One political cartoonist's take on Obama's support of the 2nd.

[jody]

[JonQ]

1. Anyone supporting the AWB

cannot claim to support common sense gun laws.

[iverglas]

2. can't we just count on jody?

cartoon url: http://www.creators.com/editorial_cartoons/5/5862_thumb. gif

http://www.creators.com/

And the headline article at creators.com this hour is:

Bill O'Reilly: "Just Say No"

Yes yes yes.

Michelle Malkin is in the stable ... Linda Chavez ...

Some day ... some day ... some day, somebody in the Guns forum is going to cite an opinion that wasn't spouted by a racist misogynist right-wing asshole ...

Hey! Don't take my word for it! The cartoonist in question's bio entry:

http://www.creators.com/editorialcartoons/chuck-asay-about.html

If you want your readers to be informed about the issues from a religious, right-wing wacko perspective, Asay is your guy. Chuck sifts the events of the day through his biblical worldview and tries to persuade readers to see things his way...that rights are given by a higher authority than the governments of men, that mankind is not the ultimate arbiter of truth and that our Constitutional Republic is worth protecting. Chuck believes ideas, not politicians rule the world. He tries to protect ideas which he thinks are good and attacks ideas he thinks bring harm.

Just think.

If I had a gun, I could shoot those fish in that barrel.

Sad. Just sad.

[iverglas]

3. here's another good 'un from Chuck

Yes sirree bob. That's opinions I wanna share.

How's about his election eve effort?



Damn them librul medias.

[gorfle]

4. If you can't refute the message, attack credibility!

.

[iverglas]

5. if you can't find ONE progressive voice that agrees with you

post in the Guns forum.

[Tejas]

7. Finally figured out your problem.........eh?

That's okay, stick around, wouldn't be the same without you.

:rofl:

[SteveM]

47. And I thought there was a ban on dead-fall traps! (nt) LOL!

[gorfle]

8. And still no refutation.

.

[iverglas]

10. what exactly is to be refuted??

It's a cartoon. It's pretty much an allegation that a bunch of people think that Obama is going to stop them from buying guns. (Yeah, the little old lady in the foreground is on her way to by a dumbed-down AK-47, for sure.)

Who the fuck cares? Who cares about the allegation, and who cares whether a bunch of people think what the cartoon alleges they think? Who cares what a self-proclaimed bible-thumping right-wing asshole alleges about much of anything?

What, exactly, would you like refuted?

[gorfle]

13. I dunno, you tell me.

It's a cartoon. It's pretty much an allegation that a bunch of people think that Obama is going to stop them from buying guns. (Yeah, the little old lady in the foreground is on her way to by a dumbed-down AK-47, for sure.)

Who the fuck cares? Who cares about the allegation, and who cares whether a bunch of people think what the cartoon alleges they think? Who cares what a self-proclaimed bible-thumping right-wing asshole alleges about much of anything?

Then why speak up if you don't care?

What, exactly, would you like refuted?

Presumably, you took issue with the content of the cartoon, so I was expecting a refutation of said content. If you are saying you agree with the content of the cartoon, then pardon me.

[iverglas]

16. man, I really don't believe you are this thick

Then why speak up if you don't care?

Now try reading the thread again.

What did I "speak up" about?

Was it about people buying guns because they believe Obama isn't going to let them buy guns?

I really don't think so.

It was about jody's choice, yet once again, to post a piece of tripe from a right-wing asshole in this forum.

I may speak up about whatever I bloody well feel like speaking up about, you know?

You don't get either to pretend I was talking about something I was not talking about, or demand that I do something utterly ludicrous.

"Refuting" a cartoon is utterly ludicrous. And I was not talking about the substance of the cartoon, which is of the most supreme boringness.

Now, if you want to ask jody what his point in posting it was, please do. I'm dying to know.

[gorfle]

18. And so we come full circle.

Now try reading the thread again.

What did I "speak up" about?

Was it about people buying guns because they believe Obama isn't going to let them buy guns?

I really don't think so.

It was about jody's choice, yet once again, to post a piece of tripe from a right-wing asshole in this forum.

And so, we come full circle. As I said before, you have nothing to say about the message, so instead you attack the source.

I may speak up about whatever I bloody well feel like speaking up about, you know?

