Search results

Try rudeness. I hear Canadians aren't used to that.

Being Canadian, I guess you'll just have to go with a bolt-action .303 or maybe a lever-action .30-30. Sorry.

You could probably pick up a Browning .30 cal machine gun for $30,000 (greenbacks, not Monopoly money). An M2 .50 cal'd cost you more.

I have the greatest enthusiasm for the mission, Dave.

Hail to the Redskins!

You'd need a tax stamp for a Class III weapon, Federally. Plus whatever your state required. One of the DuPont heirs used to like to run around his estate in Pennsylvania in an M-113 armored personnel carrier.

Refer to the thread title. All of these are "gun control" measures, ergo, presumably "completely useless." I regard the term to mean "will not prevent a single potential shooting." Do you have a different definition for "completely useless" than "having no effect whatever on the outcome it...

Maybe that's one reason why Canada has about 1/3 of the U.S.'s gun homicide rate. Or maybe they're all "completely useless."

Opinion Check. . . which of the following gun control measures is useless? 1. Banning private ownership of fully automatic weapons. 2. Banning private ownership of semi-automatic, clip-fed weapons. 3. Limiting clip size of semi-automatic weapons. 4. Forbidding violent felons from ever...

By the way, I'm not sure what the Canadian definition of a felony is, but here the Supreme Court has said that any crime punishable by a maximum over a year is a felony, regardless of what the prosecution is asking for.

Just guns. The rule is, for example, if you rob somebody with a knife, it's whatever the sentence for armed robbery is. If you use a gun, it's that plus five years, often with no parole on the five years.

One way or another, that's true everywhere. If it's not explicitly written into the law, anything with a gun becomes aggravated assault or assault with a deadly weapon, both felonies.

No, that's a five-year add-on to the base sentence for the violent felony. Most violent felonies are already in the 10-20 year range. Armed robbery, 10 years or whatever the state law says. Use a gun, add 5 without parole.

Yeah, most states have a five-year add-on for using a gun in a crime. Boy, that sure did the trick!

He knows. He's dodging again.

OK, thank you for that round-up of retard.

I like your idea, though. No, seriously. It sounds stupid at first reading, but think about it. . . maybe some kind of national "vote of no confidence?" Structure it so. . . maybe periodically, or upon some trigger, the VOTERS could have a national referendum to kick out the President/PM? As...

We MUST do something to stop the inhuman travesty of texting while having/performing abortions! Interestingly, the Supreme Court is also about to drop a case challenging the New York state law on when and under what circumstances one can carry a gun. If they continue their right-wing rampage...

Have the airlines asked for a bump in "fuel surcharge," like they did when gas hit four bucks a gallon a few years back? Then never gave up when it dropped back to two bucks a gallon, and lower?

Well, you didn't get it from all the obvious statements that indicated it, so I wasn't sure even the direct statement would get through the thick bone into the shit. You're a spectacularly obtuse specimen; all need, fear, and stupidity.