Senate fails the country again.

[Tasslehofp99]

Thread title should read: Americans fail, elect politicians who are rich and don't care about protecting it's citizens or their freedom.




Thought people would have learned after what clinton did to our intelligence agencies and military spending to stop electing sissies as president. This country has gotten so weak in the last 20 years, wtb a hard ass motherfucking president who will protect his citizens and their rights.

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Tasslehofp99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Thread title should read: Americans fail, elect politicians who are rich and don't care about protecting it's citizens or their freedom.




Thought people would have learned after what clinton did to our intelligence agencies and military spending to stop electing sissies as president. This country has gotten so weak in the last 20 years, wtb a hard ass motherfucking president who will protect his citizens and their rights.

Are you really knocking the greatest 8 years this country has had since Kennedy?

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Kagatob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you believe you should have military style assault weapons designed to kill armored soldiers then where's my fucking loaded flak truck or M1A1 tank?

LMFAO

It's not the gun that is used to kill armored soldiers fuck stick.

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

LMFAO

It's not the gun that is used to kill armored soldiers fuck stick.

Incorrect. Go away now toolboy.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Kagatob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Incorrect. Go away now toolboy.

Oh? Please enlighten me on how the M16 or an AR15, without any bullets, is designed to take out an armored soldier.

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh? Please enlighten me on how the M16 or an AR15, without any bullets, is designed to take out an armored soldier.

The same way a car without gas is manufactured to get you from point A to point B. Semantics.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Kagatob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The same way a car without gas is manufactured to get you from point A to point B. Semantics.

No.


Rounds (bullet, shell, powder, etc) are designed for specific targets (armored, etc).

Guns are a delivery system. However, guns are designed less for the lethal part and more for accuracy, reliability, ease of use, weight, attachments, etc. It doesn't matter what type of delivery system you have on an armored target if your bullet doesn't meet the requirements.

An AP round in a hunting rifle will function just as well as in a "military styled (key fucking word there moron) assault rifle".

Caliber and the type of bullet is the lethal aspect of a gun's weapon system (on semi-automatics).

I'm guessing you think all black people with saggy pants and "do-rags" are gangsters and thugs because of how they are styled. Your view on guns is literally the same thing as this.

[Humerox]

id like to throw a poll up here for all the "conservatives" about legalizing pot, keeping church and state separate while tossing in a pro choice/life question and about 99% of all the "conservatives" here would land on the liberal side of the fence.

just sayin

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm guessing you think all black people with saggy pants and "do-rags" are gangsters and thugs because of how they are styled.

my family thinks so:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Gwence]

this was a lazy bill to be honest, can't say I care one way or the other that it didnt pass.

with that said, I'll remind you all that in any other developed democratic country around the world the bill would have passed with a 56% majority vote

for some reason we have a filibuster in this country that lets the losing side basically
"call shenanigans" and veto the bill.

The bigger issue here imo is the representation in the Senate, when the constitution was being written and the bill of rights and everything else the founding fathers put together none of them could have predicted that this country would evolve into 50 states and that some of those states (Montana, Alaska, Wyoming, etc etc) from a population standpoint would be much much less than our bigger states.

Why then do those states get an equal amount of representation in the Senate? They don't in the House... it doesn't make much sense for the Senate either.