Vegas Free-for-All - Things that make Fonzie say, "hmmmm...."

Things that make Fonzie say, "hmmmm...."

snidely333

Feb 12, 2013
2:14am

Unfortunately, the new metric by which gun grabber disciples measure any proposed legislation is that it must prevent at least one future gun incident.

Don

Feb 12, 2013
4:12am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: arshaleign
Checkmate? As I previously pointed out, in further motivating women to abandon the GOP, Obama may be playing chess while the gun fondlers are playing checkers. Perhaps the next time you feel the need to be a fluffer for melbedewy, you should just say, "King me!" (or "King DonDiego!" Your choice.)

Huh! DonDiego and several others and even the most despicable (in some eyes) meldebewy are defending Americans' rights guaranteed in the Constitution and arshaleign [AKA forkush] is worried about getting more Democrats elected. Oh, and as is his wont, arshaleign adds defamatory name-calling to those with whom he disagrees.

The Bill of Rights recognizes that the Government of the United States may not disarm American citizens. n.b.The Constitution does not grant Americans rights; it spells out what rights Americans possess which the Government may not abolish by any authoritative act.

DonDiego has a question for those supporting presently contemplated gun-control and especially possible future gun-confiscation [DonDiego knows he is making an assumption here, but the reader will know what applies to him]: If DonDiego were to possess a semi-automatic rifle as likely to be defined in the forthcoming Bill, would the reader want to take it away from poor old DonDiego? And, if so, why?

pjstroh

Feb 12, 2013
4:39am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego

DonDiego has a question for those supporting presently contemplated gun-control and especially possible future gun-confiscation [DonDiego knows he is making an assumption here, but the reader will know what applies to him]: If DonDiego were to possess a semi-automatic rifle as likely to be defined in the forthcoming Bill, would the reader want to take it away from poor old DonDiego? And, if so, why?

Well since Don Diego has made it known that he lives in Appalachia and the only gun confiscation legislation he can find in any stage of debate is in the California State Assembly....I'm not remotely sure what gun confiscation he is referring to.

But such is the nature of the debate. We cant have a national discussion about common sense firearm reforms. People who propose very non-fringe, majority-approved, poll-tested reforms like background checks, restrictions on clip sizes, restrictions on armor piercing ammunition, and general owner responsibility requirements...those people cant have an honest conversation because they are quickly shrugged off as being gun-grabbing boogeymen out to overturn the 2nd Ammendment.

Don

Feb 12, 2013
4:46am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Well since Don Diego has made it known that he lives in Appalachia and the only gun confiscation legislation he can find in any stage of debate is in the California State Assembly....I'm not remotely sure what gun confiscation he is referring to.

But such is the nature of the debate. We cant have a national discussion about common sense firearm reforms. People who propose very non-fringe, majority-approved, poll-tested reforms like background checks, restrictions on clip sizes, restrictions on armor piercing ammunition, and general owner responsibility requirements...those people cant have an honest conversation because they are quickly shrugged off as being gun-grabbing boogeymen out to overturn the 2nd Ammendment.

DonDiego is just asking, f'rinstance, if DonDiego were to possess an "assault weapon" would pjstroh want to take it away from him?

snidely333

Feb 12, 2013
4:48am

Block User

The Bill of Rights serves to protect the minority's rights from majority approved poll tested reforms.

Dan Svatass

Feb 12, 2013
4:50am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333
The Bill of Rights serves to protect the minority's rights from majority approved poll tested reforms.

Absolutely true, well put. We need to make sure suggested reforms are both wise and constitutional.

pjstroh

Feb 12, 2013
5:02am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego

Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Well since Don Diego has made it known that he lives in Appalachia and the only gun confiscation legislation he can find in any stage of debate is in the California State Assembly....I'm not remotely sure what gun confiscation he is referring to.

