Ok, I get it. The 2nd Amendment was made to prevent a tyranical government from taking over, allowing people to defend themselves with their guns. Makes sense. Another stance on the issue is that the 2nd Amendment is outdated, and that the founding fathers never envisioned the complex world that we live in today, and that nobody NEEDS an AR-15. I guess that is true, if it were a perfect world.

I'm of the opinion that even if every gun owner had an AR-15 to combat a tyranical government, we would still be slaughtered. What the fuck is ANY commercially abvailable gun going do do against Apache helicopters, F-22s, predator drones, tanks, submarines, napalm, etc.

You think every family with a gun will actually use them on a battlefield?

Your guns will not save you from a tyranical government.

If they are useless as you say then what do you care if people buy them? Who says the guns will be used against a tyranical government? Have you seen footage from the Rodney King riots in LA? The cops refused to respond to certain areas of the city. People tried to buy guns for protection only to find they had to wait seven days thanks to the Cali feel good gun laws. In other words they were left defenseless.

Back in the 70s people were being killed for cutting into gas lines. My protection is my business. You dont like it move to Cuba.

LateToTheGame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, I get it. The 2nd Amendment was made to
> prevent a tyranical government from taking over,
> allowing people to defend themselves with their
> guns. Makes sense. Another stance on the issue is
> that the 2nd Amendment is outdated, and that the
> founding fathers never envisioned the complex
> world that we live in today, and that nobody NEEDS
> an AR-15. I guess that is true, if it were a
> perfect world.
>
> I'm of the opinion that even if every gun owner
> had an AR-15 to combat a tyranical government, we
> would still be slaughtered. What the fuck is ANY
> commercially abvailable gun going do do against
> Apache helicopters, F-22s, predator drones, tanks,
> submarines, napalm, etc.
>
> You think every family with a gun will actually
> use them on a battlefield?
>
> Your guns will not save you from a tyranical
> government.


You wrongly assume that things like that all break one way to one side. History has shown that's typically not the case.

Beyond that, the vast majority of people don't buy ARs because they're planning for civil war. They buy them simply because they are a great, versatile modern rifle platform with many practical advantages versus various other options. Just like they buy an Android tablet or iPhone or whatever else for particular reasons. It's really not some grand gun culture conspiracy.

Go ahead and get a gun. I have two. They are for self defense at home. Just don't start saying its going to protect you against a insane, tyranical government, because it wont. That is not a good arguement.

I don't actually care if you have an AR-15. I think you should be able to get one if you you are a sane, stable person. But, don't ever compare a gun to a computer. Not even close.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." is a quote by Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II.

Unless you see the government conducting a scorched earth policy submarines, tanks and aircraft would be useless against a civilian population.

The English had the most powerful modern army in the world at one time and thought the Americans just a bunch of farmers and rabble. We know how that turned out.

peddle it somewhere else Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If they are useless as you say then what do you
> care if people buy them? Who says the guns will
> be used against a tyranical government? Have you
> seen footage from the Rodney King riots in LA? The
> cops refused to respond to certain areas of the
> city. People tried to buy guns for protection only
> to find they had to wait seven days thanks to the
> Cali feel good gun laws. In other words they were
> left defenseless.
>
> Back in the 70s people were being killed for
> cutting into gas lines. My protection is my
> business. You dont like it move to Cuba.

What's wrong with Cuba? Did you shoot someone for cutting into a gas line? A simple solution to the problem was don't leave enough space between cars.
A couple of scabs were shoot during the truckers strike in "74.
America can be interesting.

If you notice, the Mujahideen that repelled the Soviets and are currently making life difficult for NATO forces in Afghanistan don't have tanks, artillery, drones, aircraft, etc.


The insurgency in Iraq from 2003 to present doesn't have tanks, artillery, drones, aircraft, etc.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 11:23PM by eesh.

Hitler was very happy the population was not allowed to own guns, only the military. Made rounding up his "enemies" much easier a task.

OriginalPoster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't actually care if you have an AR-15. I
> think you should be able to get one if you you are
> a sane, stable person. But, don't ever compare a
> gun to a computer. Not even close.


It absolutely is a valid comparison. Which was my whole point. You non-gun folks seem to think that everyone buying these guns does so in some paranoia-induced plan for war and/or ready to stage some assault.

That's not the case. The vast majority of people look at it in a very practical way just as they look at any other product purchase. The AR platform has a lot going for it. That's the main reason people buy it versus say a dedicated bolt-action gun in the same or different caliber. In other cases the opposite may be true.

Yeah, I know they're evil black rifles that make you do horrible things. I have one not far from me right now. Wait... I can hear it whispering to me... It wants me to go knock over the 7-11! Don't know if I can resist!

Naaa... just gonna make some popcorn instead.

lmao

You say the peoples guns are worthless. I don't own a gun, but most of my neighbors do. Try crossing the threshold without permission into one of their houses and I guarantee you won't be able see how that works for you. As far as a tyranical government goes, you trippin dog. The citizens would woop em easy because the troops will put their middle fingers up at the government and join the civilians if for no other reason than to protect their own families. Who's going man the tanks and aircraft if their is a scorched earth policy. Bachelors and bachlorettes with no living relatives and no friends who have already abandoned the military. Remember Americans need assault rifles more than ever now because Barrack Hussein Oblama and Derelick Holder armed drug cartel thugs with some 1400 assault rifles. A couple have been recovered at the scenes of gruesome blood baths where at least two Americans have been identified as the victims.

LateToTheGame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm of the opinion that even if every gun owner
> had an AR-15 to combat a tyranical government, we
> would still be slaughtered. What the fuck is ANY
> commercially abvailable gun going do do against
> Apache helicopters, F-22s, predator drones, tanks,
> submarines, napalm, etc.
>
> You think every family with a gun will actually
> use them on a battlefield?
>
> Your guns will not save you from a tyranical
> government.

Its a fair point. Like was mentioned though IF that were to actually happen the government forces would fall on both sides, and obviously you wouldnt be able to go toe to toe with them and would have to use hit and run tactics much like we did in the Revolutionary war.

But thats not really the point.

Generally speaking the simple fact that resistance is possible is enough to keep the government in line to some extent. Through out the history of the countries rights have been restricted more and more over time. Thats nothing new or something that doesnt happen to every government and will continue to happen as time goes on. At some point there will be a breaking point. Maybe its in 50 years maybe its in 2000 years but at some point well have another civil war like every society in the history of the world.

