Speakeasy forum


Typical Dem idiocy

by TONI H / March 21, 2013 9:11 AM PDT

NY Gov Cuomo.......just passed a law restricting gun clips to no more than 7.

Now he's having to amend his own stupid law.....gun clips don't hold anything less than 10. So his answer to that problem?

Change the law to state, clips can HOLD ten bullets but you will break the law if you LOAD any more than 7 at a time in the clip.

Good grief...........how did this dumb-a## get elected?

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Typical Dem idiocy
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Typical Dem idiocy
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Now we need the shooter's law
by James Denison / March 21, 2013 9:13 AM PDT
In reply to: Typical Dem idiocy

No group may consist of more than 7 people at a time. Wink

Collapse -
by TONI H / March 21, 2013 9:20 AM PDT
Collapse -
He also had to amend it
by TONI H / March 21, 2013 9:21 AM PDT

immediately after passing it because he forgot to waive the law for cops.........

Dumb and dumber every day he serves.

Collapse -
I'll grant you.....
by Josh K / March 21, 2013 10:54 PM PDT

.....that the provision that a 10-round magazine can't have more than 7 bullets in it is unenforceable. Gun makers DO make 7-round magazines; they just don't make many of them. I also Googled and found nothing referencing "forgot to waive the law for cops."

I love the logic behind needing 100-round magazines though. "What if 100 people break into my house?" Heck, you can use that logic to justify 1,000 round clips. But then, what if 1,001 people storm your house....

Collapse -
I provided one of those links too
by Josh K / March 22, 2013 12:31 AM PDT
In reply to: links

It clearly states that nobody "forgot to waive the law for cops."

I wonder how long it will take for you NRA lemmings to figure out that these laws are designed to make it harder for criminals to get guns, and that it's the NRA with their opposition to background checks or ANY form of accountability who want to make it easier for criminals to get guns. Why? Because a lot of their funding comes from people who sell guns, and the more they sell, the more money everyone makes. It's blood money. That's what this is about. The rhetoric people like you keep falling for is how they get support for it.

Collapse -
Keep drinking that leftist Kool-Aid
by TONI H / March 22, 2013 1:56 AM PDT

You puppet every word they spout and believe it to be from God's lips.......

Collapse -
RE: he forgot to waive the law for cops.........
by JP Bill / March 21, 2013 11:53 PM PDT
Collapse -
Those pearl handled revolvers were not military issue
by Josh K / March 22, 2013 12:07 AM PDT

Technically he was in violation of military law by wearing them. He might even have been "out of uniform."

Collapse -
I've studied Patton and he took extreme offense when someone
by Tony Holmes / March 22, 2013 2:27 AM PDT

referred to his pistols as being "Pearl handled" when they were indeed Ivory handled. Happy

"Only a pimp in a New Orleans whorehouse or a tin-horn gambler would carry a pearl-handled pistol."

Technically he was not in violation of any military codes by wearing those pistols.(Colt 45 on right hip,S&W 357magnum on left hip).Most other officers and all enlisted men would have been in violation but not Patton.

Being a General when he entered the action of WWII, Patton had the prerogative of "designing" his own uniform. This privilege allowed him to wear those pistols and any other accoutrements as he desired.

Collapse -
The new law is actually a modification of an existing law...
by Josh K / March 22, 2013 12:13 AM PDT
Collapse -
If Cuomo wasn't worried
by TONI H / March 22, 2013 12:32 AM PDT

about the existing law no longer being in effect with his NEW law, he wouldn't have bothered to rewrite the new one. He HAD to rewrite to make sure his new law couldn't be challenged over HIS forgetful omission.

Bite me, Josh...........your insults are again getting wearisome. You are getting uglier and uglier with your comments.

Collapse -
I love it
by Josh K / March 22, 2013 12:35 AM PDT

You title a post "Typical Dem idiocy" and then complain about my attitude.

Collapse -
Your post makes no sense
by TONI H / March 22, 2013 1:58 AM PDT
In reply to: I love it

Your attitude isn't because of your politics......your attitude is about how insulting you have become.

But being a typical Dem/liberal.......when you have nothing new to add to the facts in a debate, you resort to name calling, insults, slurs, and accusations. Divert/deflect. You've gotten to be quite good at it since it's your first reaction now instead of one of your last.

Popular Forums
Computer Help 49,613 discussions
Computer Newbies 10,349 discussions
Laptops 19,436 discussions
Security 30,426 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 20,308 discussions
Windows 10 360 discussions
Phones 15,802 discussions
Windows 7 7,351 discussions
Networking & Wireless 14,641 discussions


Free trip to the Grand Prix

Don't miss your chance to win a trip to the Formula 1 Grand Prix in Monaco for you and a plus-one.