This is not debateable. Hate to tell you this, but....EVERYTHING is debateable.
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]










Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????


We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.




User avatar
BabyRider
Posts: 10163
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:00 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by BabyRider »

Far Rider wrote: Its a junk gun I would not fire that thing at all, its prone to jams, and as I understand it it james the full round in behind the bolt, if the guns hot and the round jams and cooks off then it explodes the chamber.Damn. I wonder why, if the Senator is trying out a gun for the first time, and IS anti-gun, would they give him this piece of crap to fire?
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]










Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????


We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.




commie_kalafornian
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:48 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by commie_kalafornian »

flopstock wrote: Actually hon, it is debateable. But only because you refuse to report the context in which that picture was taken. The more you refuse to tell me the ' where ,when , how and why of that picture, the less believable your explanation sounds.

I am neither anti gun or pro gun. I'm just sick of watching distortions of everything, from both sides, on several issues, gun control being merely one of them. :)


Again I ask YOU. Is there anything wrong or distorted with what I posted? The picture speaks for itself. The Senators voting record and public stance speaks for itself. Did I misrepresent my deductions weather or not that is a smile or grimace? He is enjoying himself with that gun isn't he? If he is then he is a hypocrite isn't he?
Jives
Posts: 3741
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:00 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by Jives »

And what's wrong with being hypocritical? it's not a crime you know. As a matter of fact we are all hypocritical at one time or another.

85% of all people think they are better drivers than 90% of the rest.

That's mathematically impossible and shows that we are all, to a certain extent, hypocritical.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by Accountable »

:yh_glasse Oh sure, Jives. Throw in statistics to blur the obvious. :D
Jives
Posts: 3741
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:00 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by Jives »

BTW commie...you don't mind if I call you "commie" do you? or how about "pinko"?LOL.

Are you for or against gun control?

I couldn't see the picture, my school's filter's are blocking it out, which means it's offensive to somebody or is on a bad website..bad bad! :wah:
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
User avatar
Xxena
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:21 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by Xxena »

abbey wrote: Who Cares!!


Law abiding gun owners do when they pull stunts like this and then vote against us intead of the criminals time and time again.

I'm having software problems today so I can't get the link to the pic to come up, but there have been a number of photos of yucky chucky with firearms, usually semi auto rifles in conjunction with some press bit he was doing for his anti gun stints.. Then there was also the article few years back of his ohh ohhh, he found stashed in his closet he just kinda sorta forgot about that he had... as in it was his own "demon semi auto"... one of the same ones he demanded be on the banned list. Kinda like Diane Swinestine's fits over concealed carry yet she has a speical permit for her .38 strapped to her juicy thigh. And the all time goody... Sarah Brady doing a "straw purchase" like she's rallied against for years.. to get her son the shotgun he wanted but he was denyed purchase for whatever legal reason so Mrs. High and Mightly just walked all over the laws she demands we all follow to buy sonny boy his requested birthday present..

That's why we care.. its called HYPROCRITE... do as we say, not as we do - its ok for us, but never for you !


The difference between Congress as envisoned by the Founding Fathers and the Congress we have today is one of them inspires patriots to support it, and the other inspires patriots to buy extra ammo (Angel Shamaya):lips:
User avatar
Xxena
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:21 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by Xxena »

There was one photo that the antigun crowd used/circulated for quite a number of years AFTER it was taken and that was the Yuckster with either an AK or an SKS in a gun store doing his little " demon assault rifle" thing... it literally became their POSTER of the Poster child genre of the senator and his antigun crusade. But the bit about him having an illegal "assualt rifle stashed in his closet he "just forgot about" is true... that goes back a few years ago.

I'm getting all those signals from my system here that crash is imminent.. so I best sign off and start playing computer tech for the next few hours..


The difference between Congress as envisoned by the Founding Fathers and the Congress we have today is one of them inspires patriots to support it, and the other inspires patriots to buy extra ammo (Angel Shamaya):lips:
User avatar
Tombstone
Posts: 3686
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 12:00 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by Tombstone »

BabyRider wrote: Damn. I wonder why, if the Senator is trying out a gun for the first time, and IS anti-gun, would they give him this piece of crap to fire?


Love it! I was thinking exactly the same thing. :D :D
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.
User avatar
Xxena
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:21 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by Xxena »

flopstock wrote: Hah! Who's the yuckster?

