Monday, November 10, 2008

At Least One U.S. Industry is Doing Well

I guess some people didn't buy Obama's voicing support for the Second Amendment during the campaign so they're buying guns after his victory.

Fair enough.

UPDATE: Make that two, and can I have fries with that?

39 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

More idiots clinging to their guns. Maybe the rule should be you that can't have more guns than there are digits in your I.Q.

November 10, 2008 at 9:39 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Everyone should gun-up before the Radical Leftist gun-grabber assumes the presidency.

The stock market just had its worst week ever and its worst week after a presidential election. They are scared to death of the impending Obama presidency.
And let’s not forget a couple others things that his voters elected to ignore as they blindly voted race and anti-Bush:
A consortium of industry executives warned that Obama’s policies will be disastrous. Obama himself is partly responsible for the economic mess we find ourselves in since he was one of the racial agitators who bullied banks into making unqualified black mortgages that their business sense told them not to.
It’s being said all over that sending Obama to fix this mess is like sending the arsonist to put out the fire he started.
But at least we got our first black president… [eye roll] idiots.

November 10, 2008 at 12:13 PM 
Anonymous r said...

More emotional idiots fearful of guns. What’s it matter how many guns someone has? Does it really matter if someone has one or 1000 guns when they can only be used one at a time? Besides, the law abiding gun owner is not a problem anyway. Very, very rarely are legally owned guns used for street crime or murders. Hardly ever, to being not even worth mention.

Fear not the legal gun owner but fear the gun-fearing Liberal who would trample your rights for nothing more than their shrill irrational feelings.

November 10, 2008 at 3:19 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fear the idiots and reactionary bigots with guns.

November 10, 2008 at 11:44 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Right on "R":

Law abiding gun owners are no threat to anyone other than a liberal. The people that voted for Obama are feelers and not thinkers, and that is pathetic. If the public refuses to think and understand the world, we are in real trouble.

November 11, 2008 at 6:01 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"law abiding" gun owners are only "law abiding" because the laws are so weak that irresponsible people are allowed to own massive amounts of firepower.

So, the racists voting against Obama for his skin color were the "thinkers" you admire?

Too many people listened to "thinkers" like you regarding Iraq and Bush's other policies. That's what caused all the "real trouble" we have now.

The first step in treatment is to admit you have a problem. Keep working on it.

November 11, 2008 at 10:11 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Scott - You said "Law abiding gun owners are no threat to anyone other than a liberal." If you only knew! A co-worker of mine recently took his own life with a shotgun. Although everyone at work knew he was unstable and very paranoid, he was never in trouble with the law until recently. Several months before his death, he had threatened his with with a gun. She called 911, and a swat team raided his house in S. Phila.
They removed 13 guns. After the incident, while awaiting trial, he told me that he had this vision. His life would eventualy end in a shootout with the police, and that he would take some police with him. Considering the fact that not only did they confiscate his guns at home, but they also went through his locker at work, we thought that this would be resolved without anymore conflict, and his co-workers encouraged him to seek counseling. Unfortunatly he was able to obtain a 12 guage shotgun several days before his trial. He violated a restraining order, went back to his house, and once again threatened his wife. As she was attempting to escape, he shot himself. This same family had lost a son 15 years ago. Also a suicide by one of his fathers guns.

Scott, many of the gun owners that I know, have anger issues, or are drinkers. This one was mentaly unstable, and he had a small arsenal. Imagine how many people in this country buy guns because they are paranoid. I'm glad he didn't have the opportunity to take any police with him. It sure as hell doesnt make me feel any safer.

November 11, 2008 at 10:42 AM 
Anonymous Joe said...

If anonymous is correct, I had better get out there and buy more guns! Clearly anonymous doesn't have any guns due to the rule he/she created. Zero IQ, Zero guns. Good rule.

November 11, 2008 at 10:45 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Laugh at the shrill reactionary Liberal idiots, bigots and cowards who irrationally fear guns and would trample your right to satisfy their childish feelings.

