Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL it's like getting a Victoria's Secret catalog and then getting smoked for the wanton ways of the models in it, calling them articals of a sexual nature. LOL
LOL it's like getting a Victoria's Secret catalog and then getting smoked for the wanton ways of the models in it, calling them articals of a sexual nature. LOL
Now hold on one cotton pickin minute! You leave Victoria's Secret catalog alone!! You can mess with the constitution, the bill of rights, even Texas, but you better not mess with my <ahem> research materials.
Now hold on one cotton pickin minute! You leave Victoria's Secret catalog alone!! You can mess with the constitution, the bill of rights, even Texas, but you better not mess with my <ahem> research materials.
Oh Brother, here I am savin souls, and all you can think of is black lace wearing an angels face.
Now hold on one cotton pickin minute! You leave Victoria's Secret catalog alone!! You can mess with the constitution, the bill of rights, even Texas, but you better not mess with my <ahem> research materials.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_Muz
Oh Brother, here I am savin souls, and all you can think of is black lace wearing an angels face.
Now don't get me wrong, it doesn't have to be black. White or red is nice too.
There is another issue involving firearms that deserve debate. The widespread marketing, advertising and sales of firearms. I illustrate this with my personal copy of the NRA's Rifleman Magazine and ads in it. What this Liberal voice is a card carrying NRA member! I am also an AARP member which has a blind spot to senior citizen entitlements so it shouldn't be such a surprise. Now I get Rifleman because it is a interesting read and I believe in knowing an opponent. Now I can see the ads for the John Wayne Commemorative Rifle, the cheap German Mausers from some cache in Texas(get em while they last) and the long range, night eqipped sniper scope (I can see a real need when I am out at night and want to bring a deer down ar 1500 ft). I even got a chuckle from an ad for The Officers Answer, I think it would have been better ad copy if it read "The Answer to Police Officers" but thats just me. Now the ad that went beyond the pale. The full page ad for "Cheaper Than Dirt" Americas Ultimate Shooting Sports Discounter where it is "Simply a click to buy at cheaper than dirt prices. Half the ad touts enhanced magazines, a 30 rounder for a Glock 17 is listed at $24.97. I didn't know you could get a spare magazines for your AK-47 for only $11.97. They also have a military style assault rifle with optical sight. I find an ad like this disgusting at many levels. I think something should be done. Years ago the airwaves and print media were chocked with advertising. for cigarrettes Cigarette ads had somes of Americas cultural icons. The Marlboro Man, The Camel, The Lucky Strike and the I'd Rather Fight than Switch Shinner of Benson and Hedges. We called for Phillip Morris , walked a mile for a Camel and wanted to be the debonair socialite with a Pall Mall.Well cigarrettes did measurable damage to the public well being and health. Although the 1st Ammendment protects free speach society recognized there are common sense limits and Congress and the FCC banned cigartette advertising on public airwaves and then later in print ads. Our airwaves and other media are not infested with ads for smoking or tobacco products. I think this is a place to start in the long battle to get gun fire out of American life and can't see that a advertising ban on guns, gun paraphenia and ammo has any problem with either the 2nd Ammendment or even the !st. Who agrees with this?
I think the only guns that should be protected or allowed to be advertised are the types of firearms that existed in 1775 - flintlocks.
This should also be the only class of firearms allowed to be carried with a permit. That would cut crime to the bone.
I think the only guns that should be protected or allowed to be advertised are the types of firearms that existed in 1775 - flintlocks.
This should also be the only class of firearms allowed to be carried with a permit. That would cut crime to the bone.
Really? I assume because you believe that the Bill of Rights only applies to technologies that existed at the time it was ratified. So then I also assume that the you believe that following is true.
You agree that there is no right to free speech on Radio, Television, or the Internet. That the Government can remove entire reports from any of those channels without any form of redress, or it can promote a State religion (or suppress any religion) using those channels.
You agree that there is no problem having DHS, BATFE, FBI, ICE, the Police, CIA, NSA, etc. quartered in your home (without your agreement), since the 3rd Amendment only applies to soldiers in time of peace, or in war except as prescribed by law.
You agree that the government has a right to unlimited phone tapping, access to your personal data on optical, magnetic or solid state memory storage (regardless of whether this is in your possession or hosted remotely), and can have free and unfettered access to your internet browsing history and Email.
You agree that the government could confiscate the rights and any profits to any intellectual property for no reason, since the only protection afforded is to private property.
You agree that the government could inflict on anyone in custody any psychoactive drugs in a means to obtain information, or to use any form of coercion that can be identified as only being if use post 1791, and cruel and unusual punishment at the time could not have included these practices.
If you do not agree with any of the above, then why not? What makes the 2nd Amendment so different from any of the other amendments?
I'm also bemused by the statement that only allowing Flintlocks would cut crime to the bone, how would it? Would it stop burglaries, muggings, rapes, robberies or even the use of modern firearms in commission of a crime? If so how?
There is another issue involving firearms that deserve debate. The widespread marketing, advertising and sales of firearms. I illustrate this with my personal copy of the NRA's Rifleman Magazine and ads in it. What this Liberal voice is a card carrying NRA member! I am also an AARP member which has a blind spot to senior citizen entitlements so it shouldn't be such a surprise. Now I get Rifleman because it is a interesting read and I believe in knowing an opponent. Now I can see the ads for the John Wayne Commemorative Rifle, the cheap German Mausers from some cache in Texas(get em while they last) and the long range, night eqipped sniper scope (I can see a real need when I am out at night and want to bring a deer down ar 1500 ft). I even got a chuckle from an ad for The Officers Answer, I think it would have been better ad copy if it read "The Answer to Police Officers" but thats just me. Now the ad that went beyond the pale. The full page ad for "Cheaper Than Dirt" Americas Ultimate Shooting Sports Discounter where it is "Simply a click to buy at cheaper than dirt prices. Half the ad touts enhanced magazines, a 30 rounder for a Glock 17 is listed at $24.97. I didn't know you could get a spare magazines for your AK-47 for only $11.97. They also have a military style assault rifle with optical sight. I find an ad like this disgusting at many levels. I think something should be done. Years ago the airwaves and print media were chocked with advertising. for cigarrettes Cigarette ads had somes of Americas cultural icons. The Marlboro Man, The Camel, The Lucky Strike and the I'd Rather Fight than Switch Shinner of Benson and Hedges. We called for Phillip Morris , walked a mile for a Camel and wanted to be the debonair socialite with a Pall Mall.Well cigarrettes did measurable damage to the public well being and health. Although the 1st Ammendment protects free speach society recognized there are common sense limits and Congress and the FCC banned cigartette advertising on public airwaves and then later in print ads. Our airwaves and other media are not infested with ads for smoking or tobacco products. I think this is a place to start in the long battle to get gun fire out of American life and can't see that a advertising ban on guns, gun paraphenia and ammo has any problem with either the 2nd Ammendment or even the !st. Who agrees with this?
I have bought alot of ammo from "Cheaper than Dirt". They are a great site. Tell me again.............. what is your problem with this retailer?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can mess with the constitution, the bill of rights, even Texas, but you better not mess with my <ahem> research materials. 