Its better to have them and not need them then need them and not have them. Its highly likely no one alive will need them for that reason, but id rather not sell out the future generations that will need them at some point by being a part of getting rid of that right.

LateToTheGame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your guns will not save you from a tyranical
> government.

Yeah, that's pretty obvious. And these idiot gun nuts -- as dumb as they are -- know this deep down as well.

What you're missing is the real reason why gun nuts love guns: they need things like guns to make them feel manly. That's why they not only own guns, but talk about their guns constantly -- the bragging gives them a much-needed testosterone boost. They're essentially addicted to it.

This is the difference between a gun nut, and a normal gun owner that you never hear from -- the latter person doesn't have a need to brag, or to own the biggest or highest number of guns possible. They don't need to constantly tell you that they exist, or why guns are the most awesome thing on earth. It's night and day.

Hope this helps. :-)

think about it Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "You cannot invade the mainland United States.
> There would be a rifle behind every blade of
> grass." is a quote by Isoroku Yamamoto,
> Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy
> during World War II.
>
> Unless you see the government conducting a
> scorched earth policy submarines, tanks and
> aircraft would be useless against a civilian
> population.

I've always thought the same thing. I wouldn't want to invade the US. Yeah, a bunch of Ted Nugent wannabes probably can't hold off a platoon of Chinese soldiers, but the amount of guns and ammo in people's basements would be enough to make it very difficult. Occupying America would be damn near impossible, even for a military with as many numbers as China. Resistance would be all over the place.

Average Joe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> think about it Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "You cannot invade the mainland United States.
> > There would be a rifle behind every blade of
> > grass." is a quote by Isoroku Yamamoto,
> > Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese
> Navy
> > during World War II.
> >
> > Unless you see the government conducting a
> > scorched earth policy submarines, tanks and
> > aircraft would be useless against a civilian
> > population.
>
> I've always thought the same thing. I wouldn't
> want to invade the US. Yeah, a bunch of Ted
> Nugent wannabes probably can't hold off a platoon
> of Chinese soldiers, but the amount of guns and
> ammo in people's basements would be enough to make
> it very difficult. Occupying America would be
> damn near impossible, even for a military with as
> many numbers as China. Resistance would be all
> over the place.

But how many would actually fight? Most American citizens would lay their weapons down.

If the American Government actually used tanks, helicopters, missiles and other such weapons against the CITIZENS of this country then the entire world would see what a gigantic fraud our "democracy" under the "rule of law" actually is.

Which is the point of CITIZENS exercising their SECOND AMENDMENT rights. Because if they didn't, the Federal Government wouldn't even have to bother with such actions to impose their tyrannical edicts.

Your stupid little liberal diatribe lost what little credibility it had when you mentioned "napalm". Something that the US hasn't used since Korea.
I'm guessing you get most of your knowledge from Hollywood movies.

This ain't the movies, You are an idiot! If the U.S. government went tyranical against it's own citizens is the Topic not if China invades. If China did invade most Americans with guns would be foaming at the mouth in anticipation of picking off some gook before they bit the dust themselves. If a few gun owners did turn pussy and lay down their arms, some non-gun owners would suddenly grow some balls and join in the fight if they could access the weapons. You say this ain't the movies, but I say the movies are dull compared to all the controversies our wonderful Barack Hussein Oblama has created and managed to snuff with the liberal media and undemanding dipshits that voted for him as his partners in crime! Wake up America!!!!!

OP is a moron. For 11 years the US has been unable to control Afghanistan, a country the size of TX with 35 million illiterate goat herders. You think all that military might could actually do something in a MUCH larger country with a MUCH more sophisticated population? Ask the Russians how tiny little Chechnya worked out for them in '95/96.

Thanks for your input OP....I'll keep all my guns just the same.

Moron.

Que? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your stupid little liberal diatribe lost what
> little credibility it had when you mentioned
> "napalm". Something that the US hasn't used since
> Korea.
> I'm guessing you get most of your knowledge from
> Hollywood movies.


Napalm was used quite frequently by both the Americans and South Vietnamese militaries in the southeast asian conflict.

dieing breed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This ain't the movies, You are an idiot! If the
> U.S. government went tyranical against it's own
> citizens is the Topic not if China invades. If
> China did invade most Americans with guns would be
> foaming at the mouth in anticipation of picking
> off some gook before they bit the dust themselves.
> If a few gun owners did turn pussy and lay down
> their arms, some non-gun owners would suddenly
> grow some balls and join in the fight if they
> could access the weapons. You say this ain't the
> movies, but I say the movies are dull compared to
> all the controversies our wonderful Barack Hussein
> Oblama has created and managed to snuff with the
> liberal media and undemanding dipshits that voted
> for him as his partners in crime! Wake up
> America!!!!!

Most Americans would lay down their arms if attacked and given the chance to surrender. There would be some dieing breeds but this country has changed in the last 43 years.

Do you know what the French Resistance was during World War II?
Hemorrhoids.

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LateToTheGame Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Your guns will not save you from a tyranical
> > government.
>
> Yeah, that's pretty obvious. And these idiot gun
> nuts -- as dumb as they are -- know this deep down
> as well.
>
> What you're missing is the real reason why gun
> nuts love guns: they need things like guns to make
> them feel manly. That's why they not only own
> guns, but talk about their guns constantly -- the
> bragging gives them a much-needed testosterone
> boost. They're essentially addicted to it.
>
> This is the difference between a gun nut, and a
> normal gun owner that you never hear from -- the
> latter person doesn't have a need to brag, or to
> own the biggest or highest number of guns
> possible. They don't need to constantly tell you
> that they exist, or why guns are the most awesome
> thing on earth. It's night and day.
>
> Hope this helps. :-)

+1

Most guns for home defense are a joke. If you properly lock those guns in a safe as you should they will be no help against the guy that breaks into your house and surprises you as most home breakins occur. And keeping that weapon next to your bed is just asking for the accidents that often happen with a family member or child being killed by that weapon. So I don't want to hear the "home defense" argument.

BigK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most guns for home defense are a joke. If you
> properly lock those guns in a safe as you should
> they will be no help against the guy that breaks
> into your house and surprises you as most home
> breakins occur. And keeping that weapon next to
> your bed is just asking for the accidents that
> often happen with a family member or child being
> killed by that weapon. So I don't want to hear
> the "home defense" argument.


