Up for Debate: AG opinion on 'guns-in-lots'

Thursday, May 30, 2013 at 12:35am

Do you agree with the state attorney general's opinion on the "guns-in-lots" legislation?

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

114 Comments on this post:

By: Blanketnazi2 on 5/30/13 at 2:21

Their corruption doesn't stand up against GW and Cheney? HA HA HA!

By: Loner on 5/30/13 at 2:22

Ben, are you alleging that the Obama Administration somehow orchestrated the timing of the publicity needed to incite global outrage over this highly inflammatory video?

...and why would President Obama want to deliberately stir up anti-US sentiment in the Muslim world on the anniversary of 9-11? What was in it for BHO, according to your fascinating theory, Doctor Dover?

By: Blanketnazi2 on 5/30/13 at 2:23

That's some good crack you're smokin', Ben. :)

By: BenDover on 5/30/13 at 2:32

No Loner... when the sh!t hit the fan over there, which was inevitable because the crazy towel-heads are... crazy; they used the video as an excuse rather than admit deposing US friendly governments in favor of crazy towel-heads might have a down-side to it.

The talking point that the media was happy to regurgitate endlessly and headline every story with prior to the election was, "The crazies actually love Obama and the US... they just hate this movie on youtube that only about 17 people in the world have actually seen."

By: bfra on 5/30/13 at 3:01

Ben has got "blow up" on the brain & isn't thinking logically! Oh! Wait, he never does!

By: bfra on 5/30/13 at 3:15

Ben - The crazies actually love Obama and the US... they just hate this movie on youtube that only about 17 people in the world have actually seen."
============================================
Ben aka yogi - You shouldn't have any problem showing proof of these 17 people being the only ones, right?

By: brrrrk on 5/30/13 at 3:28

Study: Media Fact-Checker Says Republicans Lie More

http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_05_28_13.html

By: bfra on 5/30/13 at 3:30

brrrrk - This board is a good example of Repubs lying more.

By: Libertine on 5/30/13 at 3:38

By: Loner on 5/30/13 at 2:53

"Libertine Lectures Loner: Your irrational and unfounded fears are just silly Loner, none of the prophecies of carnage with expanded self defense rights have come to pass.

"Expanded self defense rights"? You mean like those rights exercised by the Nancy Lanza household? If the horror in Newtown CT wasn't carnage, I don't know what is."

You can double check, but I believe that murdering your mother, stealing your mother's guns, then using them to murder children in an elementary school was illegal. It had nothing to do with the legal ownership of self defense weapons. The only thing that would have stopped Adam Lanza was someone with a self defense firearm, too bad that was illegal since it was a gun free zone. Those children were much safer since it was illegal for any of those school administrators to defend themselves. Had the principal some administrator been armed there may have been less carnage, certainly not more.

By: dargent7 on 5/30/13 at 4:42

Always a pleasure arguing with a Repub.
So, there were rifles in 1789 capable of firing 22 rounds....as fast as a Glock?
And the "bar story" happens all the time in Tenn.
Waiters/ bartenders DO NOT like to wait on "carriers" who just sit there casing the place, looking for trouble to break out.

By: yogiman on 5/30/13 at 5:07

At least Ben has a brain to "blow up", bfra. It's a shame you don't.

By: Captain Nemo on 5/30/13 at 5:54

yogi has a half dead brain and the other half is just crap.

By: yogiman on 5/30/13 at 6:53

I understand your thoughts, dumba$$. Regrettably, you don't have enough mental capacity to comprehend what a working brain is.

By: Libertine on 5/30/13 at 7:34

Actually I am an independent. I am not arguing, just stating fact. Yes there were rifles in 1789 that held 22 bullets that shot all 22 with 22 pulls of the trigger. I don't know if it was as fast as a glock since I have never shot one, but they were legal for citizens to own.

All the bars that I visit are posted and it is illegal for permit holders to enter them armed, drinking or not. In that situation, the carrier would probably be charged even if it wasn't posted.