"Gun ban would protect more than 2,200 firearms"

RaVis · Feb 16, 2013

Gotta love the "positive" title.

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-ban-protect-more-2-200-firearms-132222943.html

teratos · Feb 16, 2013

We need a ban to protect firearms? How about skip the ban and let us protect the firearms we own?

BradMacc82 · Feb 16, 2013

teratos said:
We need a ban to protect firearms? How about skip the ban and let us protect the firearms we own?

I like this idea.

When are you running for office again??

EL1227 · Feb 16, 2013

RaVis said:
Gotta love the "positive" title.

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-ban-protect-more-2-200-firearms-132222943.html

"Gun ban would protect more than 2,200 firearms"

That has to go down with the best of George Carlin's oxymoronic statements ...

Jumbo shrimp ?

Kilroy · Feb 16, 2013

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd prefer to protect my guns with my other guns.

smokey · Feb 16, 2013

Hit it with a comment

Mr H · Feb 16, 2013

Let's "protect" these legislators, instead....

Robert · Feb 16, 2013

teratos said:
We need a ban to protect firearms? How about skip the band and let us protect the firearms we own?

Well I guess it depends on the band, if I'm going to skip it that is..

teratos · Feb 16, 2013

Robert said:
Well I guess it depends on the band, if I'm going to skip it that is..

The band wasn't that good anyway. They are a NKOTB tribute band.

johny357 · Feb 16, 2013

1st ammendment ban protects over 160,000 words and promotes common sense speech.

cantstop · Feb 16, 2013

RaVis said:
"Gun ban would protect more than 2,200 firearms"

Of course, the other 100 million would be confiscated...

:spank:

Mr H · Feb 16, 2013

teratos said:
The band wasn't that good anyway. They are a NKOTB tribute band.

Not Keeping Out The Barbarians???

GNLaFrance · Feb 16, 2013

Hard to take seriously a writer who calls the M1 Carbine an "assault rifle".

hvymax · Feb 16, 2013

They even point out how some features make the guns more manageable and accurate. By that logic they should ban sights.

MDFF2008 · Feb 16, 2013

This is where we need to stress what's being proposed in California. We need to stress "for now"

Rickman · Feb 16, 2013

hvymax said:
They even point out how some features make the guns more manageable and accurate. By that logic they should ban sights.

I would think they would be for really short barrels too.

SCARCQB · Feb 16, 2013

I already own a safe and gun oil plus insurance. No need for other protection

dist1646 · Feb 16, 2013

I don't need the government to pass a law to "protect" only that portion of freedom that they choose to. I don't need the government to pass laws to make those who have not done anyone any harm criminals either. I need a law to protect "We The People" from the tyranny of those who seek to destroy our morals and freedoms.

Redd Byrd · Feb 16, 2013

dist1646 said:
I don't need the government to pass a law to "protect" only that portion of freedom that they choose to. I don't need the government to pass laws to make those who have not done anyone any harm criminals either. I need a law to protect "We The People" from the tyranny of those who seek to destroy our morals and freedoms.

OH HELL YES ! ! ! :thumbsup:

smokey · Feb 16, 2013

the comments seem fairly 1-sided....

"Gun ban would protect more than 2,200 firearms"

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Oi!

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

R.I.P.

Ultimate Member

2A TEACHER

Banana'd

Having Fun Yet?

My hair is amazing

Active Member

Pentultimate Member

Banana'd

RIP

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Get Opp my rawn, Plick!

Ultimate Member

Active Member

2A TEACHER

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics