Shawnmoore81 623 Posted August 5, 2012 Come on November Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NJScott 15 Posted August 5, 2012 Come on November And we will have the status quo re: our U.S. Senate tandem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rifleman1 32 Posted August 5, 2012 2000 rounds isn't even close to a trunk full Ahhh, 55 gr FMJ X-TAC. 3,270 fps, 1,306 ft lbs and TKOF of 5.76 Nice! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cemeterys Gun Blob 165 Posted August 5, 2012 Come on November Everybody will be voted back in. Nobody will be voted. New critters on the scene will be due to retirement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spartiati 63 Posted August 5, 2012 Remarkable. So we start with the idea that we want to prevent what happened in CO from happening again. Tell me how what these two retards have proposed will prevent it from happening again? A person could still go to a local store and buy 300 rounds of ammo unfettered and do exactly what this guy did in CO. It is irrelevant that this guy bought 6000 rounds. He didn't and couldn't carry all that ammo anyway. I propose a new bill, how about the "Must have atleast average intelligence in order to run for public office bill.". It would require anyone who runs for office to have an IQ of atleast 110. There is no way these people have an IQ greater than 100. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shawnmoore81 623 Posted August 6, 2012 All the gun grabbers care about is tightening the grip on guns. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to make one more restriction. It's just one less hurdle to jump later. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladtepes 1,060 Posted August 6, 2012 The irony being he fired nowhere near one thousand rounds.... If he only had 500 there would be just as many dead people... Unfortunately logic is in short supply... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,127 Posted August 6, 2012 The irony being he fired nowhere near one thousand rounds.... If he only had 500 there would be just as many dead people... Unfortunately logic is in short supply... I couldn't agree more. I said the same thing on another thread. A few hundred rounds are plenty for someone bent on mayhem and destruction. Banning larger quantities is a needless restriction on law-abiding enthisiasts like us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silverado427 10,793 Posted August 6, 2012 Its time for TERM LIMITS. TWO AND YOUR DONE. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladtepes 1,060 Posted August 6, 2012 I couldn't agree more. I said the same thing on another thread. A few hundred rounds are plenty for someone bent on mayhem and destruction. Banning larger quantities is a needless restriction on law-abiding enthisiasts like us. maybe we should just make murder illegal.... oh wait.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anselmo 87 Posted August 6, 2012 Its time for TERM LIMITS. TWO AND YOUR DONE. How is that democracy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
woodentoe 14 Posted August 6, 2012 How is that democracy? Democracy in the manner with which representatives are chosen. However, we do not live in a democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Let's not pretend that Term Limits are tyranny. Majority simply doesn't RULE. I'm sure it is quite unpopular here, but I would favor term limits and limits on the affect that private capital has on elections. As stands now, each candidate is bought and paid for before they are sworn in, and the longer they "serve" the more cemented their loyalty to the moneyed interests that keep them fat and in office. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kaiser7 33 Posted August 6, 2012 Democracy in the manner with which representatives are chosen. However, we do not live in a democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Let's not pretend that Term Limits are tyranny. Majority simply doesn't RULE. I'm sure it is quite unpopular here, but I would favor term limits and limits on the affect that private capital has on elections. As stands now, each candidate is bought and paid for before they are sworn in, and the longer they "serve" the more cemented their loyalty to the moneyed interests that keep them fat and in office. +1 I'm pretty sure that our founding fathers had strong opinions against career politicians. I would support the contribution limits too. Too bad there's a 0% chance of any of this ever getting passed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites