Performance Boats Forum banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
976 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Did any of you guys see the speach she made on the magazine ban crap? "It's a Federal regulation that you hunt ducks in this country with no more than three bullets in your gun." she says first then "But it's legal to hunt humans with a 30,50,100, round clip" What is up with this dumb bitch? I didn't think there was anywhere you COULD hunt humans in this country. WTF:signhuh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,449 Posts
She is my Senator, after I saw her little lame rant at Sen. Cruz. I e-mailed her, with the observation that her ignorance was a disgrace to the office and suggested she should retire. Does anyone think I will get a reply?
 

·
I don't feel tardy
Joined
·
845 Posts
She is my Senator, after I saw her little lame rant at Sen. Cruz. I e-mailed her, with the observation that her ignorance was a disgrace to the office and suggested she should retire. Does anyone think I will get a reply?
Yes Joe and it will more than likely be very similar to the reply that I received from the Hag.

Dear Dave:

Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to assault weapons legislation. I respect your opinion on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to provide my point of view.

Mass shootings are a serious problem in our country, and I have watched this problem get worse and worse over the 40 years I have been in public life. From the 1966 shooting rampage at the University of Texas that killed 14 people and wounded 32 others, to the Newtown massacre that killed 20 children and 6 school teachers and faculty, I have seen more and more of these killings. I have had families tell me that they no longer feel safe in a mall, in a movie theater, in their business, and in other public places, because these deadly weapons are so readily available. These assault weapons too often fall into the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, gangs, and the deranged.

I recognize that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to bear arms, but I do not believe that right is unlimited or that it precludes taking action to prevent mass shootings. Indeed, in the same Supreme Court decision that recognized the individual right to bear arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court also held that this right, like other constitutional rights, is not unlimited. That is why assault weapons bans have consistently been upheld in the courts, both before and after the Heller decision. I believe regulation of these weapons is appropriate.


Once again, thank you for your letter. Although we may disagree, I appreciate hearing from you and will be mindful of your thoughts as the debate on this issue continues. If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,


Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
 

·
a.k.a. "Mean Pair"
Joined
·
5,962 Posts
Yes Joe and it will more than likely be very similar to the reply that I received from the Hag.

Dear Dave:

Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to assault weapons legislation. I respect your opinion on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to provide my point of view.

Mass shootings are a serious problem in our country, and I have watched this problem get worse and worse over the 40 years I have been in public life. From the 1966 shooting rampage at the University of Texas that killed 14 people and wounded 32 others, to the Newtown massacre that killed 20 children and 6 school teachers and faculty, I have seen more and more of these killings. I have had families tell me that they no longer feel safe in a mall, in a movie theater, in their business, and in other public places, because these deadly weapons are so readily available. These assault weapons too often fall into the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, gangs, and the deranged.

I recognize that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to bear arms, but I do not believe that right is unlimited or that it precludes taking action to prevent mass shootings. Indeed, in the same Supreme Court decision that recognized the individual right to bear arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court also held that this right, like other constitutional rights, is not unlimited. That is why assault weapons bans have consistently been upheld in the courts, both before and after the Heller decision. I believe regulation of these weapons is appropriate.


Once again, thank you for your letter. Although we may disagree, I appreciate hearing from you and will be mindful of your thoughts as the debate on this issue continues. If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,


Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
That's the same one I got when I asked how to care for my new goldfish.:wink2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,509 Posts
Yes Joe and it will more than likely be very similar to the reply that I received from the Hag.

Dear Dave:

Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to assault weapons legislation. I respect your opinion on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to provide my point of view.

Mass shootings are a serious problem in our country, and I have watched this problem get worse and worse over the 40 years I have been in public life. From the 1966 shooting rampage at the University of Texas that killed 14 people and wounded 32 others, to the Newtown massacre that killed 20 children and 6 school teachers and faculty, I have seen more and more of these killings. I have had families tell me that they no longer feel safe in a mall, in a movie theater, in their business, and in other public places, because these deadly weapons are so readily available. These assault weapons too often fall into the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, gangs, and the deranged.

I recognize that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to bear arms, but I do not believe that right is unlimited or that it precludes taking action to prevent mass shootings. Indeed, in the same Supreme Court decision that recognized the individual right to bear arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court also held that this right, like other constitutional rights, is not unlimited. That is why assault weapons bans have consistently been upheld in the courts, both before and after the Heller decision. I believe regulation of these weapons is appropriate.