Most anti-gun nuts like you are a joke. You don't want to hear it because you don't want to hear it. lol

Rates for accidental injury or death via shooting are very low. Even relative to other accidental causes. You're far more likely to fall. Or be injured or killed by fire. Or OD on drugs or other forms of poisoning. Kids are far more likely to die from swallowing objects. Not even counting external events like car accidents and drowning.

Even using anti-gun site stats, you're far more likely to be robbed (46/100K) than harmed in a firearm accident (17/100K).

Beyond that, many people do not have kids in the house or anyone else for whom access to a firearm needs to be restricted. In such cases there are many simple means for securing a gun and still keeping it accessible.

But don't worry. The police will protect you. Oh wait... even they admit not so much. At least those who are realistic about it.

http://www.postcrescent.com/viewart/20130126/APC0101/301260413/

A lot of good an AR-15 is going to do when an M1-Abrams shows up at your door.

2nd That Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A lot of good an AR-15 is going to do when an
> M1-Abrams shows up at your door.

Most M1-Abrams are corroding in the California desert.
Your tax dollars at work.
Most Americans are corroding on their sofas.
Their televisions at work.
America. Land of the greed and home of the testosterone ointment.

All in a days work Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2nd That Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A lot of good an AR-15 is going to do when an
> > M1-Abrams shows up at your door.
>
> Most M1-Abrams are corroding in the California
> desert.
> Your tax dollars at work.
> Most Americans are corroding on their sofas.
> Their televisions at work.
> America. Land of the greed and home of the
> testosterone ointment.


The reason they are in the California desert is to keep them from corroding, much like all the airliners that are stored at Mojave airport.

2nd That Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A lot of good an AR-15 is going to do when an
> M1-Abrams shows up at your door.


You can use the AR-15 to get your hands on MORE items that will help you turn the tide, moron. How does a group of unarmed idiots get into say, a military base? I bet you a group of well-armed patriots would fare much better than you. We grab some kabloomies and take down your armor. Even if it doesn't work out, better than standing around waiting to take it in the ass.

Maybe not in a material way but in a literal way
Parted out and scraped


Saurabh Das / AP file
U.S. M1 Abrams tanks withdraw to a safe position after mortar rounds landed nearby in Kufa, Iraq, on April 29, 2004.

By Aaron Mehta and Lydia Mulvany
Center for Public Integrity
Editor's note: This article was corrected after publication. An earlier version incorrectly said the Pentagon spends $3 billion every 82 minutes. The Pentagon actually spends $3 billion in a little more than a day. Also, the earlier version said that members of the House Armed Services Committee got $31,500 from General Dynamics during a two-week period in September last year. The correct figure is $30,500.
The M1 Abrams tank has survived the Cold War, two conflicts in Iraq and a decade of war in Afghanistan. No wonder – it weighs as much as nine elephants and is fitted with a cannon capable of turning a building to rubble from two and a half miles away.
Follow Open Channel on Twitter and Facebook.
Advertise | AdChoices
But now the machine finds itself a target in an unusual battle between the Defense Department and lawmakers who are the beneficiaries of large donations by its manufacturer.
The Pentagon, facing smaller budgets and looking towards a new global strategy, has decided it wants to save as much as $3 billion by freezing refurbishment of the M1 from 2014 to 2017, so it can redesign the hulking, clanking vehicle from top to bottom.
Its proposal would idle a large factory in Lima, Ohio, as well as halt work at dozens of subcontractors in Pennsylvania, Michigan and other states.
Opposing the Pentagon’s plans is Abrams manufacturer General Dynamics, a nationwide employer that has pumped millions of dollars into congressional elections over the last decade. The tank’s supporters on Capitol Hill say they are desperate to save jobs in their districts and concerned about undermining America’s military capability.
So far, the contractor is winning the battle, after a well-organized campaign of lobbying and political donations involving the lawmakers on four key committees that will decide the tanks’ fate, according to an analysis of spending and lobbying records by the Center for Public Integrity.
Sharp spikes in the company’s donations – including a two-week period in 2011 when its employees and political action committee sent the lawmakers checks for their campaigns totaling nearly $50,000 – roughly coincided with five legislative milestones for the Abrams, including committee hearings and votes and the defense bill’s final passage last year.
After putting the tank money back in the budget then, both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have again authorized it this year — $181 million in the House and $91 million in the Senate. If the company and its supporters prevail, the Army will refurbish what Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno described in a February hearing as “280 tanks that we simply do not need.” 

The Center for Public Integrity
The cash and the tank. Click to enlarge image.

It already has more than 2,300 M1’s deployed with U.S. forces around the world and roughly 3,000 more sitting idle in long rows outdoors at a remote military base in California’s Sierra mountains.
The $3 billion at stake in this fight is not a large sum in Pentagon terms – it’s roughly what the building spends in a little more than a day. But the fight over the Abrams’ future, still unfolding, illuminates the major pressures that drive the current defense spending debate.
These include a Pentagon looking to free itself from legacy projects and modernize some of its combat strategy, a Congress looking to defend pet projects and a well-financed and politically savvy defense industry with deep ties to both, fighting tooth-and-nail to fend off even small reductions in the budget now devoted to the military – a total figure that presently composes about half of all discretionary spending.
Advertise | AdChoices


Vulnerable to IEDs but impervious to Pentagon budgeteers
The M1 Abrams entered service in 1980, but first saw combat during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. That episode indicated that, on the battlefield at least, the only thing that could destroy an Abrams was another Abrams; only seven of the tanks deployed in the operation were destroyed, all by friendly fire. 

