Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Username   Need to register?
Password:   Forgot password?
Subject: (optional)
Icon: [*]
Formatting Mode:

Insert Bold text Insert Italicised text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert E-mail Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text Insert List
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
:) :( :D ;)
:cool: :o shocked_yellow :P
confused2 smokin: waveysmiley waggyfinger
brshteeth nananana lips_sealed kewl_glasses
Show All Smilies

Disable Smilies?
Use signature?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email on reply?
The file size of the attachment must be under 200K.
Do not preview if you have attached an image.

Topic Review

[*] posted on 18-11-2012 at 00:33
Today was the start of firearm Deer season.

My next door neighbor, "Heep Mighty Hunter," nailed an 8-point buck before noon.

They have been carving him up in the garage all afternoon.

I could see having a gun to hunt if I had to to survive.

Other than that, Uncle Sam took all the fun out of it.

[*] posted on 13-11-2012 at 23:44
The concept has merit. Making it harder to own guns might also have a lot of merit, too.

[*] posted on 13-11-2012 at 01:24
A recent proposal in the Chicago area to tax bullets at 5 cents per bullet was defeated, but a deal was struck to put a tax of $25 per gun sale instead.

[*] posted on 13-11-2012 at 01:03
Gun Control = Using BOTH hands and HITTING what you aim at.

Or so they taught us in the Army.


[*] posted on 12-11-2012 at 23:57
I think it has merit. I have 1200 rounds and if I sell 1195 at 5 grand apiece that will give me a big chunk of money and I will still have 5 rounds which will be more than enough to take care of business. waveysmiley

[*] posted on 12-11-2012 at 17:43
bullet control and charged $5000 per bullet, people would still feel "protected" but fewer deaths would occur?

There's a ruder version of this argument, which I can't link to.

Do you think the argument has any merit?