Are "gun-rights" advocates who say they "need" combat-style weaponry to "protect the nation from dictatorship" dangerous anarchists who are endangering the REAL Second-Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans with their paranoid, anti-government rants?

“Isn’t it funny how “progressives” are always taking steps toward bigger government, which they insist can never be retraced… while simultaneously assuring voters they can be held accountable at the ballot box? How do you hold someone “accountable” for a disaster that can never be cleaned up? Why does anyone fall for that?”

. . .

Enter the non-President and his un-Administration

By: John Hayward

Where would you get ammo for a 105 mom gun? Beats me, I don't own one, so I rarely have a need to buy it. It's clearly available to those who hold the proper licenses for destructive devices. Check out "Son's Of Guns" on Discovery Channel on Friday nights. They seem to be able to find a source for some really arcane firearm ammo. They use the 105 mom Recoilless Rifle for avalanche prevention, they fire high up on mountain slopes to get the snow to fall away under controlled circumstances.

You likely ain't gonna find it at gun shows, or your local gun, ammo and bait store.

YEAH MUNSTER! That would explain Obama having General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt serve as head of his "Jobs Creation Council" the same year that GE paid NO CORPORATE INCOME TAXES!

That's REALLY lookin out for the little guy there isn't it, Munster? You Twit.

No greek, I disagree with you! The effort that Munster puts into his diatribes tells me that he too believes in the literal social transformation of America just as much as idol Obama.

Perhaps it's because of mistaken choices in employment, on Munster's part, that he feels boxed-in and sees Obama's rampant liberal policies as his only means of continued sustenance. If my suspicion is accurate, that makes Munster SELFISH... on top of displaying bad judgment.

Aye aye Kunect. We need to own weapons because morons like Munster are too easily convinced that everyone that owns a gun is a psycho like Lanza and the wierdo in Colorado.

YOU just keep right on feeling that way, Bud.

There's also "NO VALID REASON" to listen to you.

"Study sheds light on guns"

You can find the entire study and its findings at: h ttp://b it.l y/15A2Gtx

Sam Ludtman

Reno

GOSH, DARN IT MUNSTER!!!! That study was conducted WITH Americans having access to military-APPEARING weapons.

Here is the truth . . .

If you are as hostile, volatile, and aggressive in person as you are here . . . There is NO VALID REASON for you own any weapon.

Fact: Some do slip trough the cracks in GUN background checks.

Your problem is you start with name-calling, insults, and wild claims.

If you tell the TRUTH you shouldn't need any "name-calling, insults, and wild claims".

FACT: Criminals and the mentally ill ignore Gun Laws just as Munster ignores the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy with his name-calling and insults.

See Munster postings for an example of this TRUTH.

FACT: Criminals and the mentally ill ignore Gun Laws just as Munster ignores the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy with his name-calling and insults.

Phishing for personal information?

No free, I read very well. IF you can quailfy for the licenses required for destructive devices, and you've got deep enough pockets to afford the gun itself (just a WAG, probably a third of a million dollars, or more), and still have a few thousand per round left over, you too can own such a device. I even know a guy who has a WW-II tank, a Patton I believe, with a working cannon.

You'd probably want to invest in some major real estate to be able to shoot though, those critters have some range to them, even at low charge per round.

You'd be better off with a mortar, you can elevate the tube enouugh that you can bring the round down right beside you. Be sure to duck!

WTF are YOU talking about Munster? You're questioning stickhauler about the possibility of owning "105mm howitzer with ....ammo" when he just told you it was possible IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT and YOU accuse HIM of "you didn't read it all or just decided to leave out one piece of info"

ARE you incredibly stupid or simply unable to comprehend what you've JUST BEEN TOLD?

I think, through his recent absence here, your old buddy "I use my REAL NAME" oneill is beginning to understand that the corruption of Obama can not hide from the light much longer and he (oneill) doesn't want to go down as The Village Fool. It's an abject lesson to which YOU may want to pay attention.

You can own a 105 mm, all it takes is the license, and either a loaded wallet or credit cards with unlimited credit level. They're pretty expensive, as is the ammo. And getting the license to allow you to own destructive devices takes a lot of time and effort. You also have to notify law enforcement any time you transport it anywhere.

Yeah and still .......!If it were necessary, maybe, everyone would debate this issue like Munster with repetitive CUT & PASTE posts filled with name-calling, insults, and wild claims but there is absolutely NO one good reason or a NO good legitimate reason to act like Munster. (sarcasm)

Colt AR-15 at South Parkersburg Walmart -$1457.

It is a long a s s list..

AND Bloomberg, and Cuomo, and Feinstein the list is growing bigger. For a full list see w ww .gunowners .o rg / fs0302.htm

Kunect - and people like Munster and Oneill.!! Well said.

And NONE of those features make a semi-auto "modern sporting rifle" any more dangerous than any other weapon.

I don't need a valid, or legitimate reason to own any legal firearm I may choose to possess. All you're willing to offer as a reason to ban firearms is some silly emotional response to actions of a crazy person. Why don't we ban crazy people instead?