OK, ban guns, if you still had it in your mind to kill a large group of people, all you need is a 55 gallon steel drum, diesel fuel, and fertilizer. Stupid ass.
A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.
@beatlegreg07 Thank goodness I live in a country where I am a citizen, not a subject. I know people who have dozens of guns which have never shot anyone. I guess by your standards they are defective. I can see your reasoning. If not for guns, most of the world would still be under the thumb of a murderous family from England.
@bubbiesdad actually i think you'll find that modern british passports clearly state "citizen" and not subject. And i'm not saying that wars should not be fought with guns. Oh and by the way i am half american, my mother is from california, so don't play the limey card with me. and just cos i live in england doesn't mean i swear loyalty to the royal family or the government. they can both go to hell. i care about people, not nationalities.
@bubbiesdad it was because of guns and superior arsenal that helped the british empire establish itself in the first place. and it was guns that helped the americans overthrow the british crown. don't pretend that that my reasoning is based on selfish preservation of my country's wealth and influence
@beatlegreg07 Do you have google, youtube doesn't allow posts of links. Please tell which of your posts are "facts". You are the one who said to legalize murder and rape.
"litle bo peep? huh? i don't get it. explain"
It means you are a lost sheep, expecting the sheperd(government) to protect you and provide your every need.
@bubbiesdad watch the video "Lawrence O'Donnell Unloads (No Pun) On The NRA For Heartless Comments" into youtube. the statistics come straight from the NYPD.
@bubbiesdad crime increases generally, due to population shifts, better recording etc. violent crime has been rising in the UK since the 1950s, so its not surprise that gun crime, amongst every other type of crime, has increased.
@beatlegreg07 Typical liberal changing the topic. I can and will defend myself as I live in a free country where the government doesn't coddle criminals. Making easy prey by disarming honest citizens. Ans yes, England probably will leagalize murder and rape as a means to lower the crime rate. Pretty stupid of you to bring that one up. Guns are not evil, bad [eople with guns are evil. Honest people with guns is FREEDOM.
@bubbiesdad "typical liberal changing the topic?" - i had no idea typical liberals change topics so much as to be laden with the stereotype of topic changers. some of us also ride bikes by the way. And I'm hardly changing the topic by talking about other types of crime. guns, rape, murder often go together rather well, wouldn't you say?
@beatlegreg07 You cannot seriously think that it is normal/reasonable for gun crime to increase after honest citizens have been disarmed. England is a bad country in more ways than one. Paying rich people(Royal Family) just because they claim royalty?
@bubbiesdad Let's not get into which countries are "bad" and which are good. And here you are changing the subject to the royal family, - typical conservative loon always changing the subject. And when it comes to paying rich people your country borrows money from china just to give it's millionaires and billionares hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of tax cuts every year. And by the way i despise the royal family and want rid of them.
@beatlegreg07 "your country borrows money from china just to give it's millionaires and billionares hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of tax cuts every year"
I see, another who hates anyone who has more than they do. Our country is full of them.
"And by the way i despise the royal family and want rid of them"
@bubbiesdad i don't hate the millionaires or billionaires. God bless them. It's the politicians who pass ludicrous tax cuts that they don't need, whilst the burden of taxation falls on the working and middle classes.
@beatlegreg07 The middle and working class, we also get tax cuts. The people who hate everyone who has more than them(they are commonly known as liberal Democrats) seem to think that the government should take the wealthy peoples money and give it to the "less fortunate". Many of whom seem to have no job so they get government assistance. No money for food, but money for cable TV, cell phones Xbox etc.
@bubbiesdad the rich pay much less tax as a percentage of income than lower and middle income earners. At this moment the deficit of america is more because the rich are relinquished of paying their fare share of tax by the democrats and republicans who love them. why should the rich pay the lowest rate of tax? a CEO pays less tax than his secretary or cleaning lady. Money from your pocket goes to pay-off the deficit which is added to by the Bush and now Obama tax cuts for the rich.