Uh, I thought you weren't speaking up? It's so hard following your messages sometimes. First you don't know what you were speaking up about, now you can speak up about whatever you feel like. So confusing.

"Refuting" a cartoon is utterly ludicrous. And I was not talking about the substance of the cartoon, which is of the most supreme boringness.

Right, I know - you were talking about the source of the cartoon. Like I said - can't discuss the content, discuss the source.

[iverglas]

21. what message?

What message?

What message??

WHAT MESSAGE IS THERE in the braindead cartoon you seem to be so fond of?

The message is that people are going to go out and buy guns because OBAMA LIED.

That is an ALLEGATION, not a message.

It maybe a fact that some people are doing it.

SO WHAT?

Does the fact that some people are doing it prove that OBAMA LIED?

I didn't think so.

So WHAT DOES IT PROVE?


How about that you can fool some of the people into parting with big wads of money just about any time you like, by telling them things they are for some reason ready and willing and able to believe?

That's a dandy message. I like that message.

Happy now?


First you don't know what you were speaking up about, now you can speak up about whatever you feel like. So confusing.

First you say something false, then you throw some more words at it. Don't fool yourself into thinking you have confused someone.


Right, I know - you were talking about the source of the cartoon.

Wrong. But you knew that.

[gorfle]

27. For the love of fuck.

What message?
What message??

WHAT MESSAGE IS THERE in the braindead cartoon you seem to be so fond of?

I already explained it to you once. If you can't figure it out from here, you don't have the intellectual ability to carry on a conversation about this further.

The message is that people are going to go out and buy guns because OBAMA LIED.

No, it isn't. The message is that people are skeptical of someone who claims to support the right to keep and bear arms but also supports things like assault weapon bans. People see the inherent conflict in the claims and are hedging their bets by buying weapons.

That is an ALLEGATION, not a message.

For the love of fuck. It's a goddamned cartoon. It is an artistic rendering with accompanying text designed to convey a message. The content of the message could be a question, a commentary, a statement, a joke, an admonition, or, yes, even an allegation. It's a message. This particular message seems to me to be a commentary on the public's reconcilliation of Obama's stated opinion of the right to keep and bear arms and his stated agenda.

It is not an allegation. It does not seek to accuse anyone of anything.

It maybe a fact that some people are doing it.

SO WHAT?

So what indeed. That's why I asked why you are attacking the source instead of the message. If you have no beef with the message, why pipe up about it, other than to crow about the source?

Does the fact that some people are doing it prove that OBAMA LIED?

I didn't think so.

The message does not say anything about Obama lying.

So WHAT DOES IT PROVE?

The message does not seek to prove anything. It seems to me to merely be a commentary on people's reaction to Obama's conflicting messages on firearm ownership.

How about that you can fool some of the people into parting with big wads of money just about any time you like, by telling them things they are for some reason ready and willing and able to believe?

That's a dandy message. I like that message.

Is it foolish to believe that an assault weapon ban is imminent when it is part of both the Democratic Party Platform and part of Obama's published agenda on www.change.gov? Why wouldn't someone believe it?

First you don't know what you were speaking up about, now you can speak up about whatever you feel like. So confusing.

First you say something false, then you throw some more words at it. Don't fool yourself into thinking you have confused someone.

We'll let the viewing public decide for themselves:

First you said, "What did I "speak up" about?", implying that you didn't speak up about anything or didn't know what you spoke about. Then you said, "I may speak up about whatever I bloody well feel like speaking up about, you know?".

Wrong. But you knew that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=166774

[iverglas]

29. the question on the table remains:

Is it foolish to believe that an assault weapon ban is imminent when it is part of both the Democratic Party Platform and part of Obama's published agenda on www.change.gov ? Why wouldn't someone believe it?


WHO THE FUCK CARES?


The election is over.

YOU WON.

Remember at all?

Who in the fucking fuck cares if a bunch of utterly pointless people want to run out in the middle of an economic crisis and get gouged for some guns?????

WHAT IS THE POINT?

[gorfle]

30. I'm guessing you do.

WHO THE FUCK CARES?
WHAT IS THE POINT?

As I have said countless times, I don't know why you care, and I don't know what the point of your input in this thread is.

If you don't care, and you don't see any point, then by all means feel free to be silent.

[SteveM]

48. "Who the fuck cares?" Why you do (nt)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. Thanks Iverglas I feel better because I successfully post in lots of the other forums.