And I have the same issue with any 'pro' or 'con' issue that posts something without a context. Anyone who does it loses credibility.


Here's one of the few where yucky chuckie was having fun out on the range with those assault weapons that just up and shoot people all by themselves. The caption was simply " Senator Schumer having fun on the range"...



September 13, 2004

Check out that look of sheer joy on his face as he's eliminating all his competition to the Big House on the Hilll... :wah:

__________________________________________

I stand corrected, it was a Christmas present, NOT birthday:



Sarah Brady skirted gun laws in buying son's rifle

New York Daily News March 22, 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON - Gun-control advocate Sarah Brady bought her son a powerful rifle for Christmas in 2000 - and may have skirted Delaware state background-check requirements, the New York Daily News has learned.

Brady reveals in a new memoir that she bought James Brady Jr. a Remington .30-06, complete with scope and safety lock, at a Lewes, Del., gun shop.

"I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle, loaded it into my little car and drove home," she writes. "It seemed so incredibly strange: Sarah Brady, of all people, packing heat."

Brady became a household name as a crusader for stricter gun-control laws after her husband, James, then the White House press secretary, was seriously wounded in a 1981 assassination attempt on then-President Ronald Reagan.

Brady writes in "A Good Fight" that the unnamed gun shop ran federal Brady Law and Delaware state background checks with great fanfare.

The book suggests that she did not have her son checked, as required by Delaware state law.

"(W)hen the owner called in the checks, it seemed to me he spoke unnecessarily loudly, repeating and spelling my name over and over on the phone," Brady writes.

Amy Stillwell, a spokeswoman for The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the federal Brady Law does not require background checks for intrafamily gun gifts.

Stillwell said she did not know whether her son was checked under the state law. The Delaware Department of Justice says the state does not have an exemption for family gifts.

"Scott is not a convicted felon, and he is not prohibited from owning a gun," Stillwell said. "Scott Brady could walk into a store and buy a - he is not a prohibited purchaser."

Delaware Justice Department spokeswoman Lori Sitler said the purchase could be illegal under state law if Brady did not also say who she was buying the gun for and submit his "name, rank and serial number" for a full check.

"You can't purchase a gun for someone else," Sitler said yesterday. "That would be a 'straw purchase.' You've got a problem right there."

Anti-gun control advocates were surprised to hear of Brady's foray into their world.

"We hope that it's innocuous and there's been no laws violated," said James Jay Baker, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. "It's obviously interesting that Sarah would be purchasing firearms of any kind for anybody, given her championing of restrictive guns laws for everyone." --- (c) 2002, New York Daily News.

___________________________________

While searching for the above to test the browser and see if I had all the bugaboo's worked out.. I came across a number of articles, one that came up most often was the hubbabub over Chucky's big campaign contributions from COLT Firearms.. which didn't surprise me cuz I knew the owner during period of the articles was vehemently antigun, but he sure liked the money it made him, apparenlty Chucky did too !

Its interesting how all the kings and queens of the antigun lot have armed bodyguards.... Feinstein, Chucky, Rosie, Michael Moore, Boxer....odder yet is that they feel someone in the progun camps would even want to waste their time over them. Their odds of being shot would be more with the mad and bad out there in the human ranks which puts the ruling elite into the same odds as the rest of us that can't have armed bodyguards cuz we're NOT important enough... but we are important enough to work and pay taxes that goes into their pockets..

Hmmm... maybe we should remind them of THAT FACT. As for credibility, doesn't seem to matter to the antigun lot even when they have the verified facts and stats given to them, they still "run with it" however they want it to sound. I can remember a televised debate we did on Channel 11 with Calloway years back.. at least 12 years ago if not more... the antigun side when presented with facts by our side completely disputing what they had just vomited up on public television, did a quick turn and one man relied.. So what if this is the facts, that doesn't mean anything. Even Calloway sat there giving this guy the "DUH" look.... I said to the man, "what do you mean it doesn't matter ?, it just proves everything you are citing is incorrect !".. he changed the subject abruptly..