November 11, 2008 at 11:50 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Bob:

That is a sad story, but hardly a justification for getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. I know of people that are deranged and they drive cars into people, or they drive off the road intentionally to hurt themselves and their passengers. Should cars be banned too, or should we just ban the big ones or the fast ones.

While we are at it, what about banning speech that people dont like or the types that incite hatered and unrest.

Obama will make us one big happy family. My advice to you is buy your guns now before they are illegal.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

November 11, 2008 at 1:18 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Bob:

One last thing, if your house is being broken into and your wife and children are their, how do you defend them without a weapon (preferably a gun)? Did you know that you do not have a constitutional right to police protection? That means if you call them to save your butt and they show up late or not at all that you are SOL.

Think about it!

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

November 11, 2008 at 1:20 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe the Blogger-
plenty smart enough to qualify for more guns than hands, and smart enough to know better.
BTW, with your zero I.Q., you're too dumb to realize that 0 can still be a one-digit number.

You are also likely to point the wrong end at yourself.

November 11, 2008 at 1:30 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Scott- Im all for the second amendment. So is Obama. No one is going to take your guns away.
I was just pointing out how rediculous your statement was- "Law abiding gun owners are no threat to anyone other than a liberal" Its just more hype.

November 12, 2008 at 8:23 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Scott- Here's another example of irresponsible gun owners - WESTFIELD, Mass. - An 8-year-old boy died after accidentally shooting himself in the head while firing an Uzi submachine gun under adult supervision at a gun fair"

Again, your statement- "Law abiding gun owners are no threat to anyone other than a liberal"
This kid must have been a liberal. Right Scott?

Do you see how hollow your pro gun talking points are?

November 12, 2008 at 11:32 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Scott - you said "Did you know that you do not have a constitutional right to police protection? That means if you call them to save your butt and they show up late or not at all that you are SOL". I have thought about this. You want a shotgun to protect your house? I have absolutely no problem with that. But who needs 13 weapons? An arsenal! Who needs assault weapons? My argument is not to abolish the second amendment. Its for more government regulation.

November 12, 2008 at 11:39 AM 
Anonymous r said...

To say that Obama is "all for the second amendment" is a lie. His record on gun rights says otherwise.
Are you Libs teaching your kids to lie the way you do so freely here?

Still waiting for gun-fearing Libs to post signs on their front lawns declaring for the world to see that theirs is a "Gun-Free Home!". Lol...

November 12, 2008 at 11:42 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

r, have you posted your "intelligence-free home" sign?

oh, right, you did have a McCain/Palin sign. nevermind. a second sign would be redundant.

November 12, 2008 at 12:11 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Bob:

If your justification for gun control is because of accidental deaths, how about we ban swimming pools and automobiles, which accidentally kill more children than guns do.

How about we ban obnoxious and controversial speech? How about we ban foods that are fattening? How about we ban ignorance?

Do you see where this goes?

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

November 12, 2008 at 1:31 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Just like the right to free speech, at what point is too much regulation a violation of that right?

November 12, 2008 at 2:03 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Obama on the 2nd ""There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation, just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation."

November 12, 2008 at 4:20 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Scott - you keep using the word "ban". I'm not suggesting we "ban" gun ownership. Obama never proposed that either. If he has, please show me where. I would oppose that 100%. You are the one that made this statement "Law abiding gun owners are no threat to anyone other than a liberal". I was simply pointing out the obvious. That your statement is a hollow talking point. But regulation is necessary. You mentioned cars, swimming pools, etc. They all have regulations, don't they? You want to own a shotgun to protect your house? I have no problem with that. You want to own an RPG? I have a problem with that.You make it sound like the Obama administration is going to take away your guns. I'd like to make a wager with you. I bet you $100 to the charity of your choice, that by the end of Obamas first term in office, no one will have attempted to take away any guns that you now legaly own. Nor will this administration try to ban gun ownership. Put your money where your mouth is. Are you in?

November 13, 2008 at 7:33 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Scott- So we are clear on this, I'm not betting that the administration will try to outlaw private ownership of assault weapons. I hope they do. I'm betting that no one from the government comes to you and asks you to surrender any of your weapons, or trys to eliminate the second amendment.