Glad I'm sufficiently progressive enough for you.

David

[iverglas]

6. oh ... er ...

"message"?

[iverglas]

11. wrong place

[iverglas]

12. ^^ or you can still try answering that one

The question was: "message"? What message?

[gorfle]

14. The message.

The cartoon states:

"He believes individuals have a right to bear arms but supports common sense gun laws."

And then shows a line of people outside of a gun store, clearly in reference to the recent surge in firearm sales since the election. Obviously the message is that people are skeptical of Obama's claim to believe that individuals have a right to bear arms in light of his stance on "common sense gun laws", such as the assault weapon ban, which both his agenda and the Democratic Party platform endorses.

[iverglas]

15. so?

I ask again. Why would anyone care that a bunch of people have allegedly set about stocking up on guns out of some belief, irrational or otherwise, that they will be unable to buy them after Obama takes office? Why?

Why would anyone want to refute the allegation that people are doing this? Or the allegation that people believe this? Why?

Here's the real question that needs to be asked and answered.

jody! What is your point?

Feel free to do it.

[gorfle]

19. Why shuck and jive?

I ask again. Why would anyone care that a bunch of people have allegedly set about stocking up on guns out of some belief, irrational or otherwise, that they will be unable to buy them after Obama takes office? Why?

Why would anyone want to refute the allegation that people are doing this? Or the allegation that people believe this? Why?

And I'll say again: I don't know why you would care, but presumably you do, or you wouldn't have piped up in this conversation.

Unless, of course, your intent is simply to debate the source of the message, rather than the message itself.

Which, of course, is obviously the case. Any pro-gun message that comes from a right-wing source is immediately going to be jumped upon by you, regardless of the content of the message, because it came from a right-wing source.

Newsflash! "Right-wingers" are usually very pro-gun! Story at 11!

[iverglas]

22. you wanna be careful there

Any pro-gun message that comes from a right-wing source is immediately going to be jumped upon by you, regardless of the content of the message, because it came from a right-wing source.

Note that *I* am not the one calling jody a right-wing source.

[gorfle]

26. I was referring to the web site.

I was referring to the source you were complaining about - creator.com. But then you knew that.

[iverglas]

17. spend a lot of time at creators.com do you, jody?

I'll bet you especially like the "ethics" columnist.

http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/ethnically-speaking-larry-meeks/ethnically-speaking-2008-11-22.html

I'm just never going to get over this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=176965#177543

jody quoting a Time Magazine article from 1958 about NEGROES AND CRIME as if it had been written yesterday ...

A never-ending source of amusement and bemusement, our jody.

[Wickerman]

20. Interesting

So the opinion of the folks who brought us Bush 43 is that we have more gun grabbing to look forward to? Hmm, sometimes I think I smell manufactured hype in the air and a chance for the nervous gulliable to further enrich the weapons manufacturers. If we didn't, like a bored kitty, bat the ball back and forth every few years we wouldn't have the sales surges that the gun companies so appreciate. :think:

[iverglas]

23. as I wuz just saying ...

So hey, do check out this one. I almost missed it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=191176&mesg_id=191245

[jody]

24. As long as Obama & Biden want to renew the AWB, gun-owners are justified in assuming a Dem Senate &

House will in fact pass a bill to renew AWB and Obama will sign it.

Obama's personal promise to protect the Second Amendment had lots of fine print like those of any presidential candidate and in the final analysis proves much about the integrity of the candidate.

[iverglas]

25. and meanwhile, little old ladies

and assorted other reg'lar folks are just a-linin' up to get them one o' them thar dumbed-down AK-47s ... just like in that cartoooon.

Yuppers.

There really are some people who will believe just anything that gets shovelled at them, I know.

[gorfle]

28. Question:

and meanwhile, little old ladies and assorted other reg'lar folks are just a-linin' up to get them one o' them thar dumbed-down AK-47s ... just like in that cartoooon.

It seems that regular folks are lining up to buy firearms. It would not surprise me if even little old ladies were.

What is a "dumbed-down" AK-47?

[rangersmith82]

31. Well if we would just stop all the anti gun crap

This wouldn't be an issues.

Banning Assault Weapons would be a horrible mistake for us.

Remember 1994???

We can get a super majority in 2010 (we may have one in a month or two), why would we risk it over such a stupid law???