In the last decade, however, as hundreds were deployed to Iraq and later Afghanistan, a key shortcoming became apparent: Their flat bottoms made the Abrams surprisingly vulnerableto improvised explosive devices (IEDs). As a result, the Abrams in Iraq ended up being used as “pillboxes”— high-priced armored bunkers used to protect ground.
“The M1 is an extraordinary vehicle, the best tank on the planet,” Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general now with the nonprofit National Security Network, said in an interview. Since the primary purpose of tanks is to kill other tanks, however, their utility in modern counterinsurgency warfare is limited, he added.
Ashley Givens, a spokeswoman for the Army’s Program Executive Office for Ground Combat Systems, said that the Army can refurbish all 2,384 tanks it needs by the end of 2013. Freezing work after that, she said, will allow the Army to “focus its limited resources on the development of the next generation Abrams tank,” rather than building more of the same that “have exceeded their space, weight and power limits."
Warfare has changed, Odierno explained while discussing the Army’s new strategy at the February hearing: “We don’t believe we’ll ever see a straight conventional conflict again in the future.”
But top Army officials have so far been unable to get political traction to kill the M1. Part of the reason is that General Dynamics and its well-connected lobbyists have been carrying a large checkbook and a sheaf of pro-tank talking points around on the Hill.
For example, when House Armed Services Committee member Hank Johnson, D-Ga., held a campaign fundraiser at a wood-panelled Capitol Hill steakhouse called the Caucus Room just before Christmas last year, someone from GD brought along a $1,500 check for his reelection campaign. Several months later, Johnson signed a letter to the Pentagon supporting funding for the tank. Johnson spokesman Andy Phelan said the congressman has consistently supported the M-1 “because he doesn't think shutting down the production line is in the national interest."
The contribution was a tiny portion of the $5.3 million that GD’s political action committee and the company’s employees have invested in the current members of either the House and Senate Armed Services Committees or defense appropriations subcommittees since Jan. 2001, according to data on defense industry campaign contributions the Center for Public Integrity acquired from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
Advertise | AdChoices
These are the committees that approve the Pentagon’s spending every year; without their support, the tank – or any other costly military program -- would be dead.
Kendell Pease, GD’s vice president for government relations and communications, said in an interview that the company – which produces submarines and radios for the military, as well as tanks -- makes donations to those lawmakers whose views are aligned with the firm’s interests. “We target our PAC money to those folks who support national security and the national defense of our country,” says Pease. “Most of them are on the four (key defense) committees.”
But Pease denies trying to time donations around key votes, saying that the company’s PAC typically gives money whenever members of Congress invite its representatives to fundraisers. “The timing of a donation is keyed by (members’) requests for funding,” he says, adding that personal donations by company employees are not under his control. He said the donations tend to be clumped together because lawmakers often hold fundraisers at the same time.
More cash at key milestones
During the current election cycle, General Dynamics’ political action committee and its employees have sent an average of about $7,000 a week to members of the four committees. But the week President Obama announced his defense budget plan in 2011, the donations spiked to more than $20,000, significantly higher than in any of the previous six weeks. A second spike of more than $20,000 in donations occurred in early March 2011, when Army budget hearings were being held.
At a March 9 hearing of the House subcommittee dealing with land forces, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, railed against the Army’s decision to freeze work on the Abrams. Since the start of 2001, Reyes has received $64,650 in GD donations, including $1,000 on March 10, the day after the hearing, according to the data.  Reyes office did not return a request to comment; his overall campaign receipts in the current election cycle have been $1 million.
Another large spike occurred the first two weeks of May 2011, a period in which the House Armed Services Committee voted 60-1 for a budget bill containing money to continue work on the Abrams through 2013. Over this period, GD’s PAC and employees donated a total of $48,100 to members of the four committees, with almost $20,000 of that going directly to members of the House Armed Services Committee as they voted.
During another two week period in September, in which the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense handed in its conference report and Congress rushed to pass a stopgap spending bill to keep the government open, the company sent $36,500 to members of the four committees — primarily the House Armed Services Committee, whose members got $30,500.
Advertise | AdChoices
The final large spike in donations last year came the week of Dec. 11-17, when Congress made a final vote on the whole budget. During this week, GD’s donations to members of the four committees totaled $17,000.
Along with its checks, the company has been carrying around a message that a cutoff of tank manufacturing work in Lima will harm the nation’s “industrial base,” using what has become a favorite expression of alarm for military contractors facing cutbacks.
The workforce “is not like a light switch. You can’t just click it off, then walk away for three years, come back and click it on,” Pease said. Smaller suppliers who exclusively make parts for the Abrams could be shuttered if the Army’s spending stops, he said. GD has also accused the Army of underestimating the plant’s temporary shutdown costs, claiming that the government’s actual savings would be minimal.
To help bring its corporate viewpoint to lawmakers, General Dynamics has spent at least $84 million over the past 11 years on lobbyists, according to Senate Office of Public Records lobbying data acquired from the Center for Responsive Politics. Just in the last year and a half, the firm —  which draws nearly three-quarters of its revenues from public tax dollars in the form of federal contracts —  has spent at least $13.5 million on more than 130 individual advocates, who pressed Congress to fund a variety of military and non-military programs at the firm.
While lobbyists often do not name their causes, those working for GD that specifically listed the Abrams tank, along with other topics, reported earning at least $550,000 from 2011 to the first quarter of 2012, according to the data. Pease described the lobbying efforts as “education… Shame on us if we don’t go and tell them (Congress) our side, because the Army is doing the same thing as we’re doing, having just as many meetings as we are.”
Relying on special contacts
In addition to tapping its in-house team, the company also hired outside firms to help sway lawmakers’ votes, which in turn assigned the General Dynamics account to former congressional staff tightly connected to committee members — part of the “revolving door” phenomenon now common among veterans of both political parties.
GD paid the Podesta Group nearly $1.7 million since 2009 to lobby on the defense appropriations and authorizations bills, according to lobbying disclosure forms. Among the more than 20 Podesta lobbyists assigned to the account was Josh Holly, communications director for the House Committee on Armed Services under Republican leadership for six years.
According to Holly’s bio on the Podesta website, he worked directly with Republican Buck McKeon of California, its current chairman. McKeon is a major recipient of GD campaign donations, garnering $68,000 from GD’s PAC and employees since the start of 2001 — with $56,000 of that coming just since 2009, when he became the committee’s top Republican. Holly did not respond to emails and phone calls seeking his comment and committee spokesman Claude Chafin said McKeon has consistently argued that it is fiscally smarter to keep the Abrams work going than to stop it.
Advertise | AdChoices
Podesta also assigned the GD account to two former House Appropriations Committee aides.  One of them, Jim Dyer, confirmed that he lobbied on the tank this year, but directed other questions to General Dynamics. GD also hired firms that assigned its account to six other lobbyists who worked for the relevant committees and to a former Pentagon liaison to Congress. 
 
Click here to sign up to receive our Top News email each day.
 