Once again, thank you for your letter. Although we may disagree, I appreciate hearing from you and will be mindful of your thoughts as the debate on this issue continues. If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,


Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator


I sugest you write back and open the salutation with,

Dianne, YOU STUPID BITCH! or maybe,

Dianne, YOU IGNORANT SLUT and close with


we don't give a rats ass what YOU think!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
784 Posts
Sad to see that they only push for the cause they want, what is the real issue? Dianne F. is wrong and should look for the real issue. A few things on the bell tower sniper, he killed his wife and mother with a Knife, Charlie Whitman had killed fourteen people and injured dozens more in a little over ninety minutes. It soon became known that Charlie had sought the help of Dr. Heatly some months before. He had no Assault rifles, 35 caliber Remington rifle, a 6mm Remington rifle with a scope, a 357 Magnum Smith & Wesson revolver, a 9mm Luger pistol, and a Galesi-Brescia pistol. Later that morning he would buy two more weapons, a 30 caliber M-1 carbine and a 12-gauge shotgun this according to articles.
How about what happened to Noveske, Very sad read John Noveske’s last Facebook post » Prominent rifle manufacturer killed in mysterious car crash days after posting psych drug link to school shooters Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,975 Posts
They ALL are so ignorant its beyond belief. Mass killings. Are you kidding? She has no idea what mass killings look like. But she may learn.
Its time they ALL learn that hunting ducks is not why we have the 2nd amendment. Nobody in the 1780s was thinking about hunting when they DEMANDED that the Bill of Rights be written. Its a stupid as saying you have the freedom of speech, SO LONG AS ITS NOT AGAINST ANY BRANCH OR AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

Every member of the full congress, the executive branch and courts needs a picture like this hanging in their office titled "WHY WE HAVE THE 2ND AMENDMENT"
THEY , none of them, are comfortable with the fact that THEY are the reason for the 2nd amendment. They REFUSE to accept that.





100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,509 Posts
They ALL are so ignorant its beyond belief. Mass killings. Are you kidding? She has no idea what mass killings look like. But she may learn.
Its time they ALL learn that hunting ducks is not why we have the 2nd amendment. Nobody in the 1780s was thinking about hunting when they DEMANDED that the Bill of Rights be written. Its a stupid as saying you have the freedom of speech, SO LONG AS ITS NOT AGAINST ANY BRANCH OR AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

Every member of the full congress, the executive branch and courts needs a picture like this hanging in their office titled "WHY WE HAVE THE 2ND AMENDMENT"
THEY , none of them, are comfortable with the fact that THEY are the reason for the 2nd amendment. They REFUSE to accept that.



No truer words than this, our elected officials are worried about saving their own asses!


While we're on the subject, let's get right down to their push to get rid of OUR GUNS!!!!

It is becoming painfully evident that our watch dogs, that we voted in, have legislated so much of our wealth away that we common folk will never be able to pay the interest much less the balance. We owe trillions of dollars besides the national debt that we will never will be able to pay for it. When that day comes for collecting those debts "the shit is going to hit the fan" and your going to need your guns to protect yourself from those who come to collect! RUBBISH YOU SAY, wait and see, it's coming!!!! That's the REAL reason they want you guns. Be a 'new order patriot' and be prepared to fight for your own possestions!!!!!!!!!!!!

Doubters, book mark this responce, as sure as I'm sitting here it'll happen, maybe not today maybe not tomorrow, but it's coming!!!

and that's the REAL reason for this interest in gun control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,975 Posts
No truer words than this, our elected officials worried about saving their own asses!
R&J posted awhile back that if you don't want the government to hunt you down and kill you with a drone, its best not to fight you government. :duh:
I guess we should all be thankful that HE wasn't around in 1776.
The government, all the presidents, all the members of congress, of all the sessions, and all the members of all the courts, and all the agencies, throughout the history of the country are THEE reason for the 2nd amendment.

My VERSION of R&Js post is: maybe it would be in the best interest of the goverment not to go against the PEOPLE, and the CONSTITUTION.
The PEOPLE and CONSTITUTION are the LAW in this country. Not the government, or the courts. WE AND THAT PAPER ARE! The paper CANNOT defend itself. That is SUPPOSE to be the job of the military. When they FAIL(epic), then it falls on us!
Regardless what some military types may try to convince otherwise, being a branch of the government, even they are a potentially a usefull tool of a tyranntical (illegal) government if they CHOOSE to be.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,509 Posts
R&J posted awhile back that if you don't want the government to hunt you down and kill you with a drone, its best not to fight you government. :duh:
I guess we should all be thankful that HE wasn't around in 1776.
The government, all the presidents, all the members of congress, of all the sessions, and all the members of all the courts, and all the agencies, throughout the history of the country are THEE reason for the 2nd amendment.

