Preppers and Nutters, the party is over.

Condoms cost about $ .35 each on line....
With the $3000, over 3 years, that Fluke says she needs for birth control, thats about 8,500 condoms.....thats enough to have sex 2833 times a year.....54 times a week....
8 times a day, EVERY DAY.....Some just might label a women like this a slut..........Thing1 and Rana ?
 
bravo said:
Condoms cost about $ .35 each on line....
With the $3000, over 3 years, that Fluke says she needs for birth control, thats about 8,500 condoms.....thats enough to have sex 2833 times a year.....54 times a week....
8 times a day, EVERY DAY.....Some just might label a women like this a slut..........Thing1 and Rana ?
Click to expand...

Who said she was using condoms? About a third of her testimony concerned the use of birth control pills not as contraception but as a treatment for polycystic ovarian syndrome. Although I will concede that she was exaggerating the true costs. I believe that Walmart or Target, whose lists of inexpensive drugs include the oral contraceptive Tri-Sprintec priced at $4 for a 28-day supply.
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
Condoms cost about $ .35 each on line....
With the $3000, over 3 years, that Fluke says she needs for birth control, thats about 8,500 condoms.....thats enough to have sex 2833 times a year.....54 times a week....
8 times a day, EVERY DAY.....Some just might label a women like this a slut..........Thing1 and Rana ?
Click to expand...

Dear gawd, you still misrepresent Fluke's testimony, you are hopeless.
 
bravo said:
Condoms cost about $ .35 each on line....
With the $3000, over 3 years, that Fluke says she needs for birth control, thats about 8,500 condoms.....thats enough to have sex 2833 times a year.....54 times a week....
8 times a day, EVERY DAY.....Some just might label a women like this a slut..........Thing1 and Rana ?
Click to expand...

So you are saying you don't have much of a sex drive?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Did I use the term for everyone? Although I would include people that use the hoary old argument that people need the weapons to overthrow a tyrannical government.
Click to expand...

So if weapons are banned and the Government becomes trrannical, how does the populace rebel effectively?
 
And they cite statistics indicating that unlike handguns or shotguns, rifles of any type account for only a fraction of homicides in the United States — of 12,664 murder victims last year, 323 were killed with rifles, according to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Report.

“They get a lot of coverage when there’s a tragedy with one, but the number of people unlawfully killed with them is small,” said Stephen Halbrook, a constitutional lawyer in Virginia who has argued high-profile Second Amendment cases and represented the National Rifle Association.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/u...yle-rifle-in-newtown.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

stop wetting your pants over the assault rifle, your fears are unfounded.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Did I use the term for everyone? Although I would include people that use the hoary old argument that people need the weapons to overthrow a tyrannical government.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't use it for everyone. You used it for a liberal who doesn't even own a gun simply because they don't agree with the idea of disarming the public.
 
cannabis said:
And they cite statistics indicating that unlike handguns or shotguns, rifles of any type account for only a fraction of homicides in the United States — of 12,664 murder victims last year, 323 were killed with rifles, according to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Report.

“They get a lot of coverage when there’s a tragedy with one, but the number of people unlawfully killed with them is small,” said Stephen Halbrook, a constitutional lawyer in Virginia who has argued high-profile Second Amendment cases and represented the National Rifle Association.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/u...yle-rifle-in-newtown.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

stop wetting your pants over the assault rifle, your fears are unfounded.
Click to expand...

This is because it is not about actual logic, but about knee-jerk emotional reactions.

The same reason they go crazy on high capacity magazines. It takes less than 1 second to drop an empty magazine from a gun and insert a fresh one. Limiting magazine capacity does absolutely nothing. But it is one of those areas that scare some people to death.
 
WinterBorn said:
This is because it is not about actual logic, but about knee-jerk emotional reactions.

The same reason they go crazy on high capacity magazines. It takes less than 1 second to drop an empty magazine from a gun and insert a fresh one. Limiting magazine capacity does absolutely nothing. But it is one of those areas that scare some people to death.
Click to expand...

i'm actually on the fence about high capacity magazines. i've fired both rifles and pistols, but not in any appreciable matter so as to speak about the time it takes to reload. for me, it seems that even if it was a second, that second could save lives. i believe i've seen you talk about how even a second matters when reacting to a shooting. i don't recall if it was you though.
 
WinterBorn said:
This is because it is not about actual logic, but about knee-jerk emotional reactions.

The same reason they go crazy on high capacity magazines. It takes less than 1 second to drop an empty magazine from a gun and insert a fresh one. Limiting magazine capacity does absolutely nothing. But it is one of those areas that scare some people to death.
Click to expand...


Assuming a 10 round capacity limit, that's nine separate reloads to get off 100 shots. How many seconds does it take to reload to get off the same number of shots with a 100-round magazine? Also, too, what legitimate purpose is there for a 100-round magazine? Frankly, even assuming a spectacularly marginal benefit to limiting magazine capacity, I don't see any legitimate justification for not doing it.
 
cannabis said:
i'm actually on the fence about high capacity magazines. i've fired both rifles and pistols, but not in any appreciable matter so as to speak about the time it takes to reload. for me, it seems that even if it was a second, that second could save lives. i believe i've seen you talk about how even a second matters when reacting to a shooting. i don't recall if it was you though.
Click to expand...
that second only matters if one has their own weapon. otherwise, one second is just another second longer to live.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Did I use the term for everyone? Although I would include people that use the hoary old argument that people need the weapons to overthrow a tyrannical government.
Click to expand...

No, but you called Rune one for no rational reason. Which kind of demonstrates which of you is the actual nut on the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top