@bubbiesdad i take it you watch fox news and nothing else. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich. i don't blame you for being misled, fox news has people like you wrapped around its finger. And no it is not a lie, sadly. do some research. the rich pay less proportionately than everyone else. Rupert Murdock's propaganda station won't tell you that either
@beatlegreg07 Well, they weren't Bushes tax cuts as the President lacks the power to raise or lower taxes, that belongs to Congress. It's called the Constitution, try readfing it sometime. And it is a lie, the rich pay a higher rate on INCOME. You do the research.
@bubbiesdad i'm sorry but you really are wrong. When i say Bush or Obama i am using abbreviation. Obviously i mean the Bush administration and the Obama administrarion and the respected congresses. And by the way it is the President who signs a bill into law, so any law is as much the President's as it is Congress's. I think you are the one who needs to read up on procedure.
@bubbiesdad Even Warren Buffet admitted that the top 1% of taxpayers, which averaged about $138 million in income paid a tax rate of 16.6%. This could get very tedious.
@beatlegreg07 The percentage you list is for capital gains, not income. Which are two different things in the eyes of the government. Try wikipedia /US tax rates capital gains and you will see the lower rates for capital gains vs income. In gets confusing, but it's the law. Long term capital gains tax is 15% vs 35% for the same amount in ordinary income. Short term capital gains are taxed at the same rate as ordinary income. Hey, you said to research.
Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent. Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.
@beatlegreg07 " well i think that's the closest i'll get to you admitting i'm right."
Most of the rich, make their money off of long term investments. Which while it is income, it is considered as capital gains. One good thing is that in 2013, both long and short term capital gains rates are set to increase, by about 3% on short term and about 5% on long term. We regular people in the US don't have it too bad as far as taxes go. Not after viewing the tax rates in England.
@bubbiesdad i'm clearly hitting a brick wall here. look, for example, the top 25 "hedge fund" managers made a combined $25 billion this past year but because of tax policy their lobbyists helped write, they pay a lower effective tax rate than "regular" americans e.g. teachers and cops. And again, i am not some kind of english patriot. we get fucked for taxes overhere, i know.
@beatlegreg07 I understand what you mean with effective tax rate. It would make sense to tax all income at the same rate, whether you made it working like I do 40 hours a week, or off of what you have invested. But that would require less government, which means less jobs for high ranking officials to appoint their friends to.
@beatlegreg07 Well if the President doesn't sign the bill, or vetos it, congress can still override him. So you need to read up on procedure. You are really wrong and I'm not sorry.
@bubbiesdad Bush and Obama did not veto tax cuts for the wealthy. hence their names are on it. they own it, along with the congress of the day. and the shame is theirs.
@beatlegreg07 Right, as when Congress raised taxes during the first Bush's Presidency and he got the blame. He could have vetoed, but they had the votes to override him. Politics is full of crooks from all parties. None is better than the other.
@bubbiesdad Bush didn't try to veto because it was his agenda.but that's another story. just because a veto can be over ruled it does not prevent the president from issuing a veto in the first place. Let's not pretend that Bush was against tax cuts for the rich.
@beatlegreg07 He was for tax cuts for everyone. Democrats idea of fair taxes are taxing everyone who has more than they do until they have less than they do.
@bubbiesdad If "everyone" means billionaires, then yes, Bush was for tax cuts for all billionaires. and Obama and the democrats re-administered the bush tax cuts just a month ago.
Gun's of the 1780's, today's guns are not in the Constitution? Then the internet, TV, radio, photography , modern printing presses, and ball point pens are not covered by the First amendment. Your rules.
@beatlegreg07 Well since you are in the UK, youjr thoughts on the US Constitution carry little or no weight.
You say my point is to take away guns from everyone, - the crims especially. Make them extinct like the dodo
So everyone would include the police and government agents? Afterall, if the are gone why would police need them? Plus in the UK you have a handgun ban anyway so why are you worried about us over here?
Little Bo Peep called, she is desperately looking for you.
@bubbiesdad your comments are becoming increasingly goofy, but nevertheless i shall respond. litle bo peep? huh? i don't get it. explain.