What's the name of that wacky holophobe Priest here on the south side of Chicago that is doing the gun buy backs illegally ? One of the activist groups

I'm still involved in challenged him in the press over the fact what he's doing is illegal, you cannot buy, trade and sell guns without an FFL license.. The Priest is doing in essence what he's accusing others of doing illegally. Reporter agreed and asked him what was his reason... God told him to do it he said.. and therefore he didn't need any license, beside he's not a criminal was his further comment, he's a priest. Someone reminded him all of us confronting him had no prior arrests for anything either, we were not criminals either but he wanted us disarmed and was on the bandwagon with Daley and others that if we did not

surrender our firearms we should be arrested and jailed and loose our homes. Yes, he thought that was a good idea and fair. "DUH ????? "

Nice guy, glad I'm not Catholic.

Puter seems fixed, all seems to be working normally - its almost 1AM I can go to bed now... Nite all..


The difference between Congress as envisoned by the Founding Fathers and the Congress we have today is one of them inspires patriots to support it, and the other inspires patriots to buy extra ammo (Angel Shamaya):lips:
User avatar
Tombstone
Posts: 3686
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 12:00 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by Tombstone »

Xxena wrote: Here's one of the few where yucky chuckie was having fun out on the range with those assault weapons that just up and shoot people all by themselves. The caption was simply " Senator Schumer having fun on the range"...



September 13, 2004

Check out that look of sheer joy on his face as he's eliminating all his competition to the Big House on the Hilll... :wah:

__________________________________________

I stand corrected, it was a Christmas present, NOT birthday:



Sarah Brady skirted gun laws in buying son's rifle

New York Daily News March 22, 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON - Gun-control advocate Sarah Brady bought her son a powerful rifle for Christmas in 2000 - and may have skirted Delaware state background-check requirements, the New York Daily News has learned.

Brady reveals in a new memoir that she bought James Brady Jr. a Remington .30-06, complete with scope and safety lock, at a Lewes, Del., gun shop.

"I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle, loaded it into my little car and drove home," she writes. "It seemed so incredibly strange: Sarah Brady, of all people, packing heat."

Brady became a household name as a crusader for stricter gun-control laws after her husband, James, then the White House press secretary, was seriously wounded in a 1981 assassination attempt on then-President Ronald Reagan.

Brady writes in "A Good Fight" that the unnamed gun shop ran federal Brady Law and Delaware state background checks with great fanfare.

The book suggests that she did not have her son checked, as required by Delaware state law.

"(W)hen the owner called in the checks, it seemed to me he spoke unnecessarily loudly, repeating and spelling my name over and over on the phone," Brady writes.

Amy Stillwell, a spokeswoman for The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the federal Brady Law does not require background checks for intrafamily gun gifts.

Stillwell said she did not know whether her son was checked under the state law. The Delaware Department of Justice says the state does not have an exemption for family gifts.

"Scott is not a convicted felon, and he is not prohibited from owning a gun," Stillwell said. "Scott Brady could walk into a store and buy a - he is not a prohibited purchaser."

Delaware Justice Department spokeswoman Lori Sitler said the purchase could be illegal under state law if Brady did not also say who she was buying the gun for and submit his "name, rank and serial number" for a full check.

"You can't purchase a gun for someone else," Sitler said yesterday. "That would be a 'straw purchase.' You've got a problem right there."

Anti-gun control advocates were surprised to hear of Brady's foray into their world.

"We hope that it's innocuous and there's been no laws violated," said James Jay Baker, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. "It's obviously interesting that Sarah would be purchasing firearms of any kind for anybody, given her championing of restrictive guns laws for everyone." --- (c) 2002, New York Daily News.

___________________________________

While searching for the above to test the browser and see if I had all the bugaboo's worked out.. I came across a number of articles, one that came up most often was the hubbabub over Chucky's big campaign contributions from COLT Firearms.. which didn't surprise me cuz I knew the owner during period of the articles was vehemently antigun, but he sure liked the money it made him, apparenlty Chucky did too !

Its interesting how all the kings and queens of the antigun lot have armed bodyguards.... Feinstein, Chucky, Rosie, Michael Moore, Boxer....odder yet is that they feel someone in the progun camps would even want to waste their time over them. Their odds of being shot would be more with the mad and bad out there in the human ranks which puts the ruling elite into the same odds as the rest of us that can't have armed bodyguards cuz we're NOT important enough... but we are important enough to work and pay taxes that goes into their pockets..