November 13, 2008 at 10:52 AM 
Anonymous r said...

More intellectual dishonesty from the gun-fearing blind Obama defenders. We well know what Leftist Obama considers “common-sense regulation” of guns when he voted to ban all semiautomatic handguns –which would essentially outlaw all handguns. He will hang further gun grabbing on his Radical Liberal contrived interpretation of the term “common-sense regulation”. Libs are all about such word games and slippery slope implementation. He may not ban guns outright but he’ll curtail the purchase of them. Bet on this.

November 13, 2008 at 11:28 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Bob:

As it stands now, Heller states that outright bans are unconstitutional. What Barack Hussein Obama will do is ban semi auto rifles, semi auto handguns, and semi auto shotguns, hi capacity magazines, and he will seek to increase the excise tax on firearms and ammuition to make it so expensive so as to discourage purchasing, especially by those that are in his middle class.

An Obama administration will not stop there either, it will also expand hate crimes legislation and will start to criminalize religious speech. If you don't believe that, read what he advocates on his website, under faith, as follows:
"Senator Obama also laid down principles for how to discuss faith in a pluralistic society, including the need for religious people to translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values during public debate".

Interesting stuff, and I have an idea what he wants to do and how he will do it.

You can see how it will be under an Obama Administration first hand on Monday, November 17, 2008 at 330 p.m. and Courtroom 6A of the Federal Courthouse. I will be arguing a case where I have a client who was arrested and charged with 2 crimes for standing outside the Liberty Bell preaching and holding a Bible. The assistant US Attorney who prosecuted my client does not like any pro life message or any negative discussion about homosexuality.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

November 13, 2008 at 4:07 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Great article in the paper today, Mr. S. The Libs at the DT must hate having to report such things. Lol… I’m surprised they’d quote you.

Hey, one thing that stood out… Can your average law-abiding person really still buy fully automatic weapons in the U.S.? I didn’t know that.

November 13, 2008 at 5:57 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Scott - good job. Just what we need. Randal with a fully automatic weapon. So here's a question for you Scott. Why do you feel the need to own a machine gun?
Give me a realistic scenario where a machine gun will come in handy as opposed to, say, a double barrell shot gun. How many cases can you cite where a person has used a machine gun in self defense?
I'm not asking for an explanation about your rights. We've already covered that. I want to know if you realy believe you will ever have the chance to use it? What is it that you fear that makes it necessary for you to own a machine gun?
Also, thanks for the invitation to the court house. I might take you up on it. My GF is visiting from N.H., so if she's ok with it, I might see you there. Should make for an interesting afternoon. If I do show, I'll introduce myself.

November 14, 2008 at 12:04 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Bob:

Machineguns are legal to own and are awesome to shoot. Additionally, machineguns can be used for self defense, but I prefer a handgun in the car or on my person and shotgun and ar-15 for home defense.

Lastly, Machineguns are a great investment. I have video on facebook shooting submachineguns.

You should expand your mind and realize that law abiding citizens are ok with machineguns and semi auto rifles.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com

November 14, 2008 at 12:39 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Scott - I used to have a studio at 9th and Spring Garden. It was facing Colosimos gun center. I used to see kids go in and out of that place with assault weapons every night. Pit Bull in the back seat, Uzi in the front. You're OK with this because "Machineguns are legal to own and are awesome to shoot"?
Sounds to me like you need to grow up. Maybe you should expand your mind to realize that allowing anyone with a clean record, to own a machinegun, will allow criminals to out gun cops and mental cases to build an arsenal. Just because they are fun to shoot? Great. Should we allow law abiding citizens to own RPG's too?

November 14, 2008 at 6:00 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Does that mean I could go out and buy an Uzi? Or onea them cool machine guns from the old gangster movies?!

Tell us more!

November 14, 2008 at 6:01 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

It means that the people have spoken, and disagreed with the Randals of this country. Maybe we will get some decent common sense gun legislation now, that keeps assault weapons out of the hands of paranoid people, cop haters and thrill seekers.