Just because i am not a US citizen doesn't mean i cant talk about "your" constitution. my opinion is worth as much or as little as yours. and why am i worried about you lot overthere? For one thing my sister lives Tucson. And if i was you i would be flattered that people in other countries care about the well-being of americans.
@bubbiesdad i have stated numerous facts in the responses i have just written. You however, are the one who is indulging in insults and offensive terms. I would hence argue that you are the one who is arguing with emotions instead of facts
Lets even lvt govt out of this - What you would do...?
Lets say you're upstairs in your bathroom making a youtube video. You have family downstairs and you hear screaming. It sounds like somebody has broken into your house and is taking them hostage or torturing them...
If you didn't have a gun to defend your home you would probably just call the police? But then hear gun shots downstairs... Your family is dying... NO TIME to wait for cops... then what? Can you defend them, or try?
@beatlegreg07 He smuggled one in from another country or MADE a zip gun out of parts from the hardware store because he's a complete (and committed) nutjob.
Does somebody who is going to break the law to shoot somebody else really care about whether there is LAW saying "no guns!" ...? No. They think to themselves "hey, these ppl are probably law-abiding citizens and THEREFORE don't-have-guns-to-protect-themselves so this will be EASY!"
@JustCallMeKit then the real problem is how he somehow smuggled it in. why was he not caught? how did he avoid the scanners? that would be the issue of concern. and if he's able to smuggle a gun into a country then for all he knows everyone else has a gun too. you never know who you're breaking into.
@beatlegreg07 fair enough. but my point is that if THEY (bad people who want guns for the wrong reasons) want it bad enough... they will find a way and when they do that leaves everyone else an easy target. i would prefer to know i had the ability to at least TRY to protect my family from bad people.
To everyone who is calling for stricter gun laws in light of the tragedy in Tucson, may I offer this little tidbit: If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat. Remember: Hold the Person accountable for their actions, not the means they chose to utilize!!!
@phin3s i agree. but once a person is intent on killing then they are probably going to use the most efficient method for doing so. if a pyscho does not have access to a gun then his or her killing spree will most probably be much reduced.
@beatlegreg07 and it's not just about the latest tragedy, there's a tragedy every few months now and it's all psychos with guns. we should take action on both fronts. limit and detain the psychos whilst also limiting their ability to harm. On a related note, the US govt doesn't want Iran to have a nuclear device precisely because it increases the likelyhood of maximum devastion from minimum effort.
@beatlegreg07 You are correct, but if you make it so that LAW ABIDING CITIZENS cannot obtain a way to protect themselves, you increase the crime rate. Just because you make it where LAW ABIDING CITIZENS cannot purchase weapons, that does not keep criminals from getting them. Loughner could have purchased his from a gang on the street and still went in and did the same thing. Banning people who use them to protect themselves and others from these type of peoples causes more crime than it stops.
@beatlegreg07 There may be no direct proof, but isn't it funny that if you look at the DC gun ban, in the 30 years that it was in place violent crime rate went up? Then all of a sudden it went down when they got rid of the ban. Taking guns from Law Abiding Citizens just makes them easier targets because now they have no means of protecting themselves. It's like the "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" quote. Just because you ban guns for law abiders does not mean you remove guns from the street.
@phin3s my point is to take away guns from everyone, - the crims especially. Make them extinct like the dodo. Ofcourse, ridding the entire country/world of guns would be very hard and perhaps impossible, sadly.
@TheMango121 even if everyone has a modern fire arm, the govt still has tanks, planes, helicopters and nuclear weapons. i think the government has our number regardless.
Still makes it harder. The government wouldn't use a nuke... And do you think all our troops would "agree" with the government? Some brainwashed people would but alot would go AWOL. I'm not worried about government turning on us. Its the complete failure of government. A country without law would happen in America, and will in the future. America will fail, just like every other nation will. I want a semi-auto IF it fails.
The US exports weapons and war, so do the French, British and Russians, but notice those countries don't allow their citizens to buy guns. We love guns and violence and war in the US.
