Bullet makers can't keep up with demand

pps:

After exposing Mingy-poo as your muse Who are you fooling?

Senior "Monarch", lol. Yeah ummm ok. Apparently King Ming rules your twisted penny. I wouldn't guess mingy was a top, being a gaysian and all.

Wow. Ur quick.

But seriously Cunt....Hambo "wheeee"'s like a hog for realz. Look into it.

ig:

Just as long as it doesn't hurt your chapped twat much!

*FLUSH*
:crapper:


"

:hw:

What is "it"?

Your Gookmance?

You tell me, Guppy!

Answering a question with a question. You're lost. :gook::dork:

Mark, how you find a nice job where the poster miscites Heller is beyond me. And, disagreeing with the logic is not wrong. Not once did I miscite Heller, as dufus has. Getting the very essence of Heller wrong is not a nice job of anything, but proving your willingness to post erroneous crap. On the otehr hand all I was pointing out that the collective argument seems to me more rational. Dicklips then had to go wash his backside figuring this was some kind of moment. Here's a news flash for both of you. Disagreeing with the gov't or court is ENCOURAGED if the proper function of a representative gov't is to survive.

And, you again fail to understand the distinction between wanting valid ownership, but also wanting heavy regulation, which is all I stated. That is not apologetic in anyway despite dicklips protestations to the contrary.

Its ok. Maybe you'll figure it out tomorrow, Nemo.

I just hope we didn't do any permanent damage to your chappy labia tonight!

:hw:

I have a feeling you've never been close enough to a labia to do any damage

As long as yours aren't hurt tho. That's my main concern. Try talcum.

Again guayuque, I didn't chide you for having a particular opinion. I just reminded you your opinion happens to be on the wrong side of the Heller decision.

And I hate to tell you this but if you really want to get downright honest, "heavy regulation" and gun ownership should always be mutually exclusive. I have no objection to the FFL system and background checks we have now and as I said I would go further and require a background check everytime a firearm is transfered but thats as heavy as I want to get and as heavy as I think we need to get. The carry laws are already ridiculous because the entire notion of gun laws are ridiculous because criminals simply disregard gun laws like they don't even exist.

The ONLY reason i am for background checks on private sales is I think that would throw up a good barrier to a lot of bad people who buy firearms privately and have no business owning one. Force these people to the black-market and then figure out the best strategy to attack that source. Of course bad guys can always break into home and gun stores when they need guns so in the absence of a complete and total ban and confiscation, criminals are always going to have guns and thats why law-abiding citizens do not need to have "heavy regulation" when buying a firearm.

Sure you are a gun owner, I never doubted it for a second.

Be careful fdumbya, they could go off in your face if you're not careful! :hhh:

Oh, I admit that Heller is oppsite to what I think is correct. Does not make my reasoning faulty as four justices seem to agree.

I should clarify, heavy regulation I mean pretty much what you do, strict registrations and I would say even, no especially for, buying ammo. Criminals usually don't bother with loading their own ammo, so buing ammo only under registration makes sense to me.

As with any other product of value we will always have theft, but strict registrations does tend to cut down on off the books sales. But, registration of all weapons makes perfect sense. As someone here said, knwoing where a firearm and its ammo came from is never a bad thing. And, that will not lead to outright confiscation with the 2nd A present.

Is that what happened with you and your new girlfriend Cunton?

ig::jackoff:

Ammo restrictions in the way of serializing or registering is a very bad thing because it will drive costs through the roof and shut down reloading. Too many problems with that idea to even think about it.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=289&issue=005





the score was 5 to 4... Your side lost.

:noshake:


My God you're fucking stoopid.

Epic stoopid.

No, not serializing. I agree that is unworkable. But, requiring a federal license to buy would be a fine thing.

Yeah, 5-4, the way you and dicklips were carrying on you would think that it was 9-0 and the attorneys on the losing side were given 40 lashes for being frivolous.

Did you swallow?


"Squeal Louda, Porky.....Weeeeeeee!!!"





ig:

well, actually...

all 9 ultimately ignored the collectivist argument. 4 outta 9 felt that lesser scrutiny could be afforded laws curtailing 2nd Amendment tights, a scrutiny so lessened that even DC's ridiculous infringements would be justified under it. 2 outta those 4 went so far as to propose a new standard of constitutional review so laissez faire that it essentially would have allowed courts to disregard the text of a law wholesale, and substitute their own preferences with literal rationalization and nothing more.

so, uh, like i said earlier....2nd Amendment collectivism is dead.

dead, dead, dead.

oof, this is gonna be ugly eventually....

:hw:

u took an insult as a come-on, you asked me to have sex with Mark, and ur fixated on turgid gay-rape filmography. work it out with ur therapist...

...or on the dancefloor, gurlfraaan!:rs:

Cum drunk?

They don't load ammo cause they don't have to. If they needed to they would learn the skill. You have to go through background checks to get a gun and somehow they seem to still be able to find a way to procure weapons.

ad hominem pps: