This is what make me crazy.
"It was during this probe, which ended in 2014, that Mateen was placed on a terrorism watch list. Comey, speaking to reporters at the Justice Department, declined to say whether he was also placed on a no-fly list. After the shooting, Congress again began debating whether to prevent people on such lists from buying guns."
FBI says Orlando gunman had been on watchlist; six wounded in shooting still critically injured - The Washington Post

What's the NRA position? They have the right to buy guns just like everyone else?

Originally Posted by Guest

Once again, the Regressive redirects to a "what if" situation.

What are you going to do? Build interrment camps for all Muslims - even American born Muslims?

Sounds like a libtard, acting like restricting a radical group is such a big deal. It has been done before. You want to ban a stupid gun that isn't even a military weapon. Just another of a multitude of guns that a RADICAL used to kill. So, if up to you, we would punish the gun instead of the killer, IF that was possible. You are so afraid of Muslims that you fear their anger if you say anything against them.

Libtards are so stupid that they think that by getting rid of one gun, it's going to stop the killing. They forget about bombs and they forget about Paris recently. You know, the place where they have strict gun control?

Try to get it through your heads, liberals. AR-15 is not a military weapon and it is NOT an assault weapon. The M-16 is the military assault weapon. The AR-15 just looks like one. It does not operate like one.

My son-in-law has a Glock 9mm semi-automatic pistol. He has a 30 round magazine. It is not an assault weapon, but it has the same ability as the AR-15 to kill 30 people before reloading. I have a S&W 9mm pistol with a 16 round magazine. Many shotguns are semi-automatic and they even sell some that look like military weapons. Are you going to ban all semi-automatic weapons? Does that mean that my six shot 357 magnum is ok? Because with speed loaders, I can reload faster than some folks with semi-automatic pistols.

Please, will one libtard speak up and explain exactly how far you will go to limit the 2nd Amendment. And by the way, technically by the 2nd Amend. we should be able to have any weapon that the military has. After all, it is there to protect us from an over reaching government.

Originally Posted by Guest

Sounds like a libtard, acting like restricting a radical group is such a big deal. It has been done before. You want to ban a stupid gun that isn't even a military weapon. Just another of a multitude of guns that a RADICAL used to kill. So, if up to you, we would punish the gun instead of the killer, IF that was possible. You are so afraid of Muslims that you fear their anger if you say anything against them.

Libtards are so stupid that they think that by getting rid of one gun, it's going to stop the killing. They forget about bombs and they forget about Paris recently. You know, the place where they have strict gun control?

Try to get it through your heads, liberals. AR-15 is not a military weapon and it is NOT an assault weapon. The M-16 is the military assault weapon. The AR-15 just looks like one. It does not operate like one.

My son-in-law has a Glock 9mm semi-automatic pistol. He has a 30 round magazine. It is not an assault weapon, but it has the same ability as the AR-15 to kill 30 people before reloading. I have a S&W 9mm pistol with a 16 round magazine. Many shotguns are semi-automatic and they even sell some that look like military weapons. Are you going to ban all semi-automatic weapons? Does that mean that my six shot 357 magnum is ok? Because with speed loaders, I can reload faster than some folks with semi-automatic pistols.

Please, will one libtard speak up and explain exactly how far you will go to limit the 2nd Amendment. And by the way, technically by the 2nd Amend. we should be able to have any weapon that the military has. After all, it is there to protect us from an over reaching government.

Ideally you [and all like minded people] want to be armed with automatic weapons just like our Military just in case our Military is ordered to attack you will have equal firing power. Is that right? How about a tank? Do you want one of those too?

And it's reasonable for someone, a Muslim in this case to be on a FBI watch list and not restrict selling any weapon he wants to purchase because that might be the slippery slope of total gun control. Is that right?

Originally Posted by Guest

Ideally you [and all like minded people] want to be armed with automatic weapons just like our Military just in case our Military is ordered to attack you will have equal firing power. Is that right? How about a tank? Do you want one of those too?

And it's reasonable for someone, a Muslim in this case to be on a FBI watch list and not restrict selling any weapon he wants to purchase because that might be the slippery slope of total gun control. Is that right?

Cry me a river. Name me just one gun that went out and killed someone. If you liberals would just push law enforcement and strict penalties, you wouldn't have to fear the big mean guns. Tell you what, if you agree to voter ID, I'll agree to banning the infamous AR-15. Deal?

Originally Posted by Guest

Once again, the Regressive redirects to a "what if" situation.

What are you going to do? Build interrment camps for all Muslims - even American born Muslims?

No you just don't let Muslims in the country
until they have been vetted, especially
if they come from countries that supports
terrorist activities. Is that really hard to understand.
If it is, you are definitely a Libtard!

Originally Posted by Guest

Ideally you [and all like minded people] want to be armed with automatic weapons just like our Military just in case our Military is ordered to attack you will have equal firing power. Is that right? How about a tank? Do you want one of those too?

And it's reasonable for someone, a Muslim in this case to be on a FBI watch list and not restrict selling any weapon he wants to purchase because that might be the slippery slope of total gun control. Is that right?

A government is more apt to be tyrannical if the people are not able to bear arms.
Tanks are not necessary since History has shown,
that a smaller number of armed people can change a country's course!

Originally Posted by Guest

A government is more apt to be tyrannical if the people are not able to bear arms.
Tanks are not necessary since History has shown,
that a smaller number of armed people can change a country's course!

Liberals don't know anything about fighting a war. Give-em a break. I am surprised one of them mentioned a tank. Must have learned of them on a video game because they certainly are reluctant to serve their country.