The US likes guns because we like cowboy movies and rap videos, or maybe we like cowboys and gangsters because we like guns. We buy toy guns for our children. My earliest gay experience was having a toy gun stuck in my mouth as he jumped on me. We sanitize our violence for our children and then edge them closer and closer to the brutal reality, by which time the child is perfectly ready to kill for America or anything else.
5 minutes to load???? They would break????????? 1/2 the time it wouldn't work??? I'm no speed loader with a muzzleloader but I can load a hell of alot fast than that. As far as them breaking, I guess that is why my great grandfathers muzzleloading shotgun & 1858 Remington revolver still shoot today. 1/2 the time they wouldn't work, if you keep the powder dry & your caps dry they fire better than 90 percent of the time.
@beatlegreg07 You mentioned 6 shots..... those six shooters didn't come around till the mid 1800's. Also those early firearms I own are the same technology of the 1780's. Not to mention they are still working 150+ years after they were made, that speaks for their reliability.
@beatlegreg07 And then we get into what England has.... they ban guns & the knife assaults goes way up. Ban knives then the bludgeoning assaults will go up. When are they going to require a licence for a pool que or a golf club?
Very easy to tell you have never shot a firearm or know anything about how they operate or handle when being fired. First of a semi-auto firearm fires ONE shot with one pull of the trigger, a full auto will keep firing as long as the trigger is held down or until you empty the magazine. Also when you fire a firearm in rapid fire the muzzle (end of the barrel where the bullet comes out) will rise so you need to control it. That is why you can't be as accurate when firing rapid fire
@beatlegreg07 If you ever get to California give me a call. I can teach you what a firearm can & can't do as well as show you that most people that own & use firearms do so in a safe way & have a great time doing so. Don't knock the shooting sports till you try it, even the kids in our shooting club have alot of fun & learn alot of disipline when shooting.
@Philinspaces it's such a shame that most countries don't abide by the bodyclock and take 2 hours to nap in the afternoon. i mean we all DIE after lunch, right?
This has been flagged as spam show
OK, ban guns, if you still had it in your mind to kill a large group of people, all you need is a 55 gallon steel drum, diesel fuel, and fertilizer. Stupid ass.
ReaverVex 11 months ago
@ReaverVex huh?
beatlegreg07 11 months ago
@beatlegreg07 It's called a bomb dipshit, the kind that would have taken the world trade center down, if they used steel drums instead of plastic
ReaverVex 11 months ago
@ReaverVex wha u men?
beatlegreg07 11 months ago
Comment removed
ReaverVex 11 months ago
And according to the BBC, handgun crime has increased sine the ban.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad by how much, and over what period of time?
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 Form BBC news
A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.
.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad criminals are going to break the law anyway. why don't we just legalise murder and rape, as people are going to murder and rape anyway.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 Thank goodness I live in a country where I am a citizen, not a subject. I know people who have dozens of guns which have never shot anyone. I guess by your standards they are defective. I can see your reasoning. If not for guns, most of the world would still be under the thumb of a murderous family from England.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad actually i think you'll find that modern british passports clearly state "citizen" and not subject. And i'm not saying that wars should not be fought with guns. Oh and by the way i am half american, my mother is from california, so don't play the limey card with me. and just cos i live in england doesn't mean i swear loyalty to the royal family or the government. they can both go to hell. i care about people, not nationalities.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad it was because of guns and superior arsenal that helped the british empire establish itself in the first place. and it was guns that helped the americans overthrow the british crown. don't pretend that that my reasoning is based on selfish preservation of my country's wealth and influence
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad do you have a link to this report?
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@beatlegreg07 Do you have google, youtube doesn't allow posts of links. Please tell which of your posts are "facts". You are the one who said to legalize murder and rape.
