Search results

Consider yourself in the unintelligernt minority. I just gave you data in the chart that disproves your point #1.

UK had access pre 1987, they probabaly chose not to that's all. You missed the entire point however, what you look at are trends. After UK abolished handgun possesion and confiscated guns, handgun crime went up. There is no way one can liberal weasal their way out of that one as a valid data...

the brits are a lot like us, we can watch a gun control experiment before making any decisions. We can examine data and observe others to better form conclusions about what might happen. I do agree though that it should be all about what we alone want in the end.

and.... http://blogs.justice.gov/main/archives/1765 THEREFORE I'm sure you agree that we have no gun problem and that the left is wrong and should just shut up about guns.

It's not the principle of guns, Swedes proves liberals and guns can co-exist. They just hate anything associated with what a lot of us call the traditional USA. All kinds of regs on the 2nd, but ask them to show an ID to vote and oh my, their 'rights' are being violated.

Reliability, yes. I bet that a black market would evolve of makers who could get very good. I heard that afghans are good gun makers. Posted another thread on england. Total failure of the very thing our lefty meatheads want, I agree.

oops here's the attachment

ah well, why not another thread? First, once again there is no US gun homocide problem unless you are black (see attached). Second, the UK has some of the strictest laws in the free world. Liberals love to point out the low gun crime rate but ignore the obvious. The UK has a low gun...

I think most anybody good with guns could turn a firearm into a full auto, or turn a 30-30 semi into an 'assault' weapon (I thought all weapons were for assault), or even just make a gun and ammo. No way could one simply banish all firearms.

typical liberal religious bullocks, now they can measure something subjective. The logical paradox be damned, they gotta make their point .

why do you keep pretending that somehow mandatory spending doesn't count? It's really stupid you know, laws can be changed.

I gave you more detailed info, not my problem you can't read it. For a small fee you can get hooked on phonics or something like that. Be sure and get english.

what's beyond comprehension is that you think you know something comptroller.defense.gov/fmr/02b/02barch/CHAPTER08.PDF

Amazing, just amazing display of rank stupidity. Whatever you paid for education, get it back: comptroller.defense.gov/fmr/02b/02barch/CHAPTER08.PDF

Haiti, Bosnia, and Serbia was all Bill Clinton - try reading sometime you ignoramius... then 9/11. We had hollowed out the military by then and had to increase its size.

with all DUE respect (Ricter = some, AK =0) your opinions are worthless without an examination of the military reality. Most of the military budget is for pay and benefits of both active duty and retirees, that can't be cut. Most of the rest is for ops and maintenace of legacy (old) systems...

Wealth and prosperity. Lawyers offer a service that is too often self serving only, to the point I think they have a negative economic multiplier. 6th graders can think and write.

Capitalists vs. attorneys, one can create while the other cannot, big difference.

so let me understand, because you believe that the 'playing field' is not level, the people should not try and take responsibility for their own lives? let's apply that to the situation in the news. Because I feel like I can't compete economically, then why not pour gas onto a campfire and...

Sure, I didn't say kill them, poor choice of words on my part. Why do they get to do their destructive and greedy thing? They have a protective shield called the democrats.