Pease said that when working with outside firms, he lets them pick the specific lobbyists on the account. But when picking the firms, “you always look for those people who can get the job done,” he says, referring to his approach as using a rifle rather than a shotgun. The company hires “a lot of individuals who understand our message, and how to deliver the message, so we can educate the right people, so they can understand our side of the equation.”
The company’s efforts so far have had great success. In April, 111 House Republicans joined with 62 House Democrats in a letter to Secretary Panetta decrying the decision to freeze work on the tanks. Less than a quarter were from Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania — the rust belt states with small subcontractors that would be directly impacted by a halt to Abrams work.
Of the 173 signers, 137 received contributions totaling more than $2 million from GD since 2001. Giving to Republicans and Democrats was split in half, with Republicans receiving about 51 percent of contributions, and Democrats 49 percent. More than half of the Armed Services committee and defense appropriations subcommittee members signed, effectively telgraphing the outcome of their deliberations.
The first signature was from Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., whose district includes the Detroit suburb of Sterling Heights, the location of the headquarters for General Dynamics Land Systems. Rep. Levin’s brother is Michigan Democrat Sen. Carl Levin, the powerful head of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. Levin has received $46,200 from General Dynamics since 2001; his brother has received $43,000.
In a written statement, Rep. Levin said he wants to protect the Abrams because it is of “vital importance to more than 60 local companies” in Michigan and the difficulty of restarting tank production after a hiatus. Rep. Levin’s spokesman Josh Drobnyk says Levin has not conferred with his brother on the issue but confirms that representatives from GDLS contacted the congressman’s office about the Abrams.
Sen. Levin’s spokeswoman Tara Andringa said that “based on information on the M1 tank program from the Army, from contractors, and from independent analysts,” the senator supported the funds for the Abrams as being in “the best interests of U.S. security and protecting taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars.”
Advertise | AdChoices
Both this year and last year, the funds were added to the President’s proposed budget without a specific recorded vote, in what independent experts have termed an earmark — money directed by members of Congress to a pet project that often benefits their district. Earmarks were supposed to have been banned after the 2010 election, but lawmakers have decided that when multiple members favor adding funds – rather than just one lawmaker – it is not formally an earmark.
So far, there has been a great silence on the Abrams funding issue from congressional deficit hawks. Rep. Jim Jordan, who represents the Ohio district where the Lima plant is located and has received $31,000 for his campaigns from General Dynamics’ leadership PAC and employees, said he is now optimistic that the Abrams money will make it safely through the Senate.
If it does, the fight still might not be over. The White House, in its May 15 responseto the House budget, objected to the “unrequested authorization” of funds for the Abrams during a “fiscally-constrained environment.”  The administration did not specifically threaten a veto over the issue but said that if too many unrequested projects impeded “the ability of the administration to execute the new defense strategy and to properly direct scarce resources,” senior advisors will recommend the president veto the bill. 
Reporter Zach Toombs and Data Editor David Donald contributed to this report.
The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit, independent investigative news outlet.
Share your story ideas with Open Channel
Send us a document
Follow Open Channel on Facebook
Keep up with Open Channel on Twitter
Sign up for e-mail alerts

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LateToTheGame Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Your guns will not save you from a tyranical
> > government.
>
> Yeah, that's pretty obvious. And these idiot gun
> nuts -- as dumb as they are -- know this deep down
> as well.
>
> What you're missing is the real reason why gun
> nuts love guns: they need things like guns to make
> them feel manly. That's why they not only own
> guns, but talk about their guns constantly -- the
> bragging gives them a much-needed testosterone
> boost. They're essentially addicted to it.
>
> This is the difference between a gun nut, and a
> normal gun owner that you never hear from -- the
> latter person doesn't have a need to brag, or to
> own the biggest or highest number of guns
> possible. They don't need to constantly tell you
> that they exist, or why guns are the most awesome
> thing on earth. It's night and day.
>
> Hope this helps. :-)


I know what you mean. It is sort of like the kind of guy that constantly tells others that gun nuts like to talk about their guns in order to feel manly (which I agree with) in order to overcompensate for his own lack of manliness. We should lock both these kind of idiots in a room for one big testosterone boost. Wouldn't you agree? Why else would someone constantly talk about how these nuts need guns to feel more manly? It is like a non gun owners way of making himself feel manly.

My guns are not juiceless! Say ello to my litol fren.

http://www.naturalnews.com/038844_DHS_assault_weapons_documents.html

Intersting link DHS buying ar-15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.naturalnews.com/038844_DHS_assault_weap
> ons_documents.html


Lock and load people. The _____ are coming!

Guns aren't useless, liberals are useless.

+1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know what you mean. It is sort of like the kind
> of guy that constantly tells others that gun nuts
> like to talk about their guns in order to feel
> manly (which I agree with) in order to
> overcompensate for his own lack of manliness. We
> should lock both these kind of idiots in a room
> for one big testosterone boost. Wouldn't you
> agree? Why else would someone constantly talk
> about how these nuts need guns to feel more manly?
> It is like a non gun owners way of making himself
> feel manly.

Concur! I'm glad we're so in sync on gun nuttery. It's a crazy world and it's good to know there are like minds out there.

"Men" and their guns. So cute. :-)

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> +1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I know what you mean. It is sort of like the
> kind
> > of guy that constantly tells others that gun
> nuts
> > like to talk about their guns in order to feel
> > manly (which I agree with) in order to
> > overcompensate for his own lack of manliness.
> We
> > should lock both these kind of idiots in a room
> > for one big testosterone boost. Wouldn't you
> > agree? Why else would someone constantly talk
> > about how these nuts need guns to feel more
> manly?
> > It is like a non gun owners way of making
> himself
> > feel manly.
>
> Concur! I'm glad we're so in sync on gun nuttery.
> It's a crazy world and it's good to know there are
> like minds out there.
>
> "Men" and their guns. So cute. :-)

"Men" and their guns AND "men" who persistently call into question the manlihood of the "men" and their guns. The two biggest groups of "men" who have serious self esteem issues and are definitely overcompensating for undersized phalli.

I think we can all agree to that.

+1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The two biggest groups of "men" who
> have serious self esteem issues and are definitely
> overcompensating for undersized phalli.

Well I can't support talk of phalli -- seems a little overboard, almost as if you might have persistent phalli-on-the-brain for some reason. Not that there's anything wrong with it!