"litle bo peep? huh? i don't get it. explain"
It means you are a lost sheep, expecting the sheperd(government) to protect you and provide your every need.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad I think you are pretending not to understand me.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad watch the video "Lawrence O'Donnell Unloads (No Pun) On The NRA For Heartless Comments" into youtube. the statistics come straight from the NYPD.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 I viewed the video , normal liberal respnse, name calling of gun owmers. Useless except as food for mindless anti gun sheep.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad you must have seen the chart and statistics on it. facts are stubborn things.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
facts are not liberal or conservative, they are facts. though facts do usually prove liberals right and conservatives wrong.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad crime increases generally, due to population shifts, better recording etc. violent crime has been rising in the UK since the 1950s, so its not surprise that gun crime, amongst every other type of crime, has increased.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 Typical liberal changing the topic. I can and will defend myself as I live in a free country where the government doesn't coddle criminals. Making easy prey by disarming honest citizens. Ans yes, England probably will leagalize murder and rape as a means to lower the crime rate. Pretty stupid of you to bring that one up. Guns are not evil, bad [eople with guns are evil. Honest people with guns is FREEDOM.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad "typical liberal changing the topic?" - i had no idea typical liberals change topics so much as to be laden with the stereotype of topic changers. some of us also ride bikes by the way. And I'm hardly changing the topic by talking about other types of crime. guns, rape, murder often go together rather well, wouldn't you say?
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad Hang on, you are seriously saying that you believe england will legalise murder and rape? That my friend is psycho talk.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 You cannot seriously think that it is normal/reasonable for gun crime to increase after honest citizens have been disarmed. England is a bad country in more ways than one. Paying rich people(Royal Family) just because they claim royalty?
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad Let's not get into which countries are "bad" and which are good. And here you are changing the subject to the royal family, - typical conservative loon always changing the subject. And when it comes to paying rich people your country borrows money from china just to give it's millionaires and billionares hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of tax cuts every year. And by the way i despise the royal family and want rid of them.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 "your country borrows money from china just to give it's millionaires and billionares hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of tax cuts every year"
I see, another who hates anyone who has more than they do. Our country is full of them.
"And by the way i despise the royal family and want rid of them"
So there is still hope for you..
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad i don't hate the millionaires or billionaires. God bless them. It's the politicians who pass ludicrous tax cuts that they don't need, whilst the burden of taxation falls on the working and middle classes.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 The middle and working class, we also get tax cuts. The people who hate everyone who has more than them(they are commonly known as liberal Democrats) seem to think that the government should take the wealthy peoples money and give it to the "less fortunate". Many of whom seem to have no job so they get government assistance. No money for food, but money for cable TV, cell phones Xbox etc.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad the rich pay much less tax as a percentage of income than lower and middle income earners. At this moment the deficit of america is more because the rich are relinquished of paying their fare share of tax by the democrats and republicans who love them. why should the rich pay the lowest rate of tax? a CEO pays less tax than his secretary or cleaning lady. Money from your pocket goes to pay-off the deficit which is added to by the Bush and now Obama tax cuts for the rich.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@beatlegreg07 " the rich pay much less tax as a percentage of income than lower and middle income earners."
That is anabsolute lie. The rich pay a higher percentage of income.
" why should the rich pay the lowest rate of tax? "
They don't, they pay at a higher rate.
"Money from your pocket goes to pay-off the deficit which is added to by the Bush and now Obama tax cuts for the rich."