Do we want to lose control of the House and Senate for 12 years over this stupid law???

We need to worry about Iraq, the economy and heath care before we try to ban the shoulder thing that goes up/Assault weapons.

drop the anti gun stuff it is suicide for our party.

[iverglas]

32. and once again, for those who missed it

Well if we would just stop all the anti gun crap
This wouldn't be an issues.


THE ELECTION IS OVER.
YOU WON.
IT ISN'T AN ISSUE.


jody seems to be finding it difficult to come to grips with this, er, problem, and from the looks of it, so are a few others.

The Democratic Party won the election with the "assault weapons ban" in its platform, despite the best efforts of quite a few people here to persuade anyone in the general public who thought that was a good idea that it was actually a really really bad idea and anybody who thought it was a good idea was an ignorant fool, a dupe of the Democrats or a Republican in Brady clothing.

You won the election. Get over it.

[gorfle]

33. Get over it?

THE ELECTION IS OVER.
YOU WON.
IT ISN'T AN ISSUE.

The election is over, and we did indeed win, but firearm rights are always an issue. The Democratic Party won, thankfully. Those wins can easily become reversals if they screw up and go after firearm rights. It is imperative to work to prevent this mistake.

The Democratic Party won the election with the "assault weapons ban" in its platform, despite the best efforts of quite a few people here to persuade anyone in the general public who thought that was a good idea that it was actually a really really bad idea and anybody who thought it was a good idea was an ignorant fool, a dupe of the Democrats or a Republican in Brady clothing.

I have no idea what this sentence means.

You won the election. Get over it.

Why are you so eager to see such wonderful gains erased through foolish, immoral policy?

[iverglas]

34. yeah

Get over it?

Yeah.

I have no idea what this sentence means.

Really? I guess you haven't been reading this forum for the last two months, then.


The Democratic Party and its presidential candidate won the election. With an assault weapons ban in its/his platform. Much to the chagrin of so many Guns forum regulars.

And you can read that however you like.

[gorfle]

35. Sorry, no.

Get over it?

Yeah.

I will never "get over" defense of the right to keep and bear arms.

I have no idea what this sentence means.

Really? I guess you haven't been reading this forum for the last two months, then.

It was your grammar and sentence structure I found incomprehensible.

The Democratic Party and its presidential candidate won the election. With an assault weapons ban in its/his platform. Much to the chagrin of so many Guns forum regulars.

And you can read that however you like.

My read is that the gun issue has received little attention so far other than being listed in both agendas. As long as it stays that way - lip service - all will be well.

If it moves beyond lip service, we will have to take steps to correct those moves.

[iverglas]

36. let me try it again

The sentence was this:

The Democratic Party won the election with the "assault weapons ban" in its platform, despite the best efforts of quite a few people here to persuade anyone in the general public who thought that was a good idea that it was actually a really really bad idea and anybody who thought it was a good idea was an ignorant fool, a dupe of the Democrats or a Republican in Brady clothing.

If you have been reading this forum, you have seen thread after thread and post after post after post bitching about this element of the Democratic Party / Obama platform.

You have also seen several posts in which it was pointed out that a majority of voters polled before the election consistently voiced support for the "assault weapons ban".

Then you saw post after post in which it was argued that those voters would not support the "assault weapons ban" if they only really knew what it was, and those voters needed to be educated.

Then you saw me wondering what the point was. The voters supported the thing. The thing was in the Democratic Party platform. The doom-saying about how the thing was going to kill the Democrats' / Obama's chances in the election was obviously way off the mark. And hey, guess what: I WAS RIGHT.

If someone wanted the Democratic Party to win the election, why would s/he want to change people's minds about the "assault weapons ban" during an election campaign? The only reason I could think of was: in order to persuade those people not to vote Democrat.

So now the Democratic Party has won the election, "assault weapons ban" and all.

What exactly seems to be the problem?

You don't want a new "assault weapons ban"? Dandy. That's your decision. Do what you can to stop it.

But use the "assault weapons ban" bogeyman to continue trying to cause disenchantment with the Democrats / Obama? Use allegations that people fear a new "assault weapons ban" with the Democrats / Obama in power to ... do WHAT, exactly?

Again, I would ask: WHAT IS THE POINT?