But yes, "men" and their guns are real losers indeed. We absolutely agree. :-)

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> +1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The two biggest groups of "men" who
> > have serious self esteem issues and are
> definitely
> > overcompensating for undersized phalli.
>
> Well I can't support talk of phalli -- seems a
> little overboard, almost as if you might have
> persistent phalli-on-the-brain for some reason.
> Not that there's anything wrong with it!
>
> But yes, "men" and their guns are real losers
> indeed. We absolutely agree. :-)


We'll, you seem infatuated with "men" so I just assumed that included phalli since we're the only ones talking about it.

I think we could have a love connection. :-)

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> +1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The two biggest groups of "men" who
> > have serious self esteem issues and are
> definitely
> > overcompensating for undersized phalli.
>
> Well I can't support talk of phalli -- seems a
> little overboard, almost as if you might have
> persistent phalli-on-the-brain for some reason.
> Not that there's anything wrong with it!
>
> But yes, "men" and their guns are real losers
> indeed. We absolutely agree. :-)


And, it appears we have agreed to include "men" that call out "men" for their obsession with guns as being testosterone deficient as also being testosterone deficient. I think we are off to a good start in defining who has serious "manliness" issues. Thanks for the consensus there.

Ignore the homophobe above as he clearly has his own closeted homosexuality to deal with. Impersonating a name is just the first indicator of such an affliction.

I wonder if the NRA knows about the DHS buying those auto AR-15s and all that illegal ammo from that link above...

+1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the consensus there.

My pleasure! It's great to be on the same page when it comes to dopey "men" and their guns. Perhaps the root cause is some genetic malfunction which causes abnormally low testosterone production. I wonder if any scientists are studying this.

If we can fix the low testosterone, gun nuttery will probably go the way of the tea party. :-)

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If we can fix the low testosterone, gun nuttery
> will probably go the way of the tea party. :-)


Glad to see that we are in agreement that gun nuts and those that obsess over gun nuts are testosterone deficient.

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> +1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The two biggest groups of "men" who
> > have serious self esteem issues and are
> definitely
> > overcompensating for undersized phalli.
>
> Well I can't support talk of phalli -- seems a
> little overboard, almost as if you might have
> persistent phalli-on-the-brain for some reason.
> Not that there's anything wrong with it!

You mean like this?

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/137139/984122.html#msg-984122

Or this?

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/928593/970553.html#msg-970553

Or this?

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/607677/608066.html#msg-608066

Or this?

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/506849/506900.html#msg-506900

Wow! Looks like we know who has persistent penis on the brain. Maybe you should change your screen name to Penis Lover. It seems an apprpriate name for you. Don't you think?

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> +1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thanks for the consensus there.
>
> My pleasure! It's great to be on the same page
> when it comes to dopey "men" and their guns.
> Perhaps the root cause is some genetic malfunction
> which causes abnormally low testosterone
> production. I wonder if any scientists are
> studying this.
>
> If we can fix the low testosterone, gun nuttery
> will probably go the way of the tea party. :-)

LMAO. How long do you think this will go before he realizes what you're doing?

People need to understand that the guys flying the Helicopters and operating the heavy duty military machinery are just like us here on this forum and will not necessarily just jump at the thought of attacking other free American citizens.

If a soldier rebels against attacking innocent citizens of his own community then he would be fighting tyranny as our forefathers had designed.

The biggest problem is the media pushing more and more for making people look like fringe lunatics and bad guys for simply wanting to keep a gun or speaking out against the Gov't.

search function Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You mean like this?

LOL, great work falling right into that trap and (once again) taking a lengthy trip through my post history. You might as well just admit your love for me and get it over with. Love and hate, thin line, etc. :-)

Inquiring Mind Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LMAO. How long do you think this will go before he
> realizes what you're doing?

Yeah, I almost feel bad. It's like toying with the blind kid back in elementary school. :-)

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> search function Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You mean like this?
>
> LOL, great work falling right into that trap and
> (once again) taking a lengthy trip through my post
> history.

Trap? Lengthy? D'oh, looks like someone is unfamiliar with a simple search function ad how to perform one. Thirty seconds is lengthy to you? You got caught in your own web of stupidity. I am sure you are used to it by now. LOL.

> You might as well just admit your love
> for me and get it over with. Love and hate, thin
> line, etc. :-)

Sort of like your obsession with penises? I can see why you think the way you do.

section 8 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hitler was very happy the population was not
> allowed to own guns, only the military. Made
> rounding up his "enemies" much easier a task.

The Nazi regime had very relaxed gun laws, far more so than their predecessors. It was only certain groups which were restricted. Unfortunately, even in areas (Poland) where this was not the case, it did not stop the slaughter.

LateToTheGame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, I get it. The 2nd Amendment was made to
> prevent a tyranical government from taking over,
> allowing people to defend themselves with their
> guns. Makes sense. Another stance on the issue is
> that the 2nd Amendment is outdated, and that the
> founding fathers never envisioned the complex
> world that we live in today, and that nobody NEEDS
> an AR-15. I guess that is true, if it were a
> perfect world.
>
> I'm of the opinion that even if every gun owner
> had an AR-15 to combat a tyranical government, we
> would still be slaughtered. What the fuck is ANY
> commercially abvailable gun going do do against
> Apache helicopters, F-22s, predator drones, tanks,
> submarines, napalm, etc.
>
> You think every family with a gun will actually
> use them on a battlefield?
>
> Your guns will not save you from a tyranical
> government.


Ya, I see your point. We should all just bend over and let the government fuck us rite?? Ya, that makes sense. Too bad those founding father guys were soo stuburn! What a great country this would be today if they had just realized that King George was their rightfull ruler and had let him do what ever he wanted. Besides, freedom is over rated and isnt really worth fighting for, rite??

when I get home I'm taking my Bushmaster AR-15 out for a breath of fresh air!
P.S I do live in the Fairfax County

JoeD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> section 8 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hitler was very happy the population was not
> > allowed to own guns, only the military. Made
> > rounding up his "enemies" much easier a task.
>
> The Nazi regime had very relaxed gun laws, far
> more so than their predecessors. It was only
> certain groups which were restricted.
> Unfortunately, even in areas (Poland) where this
> was not the case, it did not stop the slaughter.