Once again, there were no tax cuts for the rich, there were just no tax increases for all taxpayers
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad i take it you watch fox news and nothing else. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich. i don't blame you for being misled, fox news has people like you wrapped around its finger. And no it is not a lie, sadly. do some research. the rich pay less proportionately than everyone else. Rupert Murdock's propaganda station won't tell you that either
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 Well, they weren't Bushes tax cuts as the President lacks the power to raise or lower taxes, that belongs to Congress. It's called the Constitution, try readfing it sometime. And it is a lie, the rich pay a higher rate on INCOME. You do the research.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad i'm sorry but you really are wrong. When i say Bush or Obama i am using abbreviation. Obviously i mean the Bush administration and the Obama administrarion and the respected congresses. And by the way it is the President who signs a bill into law, so any law is as much the President's as it is Congress's. I think you are the one who needs to read up on procedure.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07
Tax Rate Married Couples Filing Jointly Most Single Filers
10% Not over $16,750 Not over $8,375
15% $16,750 – $68,000 $8,375 – $34,000
25% $68,000 – $137,300 $34,000 – $82,400
28% $137,300 – $209,250 $82,400 – $171,850
33% $209,250 – $373,650 $171,850 – $373,650
35% Over $373,650 Over $373,650
You're right facts are stbborn things. Looks to me like the rich pay a higher rate.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad Even Warren Buffet admitted that the top 1% of taxpayers, which averaged about $138 million in income paid a tax rate of 16.6%. This could get very tedious.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 The percentage you list is for capital gains, not income. Which are two different things in the eyes of the government. Try wikipedia /US tax rates capital gains and you will see the lower rates for capital gains vs income. In gets confusing, but it's the law. Long term capital gains tax is 15% vs 35% for the same amount in ordinary income. Short term capital gains are taxed at the same rate as ordinary income. Hey, you said to research.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
please read:
Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent. Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 Mr. Buffett is referring to long term capital gains rate, not income tax rate.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad well i think that's the closest i'll get to you admitting i'm right.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 " well i think that's the closest i'll get to you admitting i'm right."
Most of the rich, make their money off of long term investments. Which while it is income, it is considered as capital gains. One good thing is that in 2013, both long and short term capital gains rates are set to increase, by about 3% on short term and about 5% on long term. We regular people in the US don't have it too bad as far as taxes go. Not after viewing the tax rates in England.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad i'm clearly hitting a brick wall here. look, for example, the top 25 "hedge fund" managers made a combined $25 billion this past year but because of tax policy their lobbyists helped write, they pay a lower effective tax rate than "regular" americans e.g. teachers and cops. And again, i am not some kind of english patriot. we get fucked for taxes overhere, i know.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 I understand what you mean with effective tax rate. It would make sense to tax all income at the same rate, whether you made it working like I do 40 hours a week, or off of what you have invested. But that would require less government, which means less jobs for high ranking officials to appoint their friends to.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 " we get fucked for taxes overhere, i know."
And they probably don't use vaseline or tell you they love you either. Or have the common decency to give a reach around.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad full metal jacket.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 Try googling us tax rates, unless you fear the truth.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 Well if the President doesn't sign the bill, or vetos it, congress can still override him. So you need to read up on procedure. You are really wrong and I'm not sorry.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad Bush and Obama did not veto tax cuts for the wealthy. hence their names are on it. they own it, along with the congress of the day. and the shame is theirs.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 Right, as when Congress raised taxes during the first Bush's Presidency and he got the blame. He could have vetoed, but they had the votes to override him. Politics is full of crooks from all parties. None is better than the other.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad Bush didn't try to veto because it was his agenda.but that's another story. just because a veto can be over ruled it does not prevent the president from issuing a veto in the first place. Let's not pretend that Bush was against tax cuts for the rich.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 He was for tax cuts for everyone. Democrats idea of fair taxes are taxing everyone who has more than they do until they have less than they do.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad If "everyone" means billionaires, then yes, Bush was for tax cuts for all billionaires. and Obama and the democrats re-administered the bush tax cuts just a month ago.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 Everyone means everyone, it's pretty sad that people resent others just because they have more than them.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 I think you are confusing income with capital gains.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad nope.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
Gun's of the 1780's, today's guns are not in the Constitution? Then the internet, TV, radio, photography , modern printing presses, and ball point pens are not covered by the First amendment. Your rules.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad i think you're hyperbolizing for rhetoric effect
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 That the best you can do? If the Second amendment doesn't match today's society, neither does the First.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad another rhetorical device, questioning the strength of my ability to argue a point.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 Well since you are in the UK, youjr thoughts on the US Constitution carry little or no weight.
You say my point is to take away guns from everyone, - the crims especially. Make them extinct like the dodo
So everyone would include the police and government agents? Afterall, if the are gone why would police need them? Plus in the UK you have a handgun ban anyway so why are you worried about us over here?
Little Bo Peep called, she is desperately looking for you.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad your comments are becoming increasingly goofy, but nevertheless i shall respond. litle bo peep? huh? i don't get it. explain.