Hmmm... maybe we should remind them of THAT FACT.

Puter seems fixed, all seems to be working normally - its almost 1AM I can go to bed now... Nite all..


Thanks for all that info! Nite!
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.
User avatar
BTS
Posts: 3202
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:47 am

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by BTS »

flopstock wrote: Yes there is something wrong or distorted with what you posted. You apparently don't have any idea of the context of that picture. That picture, without context, is simply a blip in time captured in a frame. Totally meanlingless unless you have 50 shots before and after for us to make a judgement on. Someone at his shoulder could have been making a joke. He could have gas. He could be laughing because he can't believe he's standing there holding a gun. And yeah, he could even be enjoying having his hands on a gun. The posibilities are endless, without the context.

I bet BTS can find out what was going on when this was taken. He's always able to find stuff. In the meantime, i just think you can get your point across better if you back up what you post with facts. That's all. :-6




The first thing I notice is that it is a Reuters photo making it a legit picture and probably a photo opt for Schumer.

Not sure why he would be shooting a gun when he has for years tried to take Americans guns out of their very hands.

Flop, I have not seen you take a stand either way on the gun issue but if you know Schumers record on guns you might think it hypocritical to say the least.

I think that was his point of the post, cut and dry.

Remember the title of thread is

"Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?"

I know for you gun grabbers it is hard to see your poster boy with a gun in his feeble little hands. I think that is why the thread was hyjacked from the actual picture and what it represents to, hey no facts with it pal.

The fact is he has a gun in in his sweaty little paws and has or is about to fire it.......... FACT!!!!

Fact he wants to disarm American citizens.



The guy talks out of both sides of his....well umm...... Mouth

as evidenced below:

Chuck Schumer who stated, during an April 5, 1995 hearing of the House Subcommittee on Crime, "The Second Amendment…does not guarantee the mythical individual right to bear arms we will hear argued for today."



Said Schumer in a May 8, 2002 press release: "The broad principle that there is an individual right to bear arms is shared by many Americans, including myself."

HUH??????????

"Gun-banning Senator Charles Schumer has displayed incredible hypocrisy when it comes to the Second Amendment," said Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America. "Schumer does not trust Americans to own guns, but that does not keep him from thinking that he is special. Schumer's elitism justifies his traveling with an armed New York City detective to protect him. Too bad if the rest of us cannot afford to hire armed police detectives. "It gets to be too much to bear when Schumer protests that he believes in the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. If Schumer supports the Second Amendment, then Hitler was a Zionist. Schumer wants us to accept the Humpty Dumpty line that 'words mean what I make them mean.' "If Schumer supports the Second Amendment, we challenge him to introduce Rep. Hostettler's H.R. 990 in the Senate. This bill would have each state recognize the concealed carry permits issued by other states the way driver's licenses are recognized," Pratt observed.
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
User avatar
Xxena
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:21 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by Xxena »

That particular photo was taken a number of years back when Schumer and a few other antigun senators went to the FBI and ATF ranges to shoot some of the same firearms they had been demonizing for years since none of them had really a clue what they were talking about. It was used on the network nightly

news here in the Chicago area a number of times at that particular time frame and resurrected again when the Brady Law was coming up to either be resurrected or allowed to die as it should.

The same photo only in video was also shown on one of the primetime network news magazines like 20/20, 60 minutes or one of those things as part of an interview with Schumer. When asked if he enjoyed himself shooting it he admitted it was a lot of fun, but it was under controlled circumstances with professionals around him.

whooppeee dooo - what the hell does the nitwit think most avid shooters do ? We do shoot under controlled circumstances and we ARE the professionals.. would you like to see my self defense Trainers card/permit ?????

The bad guys with the guns are the gangbangers, the criminals and those that have them with the sole intent to do harm... the rest of us take our ownership and use seriously and don't treat them as toys like the antigun lot seem to think we do. But most anti's arent' talking fact anyways so we might as well be spitting at the wall trying to "educate" any of them.. I gave up years ago - let them live in their paranoia and delusional world .. it will bite them hard some day.

