Well she's dead meat now..........

[Dan Shapiro]

And of all things, her opinion was published.....hold onto your hats......in the Washington Post. And judging by the reader comments, they weren't happy.
Evidently Reagan was right: "Liberals claim to know so much, but so much of what they know just isn't true."

The writer of the opinion piece states that she does not like guns. However, her statistical research showed her that her preconceived ideas were wrong when it came to "gun control". Guess she can kiss off being invited to any liberal "holiday parties".

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2017/10/03/washpost-op-ed-gun-control-ideas-crumbled-when-researched

[leftyo]

ill bet there are members on this site that wouldnt agree with her! that would include more than the 1 or 2 that normally get jumped on about being libs. ive definately seen the hiddens libs coming out of the closet on this site in the last couple of days!

[Dick Hosmer]

"hidden libs", "cowards" Got the guts to name names?

[leftyo]

id put your name in there, along with every other person on this forum that has shown how fast they are willing to roll over in the last few days! in deference to this thread, i used hidden libs, your pulling cowards from elsewhere and out of context!

[Dick Hosmer]

Well, I'll give you credit for being honest, at least. Just for grins, are you left-handed, or is your screen name a window into your political psyche?

But, you need to learn the difference between a clown punching bag, which takes a hit and bounces right back up, and rolling over (like a dog).

The bump stock was a very BAD idea, which should never have existed in the first place - so we should not even be having to discuss it. It is a red herring, a false rabbit trail - let it go; it won't be missed - we need to keep our eyes on the big picture.

100 round magazines are not necessary outside of the military - I wouldn't even want the police to have them. I have no problem with the magazine that came standard on the prototype (M16) which was what, 30 rounds? That is plenty large enough for any type of range fun.

I'll point out what I've said elsewhere - the electorate is changing - and, if we want to keep most of our guns, we are going to have to show some cooperation on things like bump stocks. Total intransigence is not going to cut it, this time, in my opinion.

[leftyo]

why is it the simple minded have to try and attack a screen name? obviously from what you've just wrote you do not understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

[Dick Hosmer]

why is it the simple minded have to try and attack a screen name? obviously from what you've just wrote you do not understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

I don't usually begin attacks with "Just for grins". Perhaps you do not know what constitutes an attack? I note that you didn't answer the question, so, I'm free to draw my own conclusions.

And, I am now simple-minded? I understand the 2A quite well, and submit that your all-or-nothing attitude is a large part of the overall problem.

[leftyo]

ill stand by my opinion that you dont understand the 2a very well at all. as for attacks, id say trying to take a cheap shot at a name constitutes one!

[leftyo]

Well, I'll give you credit for being honest, at least. Just for grins, are you left-handed, or is your screen name a window into your political psyche?

But, you need to learn the difference between a clown punching bag, which takes a hit and bounces right back up, and rolling over (like a dog).

The bump stock was a very BAD idea, which should never have existed in the first place - so we should not even be having to discuss it. It is a red herring, a false rabbit trail - let it go; it won't be missed - we need to keep our eyes on the big picture.

100 round magazines are not necessary outside of the military - I wouldn't even want the police to have them. I have no problem with the magazine that came standard on the prototype (M16) which was what, 30 rounds? That is plenty large enough for any type of range fun.

I'll point out what I've said elsewhere - the electorate is changing - and, if we want to keep most of our guns, we are going to have to show some cooperation on things like bump stocks. Total intransigence is not going to cut it, this time, in my opinion.

i cant quote it exactly, but they had a clip of the wicked witch pelosi on tv this evening talking about the bumpstock thing. her words were along the lines of "they say giving these up is a slippery slope and just the begginning, i hope so" those were approximately her words. i dont see compromise working when that is the opposition!

[Dick Hosmer]

Arguing with a fool is useless - time to put you back in "ignore". 'Bye.

[leftyo]

Arguing with a fool is useless - time to put you back in "ignore". 'Bye.

you are correct, and you are a very big fool! you refuse to hear the truth, stick your head back in the sand and hide!

[Dan Shapiro]

Hey leftyo! Either argue points, or move off. Personal attacks accomplish nothing.

[leftyo]

Hey leftyo! Either argue points, or move off. Personal attacks accomplish nothing.

you know, the amount of times ive been attacked on this forum, name called, slandered, and much worse, how is it you have never said something before?

[retread12345]

AFAIK . USA 83,000,000 gun owners NRA 6,000,000 members . We could have a lot more peace of mind . with some bigger numbers . Just saying

[clintonhater]

AFAIK . USA 83,000,000 gun owners NRA 6,000,000 members . We could have a lot more peace of mind . with some bigger numbers . Just saying

Of course--obviously! Yet the multitude of gun-owning non-members always defend their craven refusal to accept THEIR rightful share of the financial burden of defending the 2nd A. by whining about NRA's frequent requests for donations--as if dropping the letter (identifiable without even opening it!) into the recycle bin is just too great a waste of their precious time. What a miserable excuse for being a shirker!