But such is the nature of the debate. We cant have a national discussion about common sense firearm reforms. People who propose very non-fringe, majority-approved, poll-tested reforms like background checks, restrictions on clip sizes, restrictions on armor piercing ammunition, and general owner responsibility requirements...those people cant have an honest conversation because they are quickly shrugged off as being gun-grabbing boogeymen out to overturn the 2nd Ammendment.

DonDiego is just asking, f'rinstance, if DonDiego were to possess an "assault weapon" would pjstroh want to take it away from him?

Oh, ok. You're making me king for a day? No Problem.

I would not confiscate Don DIego's assault weapon. I presume the political firestorm and civil unrest would be severe. I wouldn't rule out violent protests resulting. More harm than good? Quite possibly. I would also presume that owners of such weapons would be entitled to some kind of compensation to remimburse them for their original purchase...which given the financial state of the country is not something I would want to pay for. And all this presumes that any such action would even be legal. I'm not a constituional lawyer but I believe people in ownwership of the weapons could make a strong case for grandfathering in their ownership. All in all it sounds like a big mess. I would avoid it like the plague.

However, I would fully adovcate laws to prevent the future sale of such weapons - including preventing Don DIego from selling his legally grandfathered weapon to someone else. Why? Well my answer comes from a question I've never received a good answer to. What practical purpose does Don Diego use his assault weapon for that can not be achieved with a non-assault weapon? I honestly dont know. Perhaps Don Diego can be the first to enlighten me. The only practical purpose I know of that assault weapons provide over non-assault weapons is to kill large numbers of people in a short period of time. I presume Don Diego has no interest in such endeavors. I presume psychos like the one in Colorado do. And so there you have my verdict.

alanleroy

Feb 12, 2013
5:21am

Block User

Since there are no federal laws against owning a Flamethrower, that might be the way to go for self protection....and barbeque. I wonder what Fonzie would say about that.

jatki

Feb 12, 2013
5:55am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Well since Don Diego has made it known that he lives in Appalachia and the only gun confiscation legislation he can find in any stage of debate is in the California State Assembly....I'm not remotely sure what gun confiscation he is referring to.

But such is the nature of the debate. We cant have a national discussion about common sense firearm reforms. People who propose very non-fringe, majority-approved, poll-tested reforms like background checks, restrictions on clip sizes, restrictions on armor piercing ammunition, and general owner responsibility requirements...those people cant have an honest conversation because they are quickly shrugged off as being gun-grabbing boogeymen out to overturn the 2nd Ammendment.
DonDiego is just asking, f'rinstance, if DonDiego were to possess an "assault weapon" would pjstroh want to take it away from him?

Intelligent and articulate answer PJ, especially the first part with which I could agree with.

Hmmm, to answer the second part, I'm assuming that by "assault weapon", you are saying any weapon that can be fired semi-automatically. If that's the case, my answer would be somewhat twofold. First off, if I(or we) end up face to face with an armed bad guy, chances are highly likely he's carrying a semi-auto weapon, gives me an equal chance than a single shot weapon, plus if I'm shooting at someone, they;re going down, and quick(or one of us is). And two, of probably less importance to you, but important to me, because I can. And it's fun. Very fun. I used to go for a weekend with a bunch of buddies up to a cabin in the mountains(I've said this before) and we always had a blast! Shoot skeet and targets all weekend, like I said, fun.

Don

Feb 12, 2013
6:32am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroy
Since there are no federal laws against owning a Flamethrower, that might be the way to go for self protection....and barbeque. I wonder what Fonzie would say about that.

alanleroy is correct.

However, some States, . . . notably California, . . . have Laws pertaining to flamethrower ownership.
"In California, unlicensed possession of a flame-throwing device—statutorily defined as "any non-stationary and transportable device designed or intended to emit or propel a burning stream of combustible or flammable liquid a distance of at least 10 feet"—is a misdemeanor punishable with a county jail term not exceeding one year OR with a fine not exceeding $10,000."

DonDiego says "Be careful out there."

«‹13 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now