.. funny side note... when we were crossing from 1999 into 2000 there was so much stupid hype in the Chicago area network stations about the possibility of certain groups and people in areas taking the celebrating too far and it might

turn into a looting and out of control situation... So of course all the antigun paranoids had themselves PRIMED for just such an event even though nothing even close to it ever happened... but they "were ready" at the same time and all over the Chicago Tribune and the Daily Hearld with their paranoid ed ops and on the local network TV stations wringing their hands and crying to Richie "fatboy" Daley for more guncontrol... the mushroom people turds known as my neighbors all subscribe to that particular state of mind... for years they have seen us come and go with gun cases or rifle cases loaded into the van or truck for practice trips to the range, trainng classes we were conducting, competition shoots etc... and in 16 years living here have never had ONE incident of anything that had to do with our firearms.. but they fear them all the same. 2 days before Jan 1, 2000 we have a gaggle of the neighborhood men (and I use that term so loosely) on my door stoop ringing my bell asking to come in and talk to "us"...

They had come as a group to ask us that "in the case of a gang of looters and

mayhem" in our silly little city (which equates to the Hispanic population on the east end in the apartments)... could they "count on us, me and hubby" to be fully armed and ready to take on anyone that might come up the cul du sac with

ill will towards the people living here and would we be good enough to protect

all of them and their homes like they know we would be doing for ours ?"....

This was a "serious discussion"... honestly, no kidding although hubby and myself had to contain ourselves from breaking out in hysterics and throwing the lot of whinning yuppies out... We gave each other this stern long silent look like we were seriously considering it - he winked at me and then he replied .. Yeah ok

I guess so - that means one of you guys has to go out and get me batteries for my night vision though...

they did... and as we predicted not a damn thing happend other than the worse of the lot's 2 idiot teenage son's set their roof on fire briefly with out of control fireworks in drunken stupors. .... But they fear our firearms.. go figure.


The difference between Congress as envisoned by the Founding Fathers and the Congress we have today is one of them inspires patriots to support it, and the other inspires patriots to buy extra ammo (Angel Shamaya):lips:
User avatar
Xxena
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:21 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by Xxena »

Jives wrote: And what's wrong with being hypocritical? it's not a crime you know. As a matter of fact we are all hypocritical at one time or another.

85% of all people think they are better drivers than 90% of the rest.

That's mathematically impossible and shows that we are all, to a certain extent, hypocritical.


Nothing wrong with being hypocritcal since we all do it at one time or another,

you are correct in that assumption, HOWEVER, the vast majority of us are NOT

FEDERAL US SENATORS with a lifer seat that have the people of a nation under their finger of control with their vote and their influence over people due to their time in office and all the movers and shakers they can manipulate due to their voting power. Therefore when someone such as Yuckie Chuckie demonizes a whole section of the law abiding population for a sport and item they use and like that he doesn't and spends a good portion of his public life devoted to taking the firearms away from the people that do not abuse them and abuse others with them, to "have fun with them" because he can due to his high ranking political position is not only being a hyprocrite but makes him a elitest pig as far as I'm concerned. It amounts to Marie telling the starving people of Paris to eat cake while she stuffed her fat face watching them die of starvation around her and did nothing but demonnize them and be a "hyprocite" about that situation where she

had control as well. Too bad we still don't have the guillotine... I can think of a lot in the big house in DC that could use a taste of it... they could think of it as "reality TV" !


The difference between Congress as envisoned by the Founding Fathers and the Congress we have today is one of them inspires patriots to support it, and the other inspires patriots to buy extra ammo (Angel Shamaya):lips:
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by Accountable »

Welcome back. Xx! Good to see you again.
User avatar
Xxena
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:21 pm

Whoooa what is wrong with this picture?

Post by Xxena »

Thanks A.... past few months it was nuts here with the Biz... no time for anything but work, work and more work, then I had some major computer crashes with both my notebook and then the net towers... have a new notebook up and running and now I have to play puter Doc and get the towers up and going

and debugged as well... who resurrected this string ? I was kinda shocked to see the posts up again with a December date when we did this a couple of months ago... but some of it is well worth saying again. Need to check on some shipments ... check back here with you 'all later. Happy Winter... hope

everyone had a nice Turkey Day


The difference between Congress as envisoned by the Founding Fathers and the Congress we have today is one of them inspires patriots to support it, and the other inspires patriots to buy extra ammo (Angel Shamaya):lips:

Return to “Gun Control”