So that some bunch of illiterate boobs who didn't know what an "assault weapons ban" was, or what the Democratic Party platform was, before the election, will smack their foreheads and say What have I done? and vow never to vote Democrat again? Will run out and buy guns? (Somebody here own stock?)

The point, the point ... surely there has to be one that makes sense in a forum at Democratic Underground ...


I will never "get over" defense of the right to keep and bear arms.

Lordy lordy. Let me spell it out.

The Democrats and Obama won the election. Get over it.

Not addressed to you or anyone else in particular. As I said:

The Democratic Party and its presidential candidate won the election.
With an assault weapons ban in its/his platform.
Much to the chagrin of so many Guns forum regulars.
And you can read that however you like.

[gorfle]

37. You are missing the point.

If you have been reading this forum, you have seen thread after thread and post after post after post bitching about this element of the Democratic Party / Obama platform.

You have also seen several posts in which it was pointed out that a majority of voters polled before the election consistently voiced support for the "assault weapons ban".

Then you saw post after post in which it was argued that those voters would not support the "assault weapons ban" if they only really knew what it was, and those voters needed to be educated.

Then you saw me wondering what the point was. The voters supported the thing. The thing was in the Democratic Party platform. The doom-saying about how the thing was going to kill the Democrats' / Obama's chances in the election was obviously way off the mark. And hey, guess what: I WAS RIGHT.

You were right, but not for the reason you seem to believe.

I believe the firearm issue did not influence the election not because everyone bought into the published agendas, but because those agendas were not well publicized before the election.

Moreover, many firearm owners, like me, who were aware of the agendas voted for Obama anyway in spite of those agendas because it was in the best interest of the country to steer away from the path of totalitarianism we have endured over the last 8 years.

Simply, firearms were not an issue in this election. There are simply much bigger fish to fry.

Don't delude yourself into thinking, however, that this is some mandate where people are all for gun control now.

If someone wanted the Democratic Party to win the election, why would s/he want to change people's minds about the "assault weapons ban" during an election campaign? The only reason I could think of was: in order to persuade those people not to vote Democrat.

It is my firm belief that the firearm issue is political suicide. I would rather the Democratic Party abandon the issue, obviously, but fortunately at least they did not highlight the issue during the election, thus minimizing the damage.

I will still work to see the Democratic Party abandon the issue, because it is immoral, but also because if the published agendas are actually acted on I am certain it will deal another election-losing backlash against the party. It will certainly reverse my support.

So now the Democratic Party has won the election, "assault weapons ban" and all.

Again, don't delude yourself into thinking that the assault weapons ban has been accepted. Mostly, it has been ignored.

You don't want a new "assault weapons ban"? Dandy. That's your decision. Do what you can to stop it.

I will. So will millions of other voters. I'm sure I wasn't alone in the ranks of firearm owners who have rebelled against the Republican party out of outrage at the handling of the "war on terror" and economic policy. But if you start attacking one of my most important rights issues I will flee to someone else. See the danger? Does the Democratic Party really want 40-80 million energized enemies? Do they want another 1994?

But use the "assault weapons ban" bogeyman to continue trying to cause disenchantment with the Democrats / Obama? Use allegations that people fear a new "assault weapons ban" with the Democrats / Obama in power to ... do WHAT, exactly?

Again, I would ask: WHAT IS THE POINT?

Simple: Change Democratic Party Policy through the threat of losing voters.

So that some bunch of illiterate boobs who didn't know what an "assault weapons ban" was, or what the Democratic Party platform was, before the election, will smack their foreheads and say What have I done? and vow never to vote Democrat again? Will run out and buy guns? (Somebody here own stock?)

Precisely. "Illiterate boobs" or not, 40-80 million votes are at stake.

The point, the point ... surely there has to be one that makes sense in a forum at Democratic Underground ...

You know, I get sick of the continued innuendo that somehow we are all freepers in sheep's clothing around here.

I cut you slack because I'm sure there are freepers in sheep's clothing around here.