Just because i am not a US citizen doesn't mean i cant talk about "your" constitution. my opinion is worth as much or as little as yours. and why am i worried about you lot overthere? For one thing my sister lives Tucson. And if i was you i would be flattered that people in other countries care about the well-being of americans.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 And just how is it that the government not "stealing" money from someone is called "giving it to them"?
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad your last comment contains three incomplete fractals, rendering it non-sensical. please try again.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 Plus, youj are argueing with emotion instead of facts.
bubbiesdad 1 year ago
@bubbiesdad i have stated numerous facts in the responses i have just written. You however, are the one who is indulging in insults and offensive terms. I would hence argue that you are the one who is arguing with emotions instead of facts
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
I remember that door.
ElyniVonBlissy 1 year ago
@ElyniVonBlissy last time it was the couch, now it's the door. don't you realise it's all about ME? Nevertheless, it is a good door
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
Lets even lvt govt out of this - What you would do...?
Lets say you're upstairs in your bathroom making a youtube video. You have family downstairs and you hear screaming. It sounds like somebody has broken into your house and is taking them hostage or torturing them...
If you didn't have a gun to defend your home you would probably just call the police? But then hear gun shots downstairs... Your family is dying... NO TIME to wait for cops... then what? Can you defend them, or try?
JustCallMeKit 1 year ago
@JustCallMeKit but i banned guns, so the person never broke into my house because he didn't have a gun.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 He smuggled one in from another country or MADE a zip gun out of parts from the hardware store because he's a complete (and committed) nutjob.
Does somebody who is going to break the law to shoot somebody else really care about whether there is LAW saying "no guns!" ...? No. They think to themselves "hey, these ppl are probably law-abiding citizens and THEREFORE don't-have-guns-to-protect-themselves so this will be EASY!"
JustCallMeKit 1 year ago
@JustCallMeKit then the real problem is how he somehow smuggled it in. why was he not caught? how did he avoid the scanners? that would be the issue of concern. and if he's able to smuggle a gun into a country then for all he knows everyone else has a gun too. you never know who you're breaking into.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 fair enough. but my point is that if THEY (bad people who want guns for the wrong reasons) want it bad enough... they will find a way and when they do that leaves everyone else an easy target. i would prefer to know i had the ability to at least TRY to protect my family from bad people.
btw... I appreciate the intellectual debate :)
JustCallMeKit 1 year ago
@JustCallMeKit good point. cheers, I appreciate the intellectual debate too. :)
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
To everyone who is calling for stricter gun laws in light of the tragedy in Tucson, may I offer this little tidbit: If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat. Remember: Hold the Person accountable for their actions, not the means they chose to utilize!!!
phin3s 1 year ago
@phin3s i agree. but once a person is intent on killing then they are probably going to use the most efficient method for doing so. if a pyscho does not have access to a gun then his or her killing spree will most probably be much reduced.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 and it's not just about the latest tragedy, there's a tragedy every few months now and it's all psychos with guns. we should take action on both fronts. limit and detain the psychos whilst also limiting their ability to harm. On a related note, the US govt doesn't want Iran to have a nuclear device precisely because it increases the likelyhood of maximum devastion from minimum effort.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 You are correct, but if you make it so that LAW ABIDING CITIZENS cannot obtain a way to protect themselves, you increase the crime rate. Just because you make it where LAW ABIDING CITIZENS cannot purchase weapons, that does not keep criminals from getting them. Loughner could have purchased his from a gang on the street and still went in and did the same thing. Banning people who use them to protect themselves and others from these type of peoples causes more crime than it stops.
phin3s 1 year ago
@phin3s well there is no evidence to show that banning guns increases crime due to the crims having guns and law abiders not.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 There may be no direct proof, but isn't it funny that if you look at the DC gun ban, in the 30 years that it was in place violent crime rate went up? Then all of a sudden it went down when they got rid of the ban. Taking guns from Law Abiding Citizens just makes them easier targets because now they have no means of protecting themselves. It's like the "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" quote. Just because you ban guns for law abiders does not mean you remove guns from the street.
phin3s 1 year ago
@phin3s my point is to take away guns from everyone, - the crims especially. Make them extinct like the dodo. Ofcourse, ridding the entire country/world of guns would be very hard and perhaps impossible, sadly.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
So just give the government fully auto rifles? And let the peasants have 1765 rifles?