November 15, 2008 at 7:03 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Bob:

Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller and he said that as long as it is a constitutional right, all of the policy considerations are off the table. Besides, very few crimes are committed with weapons you want banned. Cars and doctors kill more people than firearms, can we ban both?
Lastly, Scalia, in response to and in rejection of the dissent's Interest Balancing Test said that a right which is subject to some future judges assessment of the usefulness of that right is no right at all (paraphrased).

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

November 15, 2008 at 9:31 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Randall:

Any person who is not prohibited can buy a machinegun. Bob, bad guys don't use expensive guns when they commit crime. I remember a story several years ago when a guy took a broken gun to a gun buy back location, the libs gave him $75 or $100 for it so he used that money to buy a gun that worked, and he murdered someone.

New Jersey is about to ban any caliber larger than a .50 caliber, yet they can point to no crimes that have ever been commiitted with a .50 cal. I guess that gov't will outlaw my Suzuki Hayabusa next cause it is so freakin fast.

Liberalism feels good, but it never works.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

November 15, 2008 at 9:40 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Scott - "Liberalism feels good, but it never works" Why do you always make such broad sweeping, general statements? They sound so rediculous. Your comparison of guns to Dr's. and cars is just silly. Here is an exceprt from an ABC story -Police departments from Danbury, Conn., to Dallas to Portland report that they are encountering more assault weapons and are arming their officers accordingly.

This surge of deaths stemming from semiautomatic assault weapons seems unnecessary. In 1994, President Clinton signed a law banning the sale of these weapons. But in 2004, President Bush and Congress allowed that ban to expire. Since then, Congress has made it illegal to keep nationwide statistics data on crimes committed with assault weapons.

But the city of Miami has its own data, which shows that last year, the police department seized 10 assault rifles. So far this year, it has seized 50.

Miami police Chief John Timoney said, "There's a need for Congress to step in here and pass some reasonable legislation that reduces the availability of these weapons in the hands of people who shouldn't have them."

November 15, 2008 at 12:40 PM 
Blogger paul torres said...

Any decent S&W costs $300 to $500.

$100 sounds like a cheap gun that would blow up in your face. Better off with a knife than a piece of crap gun.

Hey, CSS, can we get 50 calibers here in PA?

November 15, 2008 at 1:59 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Scott - You said "You can see how it will be under an Obama Administration first hand on Monday, November 17, 2008 at 330 p.m." How does that work? Youve been defending this guy for the past 8 yrs under the Bush administration.

November 15, 2008 at 7:53 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Bob:

Although I have not looked at the data, what was the criteria for the seizure, and what and why was seized. Perhaps you can supply that info.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

November 15, 2008 at 9:18 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Bob Torres:


Yes, you can get a .50 caliber. I know, if you are a gun grabber you will want to ban it, but I am unaware of any crime in PA ever being perpetrated by someone using a .50 cal.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

November 15, 2008 at 9:21 PM 
Anonymous r said...

The reason-lacking gun ban in NJ is nothing more than Liberal Slippery Slope Implementation. Here the goal is to outlaw all guns but they know they could never get away with that so they instead utilize the slippery slope of incremental implementation. Cue the Lib gun-grabbers in NJ to, once the 50 caliber ban is in place, to come back in a year or so and say “Do people really need any guns bigger than 40 caliber?...” Bet on it.

This is exactly what they have up their sleeves with the One-gun-a-month Law, too. Once they get that in place they’ll say “Does anyone really need to buy more than one gun a year?...”

Lying Libs are predictable like that. It is up to good patriots like you, Mr. S, to stop them.
And it is up to citizens to arm themselves and simply tell the Libs a firm NO when they come to grab their guns.

November 17, 2008 at 1:39 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Grabber BB musta missed this part of his quote.

Miami police Chief John Timoney said, "There's a need for Congress to step in here and pass some reasonable legislation that reduces the availability of these weapons in the hands of people who shouldn't have them."

November 18, 2008 at 12:42 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home