Incorrect in that you misrepresent how hard it was to own a private firearm in Nazi Germany. The Nazi's built on the gun registration and control restrictions of the Weimar Republic. In Nazi Germany, you still had to have special permission from the government to own a private firearm. And you still had to have it registered. And the Nazi's used the registration lists that the Weimar government had compiled to seize firearms when they took power. It is Wikipedia propaganda that the Nazi's had lax gun control.

LateToTheGame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, I get it. The 2nd Amendment was made to
> prevent a tyranical government from taking over,
> allowing people to defend themselves with their
> guns. Makes sense. Another stance on the issue is
> that the 2nd Amendment is outdated, and that the
> founding fathers never envisioned the complex
> world that we live in today, and that nobody NEEDS
> an AR-15. I guess that is true, if it were a
> perfect world.
>
> I'm of the opinion that even if every gun owner
> had an AR-15 to combat a tyranical government, we
> would still be slaughtered. What the fuck is ANY
> commercially abvailable gun going do do against
> Apache helicopters, F-22s, predator drones, tanks,
> submarines, napalm, etc.
>
> You think every family with a gun will actually
> use them on a battlefield?
>
> Your guns will not save you from a tyranical
> government.



The state and local police do not have access to this equipment. The army is prevented from bearing arms against US citizen. What is left is the National Guard who will side with their FAMILY and FRIENDS and join the fight.

We all know that the majority of the U.S. military will never turn on American citizens but a foriegn army most definitly will, especialy if we owe them trillions of dollars and we default on the loans. China is positioning their pieces just like in chess and our prostitute politicians are working hard to DISARM the American people because of pressure from the U.N. and China! The dollar has been the worlds reserve currency for a long time and thanks to privatly owned Federal Reserve exploiting the shit out of it, the dollar is an extremely weak currency right now and is on the verge of collapse and the rest of the world knows it! So I say, fuck Obama and ANY new "gun control" laws!! Dont give them up, dont register them and start buying ammo now before its too late! If you want freedom, you have to be willing to fight to keep it!!




http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_29547.php

http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/29/investing/china-oil-energy/index.htm

http://www.infowars.com/does-china-plan-to-establish-china-cities-and-special-economic-zones-all-over-america/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M09HKwSFffE

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> search function Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You mean like this?
>
> LOL, great work falling right into that trap and
> (once again) taking a lengthy trip through my post
> history. You might as well just admit your love
> for me and get it over with. Love and hate, thin
> line, etc. :-)
>
> Inquiring Mind Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > LMAO. How long do you think this will go before
> he
> > realizes what you're doing?
>
> Yeah, I almost feel bad. It's like toying with the
> blind kid back in elementary school. :-)


C'mon Kilty. We seem to be of the same mind. Let's hook up.

I'll give you a ride in my truck and let you touch my "gun."

lol

LetsRock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LateToTheGame Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ok, I get it. The 2nd Amendment was made to
> > prevent a tyranical government from taking
> over,
> > allowing people to defend themselves with their
> > guns. Makes sense. Another stance on the issue
> is
> > that the 2nd Amendment is outdated, and that
> the
> > founding fathers never envisioned the complex
> > world that we live in today, and that nobody
> NEEDS
> > an AR-15. I guess that is true, if it were a
> > perfect world.
> >
> > I'm of the opinion that even if every gun owner
> > had an AR-15 to combat a tyranical government,
> we
> > would still be slaughtered. What the fuck is
> ANY
> > commercially abvailable gun going do do against
> > Apache helicopters, F-22s, predator drones,
> tanks,
> > submarines, napalm, etc.
> >
> > You think every family with a gun will actually
> > use them on a battlefield?
> >
> > Your guns will not save you from a tyranical
> > government.
>
>
>
> The state and local police do not have access to
> this equipment. The army is prevented from bearing
> arms against US citizen. What is left is the
> National Guard who will side with their FAMILY and
> FRIENDS and join the fight.


Most of the grunts in the US military aren't from Fairfax or NY City. They are from small towns in the South and out West. They grew up in the gun culture. They won't fight against their kin.

But it will never get to that. This country is splitting down the middle and it's getting worse, but that's why we have elections. Gun control is a major loser for the libs. That's why we are now replacing it in the news with illegal mexican legislation. Another divisive issue, but not one that kills the democrats like gun control does.

Firearm ownership has always been more difficult i most countries than in the US. My point was that the Nazi's did not engage stronger gun control to gain or maintain power, this is a myth. And while wiki would be a stronger source than you've offered, I was referring to The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

Joe

Death to Lawyers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JoeD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > section 8 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hitler was very happy the population was not
> > > allowed to own guns, only the military. Made
> > > rounding up his "enemies" much easier a task.
> >
> > The Nazi regime had very relaxed gun laws, far
> > more so than their predecessors. It was only
> > certain groups which were restricted.
> > Unfortunately, even in areas (Poland) where
> this
> > was not the case, it did not stop the
> slaughter.
>
>
> Incorrect in that you misrepresent how hard it was
> to own a private firearm in Nazi Germany. The
> Nazi's built on the gun registration and control
> restrictions of the Weimar Republic. In Nazi
> Germany, you still had to have special permission
> from the government to own a private firearm. And
> you still had to have it registered. And the
> Nazi's used the registration lists that the Weimar
> government had compiled to seize firearms when
> they took power. It is Wikipedia propaganda that
> the Nazi's had lax gun control.

search function Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trap? Lengthy? D'oh, looks like someone is
> unfamiliar with a simple search function ad how to
> perform one. Thirty seconds is lengthy to you?

Based on your "script" skills, it was 30 minutes at a minimum. Why can't you just admit it rather than being ashamed? You don't have to deny your love for me -- my fantastic, dynamic personality attracts a lot of fans. :-)

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> search function Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Trap? Lengthy? D'oh, looks like someone is
> > unfamiliar with a simple search function ad how
> to
> > perform one. Thirty seconds is lengthy to you?
>
>
> Based on your "script" skills, it was 30 minutes
> at a minimum. Why can't you just admit it rather
> than being ashamed? You don't have to deny your
> love for me -- my fantastic, dynamic personality
> attracts a lot of fans. :-)


Am I "man" enough for you Kilty?

Never seen a guy so good at aggravating others. Props K-Dog, props.