Are you mental?
TheMango121 1 year ago
@TheMango121 if you fancy overturning the government then be my guest.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@TheMango121 even if everyone has a modern fire arm, the govt still has tanks, planes, helicopters and nuclear weapons. i think the government has our number regardless.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07
Still makes it harder. The government wouldn't use a nuke... And do you think all our troops would "agree" with the government? Some brainwashed people would but alot would go AWOL. I'm not worried about government turning on us. Its the complete failure of government. A country without law would happen in America, and will in the future. America will fail, just like every other nation will. I want a semi-auto IF it fails.
Its not "crazy" its FACT. All empires fail.
TheMango121 1 year ago
@TheMango121 well let's hope it doesn't fail in our lifetime.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
Long live the republic!
bulldog10mm 1 year ago
The US exports weapons and war, so do the French, British and Russians, but notice those countries don't allow their citizens to buy guns. We love guns and violence and war in the US.
And then we say "God Bless America".
TimBambiStalin 1 year ago
@TimBambiStalin true. less people die from guns in the Uk and Europe because there simply is much less access to guns.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
The US likes guns because we like cowboy movies and rap videos, or maybe we like cowboys and gangsters because we like guns. We buy toy guns for our children. My earliest gay experience was having a toy gun stuck in my mouth as he jumped on me. We sanitize our violence for our children and then edge them closer and closer to the brutal reality, by which time the child is perfectly ready to kill for America or anything else.
TimBambiStalin 1 year ago
5 minutes to load???? They would break????????? 1/2 the time it wouldn't work??? I'm no speed loader with a muzzleloader but I can load a hell of alot fast than that. As far as them breaking, I guess that is why my great grandfathers muzzleloading shotgun & 1858 Remington revolver still shoot today. 1/2 the time they wouldn't work, if you keep the powder dry & your caps dry they fire better than 90 percent of the time.
jmabbott888 1 year ago
@jmabbott888 i said 1776/1780s, not 1858
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 You mentioned 6 shots..... those six shooters didn't come around till the mid 1800's. Also those early firearms I own are the same technology of the 1780's. Not to mention they are still working 150+ years after they were made, that speaks for their reliability.
jmabbott888 1 year ago
and if the guns from that period don't suck then indeed let's ban the whole shabang
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 And then we get into what England has.... they ban guns & the knife assaults goes way up. Ban knives then the bludgeoning assaults will go up. When are they going to require a licence for a pool que or a golf club?
jmabbott888 1 year ago
@jmabbott888 but the number of deaths drop significantly due to the inefficiency of using a sharp or blunt object.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
Very easy to tell you have never shot a firearm or know anything about how they operate or handle when being fired. First of a semi-auto firearm fires ONE shot with one pull of the trigger, a full auto will keep firing as long as the trigger is held down or until you empty the magazine. Also when you fire a firearm in rapid fire the muzzle (end of the barrel where the bullet comes out) will rise so you need to control it. That is why you can't be as accurate when firing rapid fire
jmabbott888 1 year ago 2
@jmabbott888 i shot a BB gun once.
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
@beatlegreg07 If you ever get to California give me a call. I can teach you what a firearm can & can't do as well as show you that most people that own & use firearms do so in a safe way & have a great time doing so. Don't knock the shooting sports till you try it, even the kids in our shooting club have alot of fun & learn alot of disipline when shooting.
jmabbott888 1 year ago
@jmabbott888 cool i will!
beatlegreg07 1 year ago
I agree, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Philinspaces 1 year ago
@Philinspaces it's such a shame that most countries don't abide by the bodyclock and take 2 hours to nap in the afternoon. i mean we all DIE after lunch, right?
beatlegreg07 1 year ago