Originally Posted by Guest

Cry me a river. Name me just one gun that went out and killed someone. If you liberals would just push law enforcement and strict penalties, you wouldn't have to fear the big mean guns. Tell you what, if you agree to voter ID, I'll agree to banning the infamous AR-15. Deal?

Why didn't you answer my questions?
I'll agree to voter ID.

Originally Posted by Guest

And the Regressives wonder why they will lose the Presidential election!

They've been bred out of the majority by the minorities.

Originally Posted by Guest

I have no issue with banning AR-15 rifles.

But what would be the discussion if the killer used an explosive vest? Or poison gas? Or drove his car into the club? Or set fire to the place? Or used a pressure cooker bomb?

Could we then freaking figure out that we need to control 18-30 year old radical Muslims!!!!

We need to ban 18-30 minorities too. THAT is where the problems originate.

Originally Posted by Guest

Once again, the Regressive redirects to a "what if" situation.

What are you going to do? Build interrment camps for all Muslims - even American born Muslims?

A dangerous group is a dangerous group. Ban mosques, where they're radicalized, and hopefully they'll go away.

Originally Posted by Guest

Sounds like a libtard, acting like restricting a radical group is such a big deal. It has been done before. You want to ban a stupid gun that isn't even a military weapon. Just another of a multitude of guns that a RADICAL used to kill. So, if up to you, we would punish the gun instead of the killer, IF that was possible. You are so afraid of Muslims that you fear their anger if you say anything against them.

Libtards are so stupid that they think that by getting rid of one gun, it's going to stop the killing. They forget about bombs and they forget about Paris recently. You know, the place where they have strict gun control?

Try to get it through your heads, liberals. AR-15 is not a military weapon and it is NOT an assault weapon. The M-16 is the military assault weapon. The AR-15 just looks like one. It does not operate like one.

My son-in-law has a Glock 9mm semi-automatic pistol. He has a 30 round magazine. It is not an assault weapon, but it has the same ability as the AR-15 to kill 30 people before reloading. I have a S&W 9mm pistol with a 16 round magazine. Many shotguns are semi-automatic and they even sell some that look like military weapons. Are you going to ban all semi-automatic weapons? Does that mean that my six shot 357 magnum is ok? Because with speed loaders, I can reload faster than some folks with semi-automatic pistols.

Please, will one libtard speak up and explain exactly how far you will go to limit the 2nd Amendment. And by the way, technically by the 2nd Amend. we should be able to have any weapon that the military has. After all, it is there to protect us from an over reaching government.

We're also supposed to be "allowed" to form local "well regulated militias". Look how well that has gone. They're treated like an enemy. Because they ARE an enemy to the liars and thieves running government.

Originally Posted by Guest

Ideally you [and all like minded people] want to be armed with automatic weapons just like our Military just in case our Military is ordered to attack you will have equal firing power. Is that right? How about a tank? Do you want one of those too?

And it's reasonable for someone, a Muslim in this case to be on a FBI watch list and not restrict selling any weapon he wants to purchase because that might be the slippery slope of total gun control. Is that right?

Who creates the "watch list" and under what criteria? It seem ANYONE can be added to this "list" and then denied basic civil rights. Don't believe all the propaganda.

Originally Posted by Guest

No you just don't let Muslims in the country
until they have been vetted, especially
if they come from countries that supports
terrorist activities. Is that really hard to understand.
If it is, you are definitely a Libtard!

Just don't let them in period. What GOOD will they add? What value? None that I can see.

Originally Posted by Guest

A government is more apt to be tyrannical if the people are not able to bear arms.
Tanks are not necessary since History has shown,
that a smaller number of armed people can change a country's course!

The difference between a citizen and a slave is a citizen can defend themselves.

Originally Posted by Guest

Why didn't you answer my questions?
I'll agree to voter ID.

And you'll lose half the D voters. Hopefully. They're becoming the majority, so this may be our last hope.

Originally Posted by Guest

They've been bred out of the majority by the minorities.



We need to ban 18-30 minorities too. THAT is where the problems originate.



A dangerous group is a dangerous group. Ban mosques, where they're radicalized, and hopefully they'll go away.



We're also supposed to be "allowed" to form local "well regulated militias". Look how well that has gone. They're treated like an enemy. Because they ARE an enemy to the liars and thieves running government.



Who creates the "watch list" and under what criteria? It seem ANYONE can be added to this "list" and then denied basic civil rights. Don't believe all the propaganda.



Just don't let them in period. What GOOD will they add? What value? None that I can see.



The difference between a citizen and a slave is a citizen can defend themselves.



And you'll lose half the D voters. Hopefully. They're becoming the majority, so this may be our last hope.

Quick!! The Baker Act should be enforced for this Whack-a-Doodle right away,!

Originally Posted by Guest

A government is more apt to be tyrannical if the people are not able to bear arms.
Tanks are not necessary since History has shown,
that a smaller number of armed people can change a country's course!

Who? Our revolution? The government we were fighting was across the ocean.

France? More than just a small number.

We need another France style here.

Originally Posted by Guest

Quick!! The Baker Act should be enforced for this Whack-a-Doodle right away,!

Say's the ignorant and naive child...

Originally Posted by Guest

Quick!! The Baker Act should be enforced for this Whack-a-Doodle right away,!

It appears that YOU are the one that needs professional assistance, if you fear sharp words.

Originally Posted by Guest

Quick!! The Baker Act should be enforced for this Whack-a-Doodle right away,!

For your safety, I hope your parents don't allow you near sharp objects.

Awwww! He used a bad word....whackadoodle. That should illicit a lot of smart responses and definitely put fear in the subject of his accusation.

The Gang of Three (former 6 PAC) are talking to themselves.

How sweet, but really, have an original idea.