I am not one of them. I have made no secret about my ideological background here. I was a life-long Republican voter until the 2006 elections, primarily for their pro-firearm stance and what I thought was a good fiscal policy. I voted for George Bush twice - I knew he was an idiot but I figured at least his handlers would steer the party along the usual Republican lines. By 2006, I could no longer deny that the "war on terror" was a huge mistake, and we were blowing trillions of dollars on corporatism and war profiteering, all the while massively eroding civil liberties. Consequently I found "my" party was putting us on the road to tyranny while blowing trillions of dollars on what basically amounts to a giant Iraqi welfare project. And so I figured it was time to overlook the firearm issue for the sake of restoring the balance of civil liberty and, if we are going to spend money on social programs, at least spend them on American social programs. I figure if we've got trillions upon trillions for nation building, war fighting, and corporate bailouts, then we ought to have enough for health care, Social Security, alternative energy, and countless other social programs benefiting Americans.

I don't think I am alone in this situation.

But I am not a "lock in". And attacking my second amendment rights will come at the cost of my vote.

Lordy lordy. Let me spell it out.

The Democrats and Obama won the election. Get over it.

Let me spell it out: I'm happy that the Democrats and Obama won the election. It is the right thing for this nation at this time, for all the reasons I stated above. But If they act on their anti-firearm agenda, I will help raise a storm to wipe them out of office as swiftly as they came in. I would rather change the Party policy!

The Democratic Party and its presidential candidate won the election.
With an assault weapons ban in its/his platform.
Much to the chagrin of so many Guns forum regulars.
And you can read that however you like.

Like I said: Don't assume there is a mandate on firearms restrictions. My support is theirs to lose. Enact legislation targeting the most popular center-fire target rifles in the country and you will have a fight on your hands.

[rangersmith82]

38. The problem for is...

I Trusted the President elect, thus I voted for him.

I own guns and wish to continue owning them.

He told me he would protect my constitutional right to own a firearm.

I trusted him why can't he trust me and let me continue to own my AR-15???

[iverglas]

39. well,

How's about you give him (and the entire population he represents and on whose behalf and in whose interests he is to act) all the same information about you as you have about him?

Call up CNN and invite them to spend a few weeks digging into your medical history, your finances, your school and employment record, your spouse's fashion choices, your distant acquaintances' political activities several decades ago, every sermon your clergyperson has delivered ...

Then we'll talk, 'k?

(Figure of speech -- we all know that I'm not part of that "we", I'm just sayin'.)

[gorfle]

40. Because....

How's about you give him (and the entire population he represents and on whose behalf and in whose interests he is to act) all the same information about you as you have about him?

Call up CNN and invite them to spend a few weeks digging into your medical history, your finances, your school and employment record, your spouse's fashion choices, your distant acquaintances' political activities several decades ago, every sermon your clergyperson has delivered ...

Because these things are not required to own AR-15s in this country, 'k?

[iverglas]

42. lordy lordy lordy

Have a word with your new protectorate, will you?

I wasn't the one who posited the analogy.

I could have said that you can't kill somebody with the Presidential seal offfice ... oh, all right, you could, but not likely from a distance of 50 feet, and likely not more than 3 people in a minute or so ...

[gorfle]

43. Yes, you were.

I wasn't the one who posited the analogy.

Yes, you were.

[iverglas]

44. lard bleedin jayzus

THE ANALOGY:

He told me he would protect my constitutional right to own a firearm.
I trusted him why can't he trust me and let me continue to own my AR-15???

It's DUMB. I guess I should have just said that and had done.

[gorfle]

45. That is not an analogy.

THE ANALOGY:

He told me he would protect my constitutional right to own a firearm.
I trusted him why can't he trust me and let me continue to own my AR-15???

An analogy is a comparison of one thing against another. The above is a statement followed by a question. It is not an analogy.

Your post, however, was an analogy, comparing your question to his question, when you said:

How's about you give him (and the entire population he represents and on whose behalf and in whose interests he is to act) all the same information about you as you have about him?

You made the analogy, by suggesting that he would be trusted with ownership of a firearm under the condition of being thoroughly investigated, which is analogous to the president being trusted to be president after his thorough investigation during his campaign.

It's DUMB. I guess I should have just said that and had done.

Indeed. Unsubstantiated opinion is what you seem to be best at.

[iverglas]

46. oh mi gawd

There is no reason to go on living.

[gorfle]

41. He probably will.

I trusted him why can't he trust me and let me continue to own my AR-15???

He probably will. I doubt very much there will be a movement to confiscate any firearms, or even register them.

But you can count on an attempt at a ban of any future sales of them.

[rangersmith82]

49. so is there gonna be a ban on selling AR-15s??

Why would congress ban the sale of private property??