My VERSION of R&Js post is: maybe it would be in the best interest of the goverment not to go against the PEOPLE, and the CONSTITUTION.
The PEOPLE and CONSTITUTION are the LAW in this country. Not the government, or the courts. WE AND THAT PAPER ARE! The paper CANNOT defend itself. That is SUPPOSE to be the job of the military. When they FAIL(epic), then it falls on us!
Regardless what some military types may try to convince otherwise, being a branch of the government, even they are a potentially a usefull tool of a tyranntical (illegal) government if they CHOOSE to be.

Back up and read my amended post, it's coming and that's the real reason for the renewed interest in GUN THEFT!!!!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,975 Posts
Back up and read my amended post, it's coming and that's the real reason for the renewed interest in GUN THEFT!!!!!
I did re read you post after you edited it. :))THumbsUp
I use to believe that it would hit the fan and it would be a offensive strike by the people against the government. I have since reconsidered that belief.
If you have seen the video of the people at the welfare office get rowdy, you can see the real cause of the STHF.

Throughout the country, systematically, the government has delayed welfare payments, and the reloading of EBT cards, sometimes including SS deposits. Its my belief they are doing this to test the waters and observe the impact and reactions.

NOW, imagine full scale failure to fund welfare, and possibly SS. Not to sure what the impact of the SS failures will be. Many MAY have other means of income to get them by, FOR AWHILE.
But, imagine all the people that make up the welfare rosters. Look at the people in the video. Imagine THOSE people on the streets. Protesting at first, then LOOKING FOR FOOD AND CASH!

The REAL question at that point, when it gets BAD, which side of the problem will the military be on? Which side will the government put the forces? Will they say they are PROTECTING the less fortunate, or will they protect the LAW OF THE LAND, and side with the tax paying citizens.

When grocery stores are raided by flash mobs, are the mobs protected because they are only trying to survive, and feed their illegimate babies, or does the store owner have the right to smoke their useless asses?
When there is a racial riot, and the looting is out of control, ever see the police shooting them on sight? Think YOU can defend you store without legal reprecussions? The Koreans did, but they were very well informed it was FROWNED ON by the LAPD for doing so. For the most part the rioters backdown to them. But what if they hadn't, and it became a full scale shooting war. Where would the LAPD, National Guard, or even standing federal military forces stand on this.

I will tell you. WE have all been told here already. Many times. With the POTUS. Becuase if the POTUS orders it, and the AG nods, and the courts remain silent, it LAW to them. The Constitution is worthless at that point.

I have always thought this was one of the most important statements ever made my a former POTUS. It pointed out BOLDLY, what too many people actually believe today, including way too many wearing uniforms, including those at the top giving the orders.


REALLY?!?!?!?
Nixon - When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal - YouTube



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
976 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
They ALL are so ignorant its beyond belief. Mass killings. Are you kidding? She has no idea what mass killings look like. But she may learn.
Its time they ALL learn that hunting ducks is not why we have the 2nd amendment. Nobody in the 1780s was thinking about hunting when they DEMANDED that the Bill of Rights be written. Its a stupid as saying you have the freedom of speech, SO LONG AS ITS NOT AGAINST ANY BRANCH OR AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

Every member of the full congress, the executive branch and courts needs a picture like this hanging in their office titled "WHY WE HAVE THE 2ND AMENDMENT"
THEY , none of them, are comfortable with the fact that THEY are the reason for the 2nd amendment. They REFUSE to accept that.


Now here is a man that KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS exactly what I meant when I started this thread........"As a last resort,against tyranny":))THumbsUp.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
976 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Oh, and Jake you are right on with your post also.............Let me say this as far as the comment that it would not be wise to fight your government.Yes,it it a good thing he and pussies like him weren't there for the Revolutionary War.People like him are the zombies,just standing around with there hand out,and doing what ever their government tells them too.........Come on man,grow a dick,or cut off what you have,because you sure as hell ain't using them........................
 

·
Member
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
For all you libbies out there, this is what a loooooooser looks like. Ask yourself, do I want to look like this? "Well do ya, punk?":happy:

feinstein_20130319_141553.jpg
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top