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> search function Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Trap? Lengthy? D'oh, looks like someone is
> > unfamiliar with a simple search function ad how
> to
> > perform one. Thirty seconds is lengthy to you?
>
>
> Based on your "script" skills, it was 30 minutes
> at a minimum. Why can't you just admit it rather
> than being ashamed? You don't have to deny your
> love for me -- my fantastic, dynamic personality
> attracts a lot of fans. :-)


LOL. Darn, and here I thought you'd explain this "trap" of yours. I guess you know when to give up on a losing position. Now if you could give up on your penis obsession you might get somewhere. Alas, we all now that won't end anytime soon.....

Teehee. Kilton luvs da cocks.

How is that ragtag group of insurgents doing against our military over in Afghansistan?

lmao - fucking idiot.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

I say "fuck" a lot...

@FBO - yr asking about those same insurgents that love their right to bare arms in their own country?

Those same insurgents that are proud of their heritage and use gun ownership and usage as a symbol of National pride?

Those same insurgents who would gladly take up arms and fight invaders upon their homeland?

Those insurgents?

pic unrelated
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @FBO - yr asking about those same insurgents that
> love their right to bare arms in their own
> country?
>
> Those same insurgents that are proud of their
> heritage and use gun ownership and usage as a
> symbol of National pride?
>
> Those same insurgents who would gladly take up
> arms and fight invaders upon their homeland?
>
> Those insurgents?
>
> pic unrelated


Bare arms huh.

Keep 'em coming Gordo. You're killing in this debate.

Really. Promise. lulz

@strapless - it's not ME doing the "killing" in this debate :(

pic unrelated
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @strapless - it's not ME doing the "killing" in
> this debate :(
>
> pic unrelated


Obviously.

We should draw chalk lines around your dumbass posts. lulz

I cannot wait until the government passes enough laws to confiscate all of your freakin guns. You paranoid hillbilly kin fuckers are so freakin dumb! You do not need a gun because you are too stupid to own one. I cannot wait to read the headline saying mandatory registration of ALL of your guns, that is the first step in taking those damned things. Also, ammunition should be taxed 5000% per round.

Dumb Obvious Asshole

chitty-chitty-bang-bang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I cannot wait until the government passes enough
> laws to confiscate all of your freakin guns. You
> paranoid hillbilly kin fuckers are so freakin
> dumb! You do not need a gun because you are too
> stupid to own one. I cannot wait to read the
> headline saying mandatory registration of ALL of
> your guns, that is the first step in taking those
> damned things. Also, ammunition should be taxed
> 5000% per round.


Wow, extremely compelling thoughts there. lulz

chinny-chinny-wang-wang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Wow, extremely compelling thoughts there. lulz

................as opposed to the NRA line fo thinking on this topic
Attachments:

chitty-chitty-bang-bang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I cannot wait until the government passes enough
> laws to confiscate all of your freakin guns. You
> paranoid hillbilly kin fuckers are so freakin
> dumb! You do not need a gun because you are too
> stupid to own one. I cannot wait to read the
> headline saying mandatory registration of ALL of
> your guns, that is the first step in taking those
> damned things. Also, ammunition should be taxed
> 5000% per round.


I can't wait until you figure out that little if anything will be done. I will laugh at the tears running down your face.

it will happen, and the only thing you will have when your guns are taken are your limp tiny little peckers to hold onto!

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> chinny-chinny-wang-wang Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > Wow, extremely compelling thoughts there. lulz
>
> ................as opposed to the NRA line fo
> thinking on this topic


Oh look, another thought provoking cartoon by gordon. yawn. gordon==> Most boring poster on ffu and the cure for insomnia.

chitty-chitty-bang-bang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it will happen, and the only thing you will have
> when your guns are taken are your limp tiny little
> peckers to hold onto!


You are about as informed as a gnat.

11:44 a.m. Sen. Charles Schumer, D.-N.Y., says he is in discussions with legislators who have "high NRA ratings" on bipartisan legislation to reduce gun violence. He says he can't share details. "It won't create any gun registry. That is already illegal. It will not limit your ability to borrow your Uncle Willie's hunting rifle," Schumer says.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/01/30/guns-senate-hearing-giffords-nra/1876735/

Now go throw your lil crybaby temper tantrum while you dwell on other men's penis size. Maybe you and that dude Kilton above should start a thread on penis size. Seems like you two ninnies have a bunch in common.

@nope - funny you mention NRA and penises in the same sentence

pic unrelated
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @nope - funny you mention NRA and penises in the
> same sentence
>
> pic unrelated


Sen. Schumer mentioned the NRA. Also, you may want to look into what a sentence is because in no sentence above do penis and NRA appear together.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @FBO - yr asking about those same insurgents that
> love their right to bare arms in their own
> country?
>
> Those same insurgents that are proud of their
> heritage and use gun ownership and usage as a
> symbol of National pride?
>
> Those same insurgents who would gladly take up
> arms and fight invaders upon their homeland?
>
> Those insurgents?
>
> pic unrelated


Once again your comments prove what a complete idiot you are

Thanks Gordon. I was running low on Lunesta and having trouble falling asleep.



.
Attachments:

ROFLMAO at those soooooo bored with what I say.......................................that they feel the need to respond to everything I say EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

The problem with moving threads from the main forum to Off-Topic is that Gordon Blvd follows soon after.

who are you fooling - y'all wish I'd spend more time over here

LoLz

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ROFLMAO at those soooooo bored with what I
> say.......................................that
> they feel the need to respond to everything I say
> EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.


Genius. He's a fucking genius. And smart too. lulz

I want to tongue punch gordon's fart box

nope Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> chitty-chitty-bang-bang Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > it will happen, and the only thing you will
> have
> > when your guns are taken are your limp tiny
> little
> > peckers to hold onto!
>
>
> You are about as informed as a gnat.
>
> 11:44 a.m. Sen. Charles Schumer, D.-N.Y., says he
> is in discussions with legislators who have "high
> NRA ratings" on bipartisan legislation to reduce
> gun violence. He says he can't share details. "It
> won't create any gun registry. That is already
> illegal. It will not limit your ability to borrow
> your Uncle Willie's hunting rifle," Schumer says.
>
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/0
> 1/30/guns-senate-hearing-giffords-nra/1876735/
>
> Now go throw your lil crybaby temper tantrum while
> you dwell on other men's penis size. Maybe you
> and that dude Kilton above should start a thread
> on penis size. Seems like you two ninnies have a
> bunch in common.


Exactly. The anti-gun nuts are going to be very disappointed.

As far as registration goes even Canada scrapped theirs because it was a useless waste of money.