America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by Brewha. 294 replies replies.
6 Pages<123456>
Wasn't Even A Couple Hours After the Sandy Hook Shooting...
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
DrMaddVibe Offline
#151 Posted: Thu, Dec 20 2012, 7:02 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,590
nicholasjames wrote:
i havnt checked any of this out myself. ^^^



Why?

Why would you NOT take the time to read and study up on it?

What's really going to bake your noodle later on...what if you were on a discovery mission?

http://www.projectpegasus.net


Have fun!


The TRUTH is out there.
victor809 Offline
#152 Posted: Thu, Dec 20 2012, 9:25 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Anyone that sends you that kind of conspiracy crap is an idiot and not someone you should be listening to.
Seriously... the "global evil" is running around shooting kids in school and telegraphing it in movie scenes? That's a pretty lame "global evil".... not really sophisticated....

And they're going to be found out by some guy sitting in his underwear in his parents basement probably... right?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#153 Posted: Thu, Dec 20 2012, 9:33 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,590
victor809 wrote:
Anyone that sends you that kind of conspiracy crap is an idiot and not someone you should be listening to.
Seriously... the "global evil" is running around shooting kids in school and telegraphing it in movie scenes? That's a pretty lame "global evil".... not really sophisticated....

And they're going to be found out by some guy sitting in his underwear in his parents basement probably... right?



They beatdown rubby players don't they?


Frying pan Frying pan Frying pan
nicholasjames Offline
#154 Posted: Thu, Dec 20 2012, 10:46 AM EST
Joined: 10-15-2012
Posts: 505
victor809 wrote:
Anyone that sends you that kind of conspiracy crap is an idiot and not someone you should be listening to.
Seriously... the "global evil" is running around shooting kids in school and telegraphing it in movie scenes? That's a pretty lame "global evil".... not really sophisticated....

And they're going to be found out by some guy sitting in his underwear in his parents basement probably... right?



actually th guy aint an idiot. hes highly educated and wealthy.

i dontjust listen to any one. i wanted to giv th guy a fair shake and look into it.

i think his point was if read further is that the globalists or whatever one wants to call em will put signs or signals out before a thing will go down.

and also i never said i believed all this stuff.
nicholasjames Offline
#155 Posted: Thu, Dec 20 2012, 10:52 AM EST
Joined: 10-15-2012
Posts: 505
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Why?

Why would you NOT take the time to read and study up on it?

What's really going to bake your noodle later on...what if you were on a discovery mission?

http://www.projectpegasus.net


Have fun!


The TRUTH is out there.


evry bodys a wise guy now.
jojoc Offline
#156 Posted: Thu, Dec 20 2012, 12:27 PM EST
Joined: 03-05-2007
Posts: 6,272
nicholasjames wrote:
heres what this guy i kno sent to my email:

The medical examiner asserts that all wounds were caused by a rifle or other long weapon, and police/FBI say that the school was littered with .223 (rifle) casings. But Adam Lanza was found dead in the school with only handguns--a rifle was found in the trunk of his car. But then he could not possibly have been firing the rifle, and could not have committed the murders. Who did?

comments anyone?


jojoc wrote:
I will add, learn how to read!


nicholasjames wrote:
whats the beef? i do read. i posted some info. i wanted to hear some feed back to see if it was true or not.



sorry if that came across harsh.

here's my point -- rather than posting and asking if what you got in an email was true, why not read some of the news reports. it is true that the initial reports indicated that all he took into the school was two handguns. However, by Sat. morning, the reports confirmed that he took the rifle with him into the school. I have not seen a single report that has stuck with the initial report of just two handguns.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#157 Posted: Thu, Dec 20 2012, 1:25 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,590
nicholasjames wrote:
evry bodys a wise guy now.



Wear a cup!Angel whip
nicholasjames Offline
#158 Posted: Thu, Dec 20 2012, 2:53 PM EST
Joined: 10-15-2012
Posts: 505
jojoc wrote:
sorry if that came across harsh.

here's my point -- rather than posting and asking if what you got in an email was true, why not read some of the news reports. it is true that the initial reports indicated that all he took into the school was two handguns. However, by Sat. morning, the reports confirmed that he took the rifle with him into the school. I have not seen a single report that has stuck with the initial report of just two handguns.


no big deal.

the thing is i did read what you just mentioned. but i dont trust everything the main stream throws out there for us to believe. so i was tryin to confirm if there was any truth to the statement i posted.

thank you for the info you posted.
victor809 Offline
#159 Posted: Thu, Dec 20 2012, 4:18 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
nicholasjames wrote:
actually th guy aint an idiot. hes highly educated and wealthy.

i dontjust listen to any one. i wanted to giv th guy a fair shake and look into it.

i think his point was if read further is that the globalists or whatever one wants to call em will put signs or signals out before a thing will go down.

and also i never said i believed all this stuff.


He's an idiot if he thought there was any truth to what you posted above.... it doesn't even make sense even IF the statement about the guns was right. "global evil is projecting their upcoming acts in movies"? And their goal is to shoot a handful of children? Anyone who isn't an idiot would realize that a "global evil" with enough reach and resources to do this sort of thing would NOT be wasting its time shooting kids. There is no profit in shooting kids. There is no actual power in shooting kids. It's cheaper and less risky to simply form a super-pac and buy whatever votes you need.
CelticBomber Offline
#160 Posted: Thu, Dec 20 2012, 5:31 PM EST
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,786
Every time the arguing starts after one of these tragedies I think of this speech by Charlie Chaplin in the The Great Dictator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38NZAqEE88M
HockeyDad Offline
#161 Posted: Thu, Dec 20 2012, 5:44 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
Globalist evil......


Did someone call?
victor809 Offline
#162 Posted: Fri, Dec 21 2012, 8:15 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Mmmmm.... profitable evil....
pdxstogieman Offline
#163 Posted: Sat, Dec 22 2012, 8:40 PM EST
Joined: 10-04-2007
Posts: 5,219
Abrignac wrote:
Nothing short of a total ban on private gun ownership and a fail safe accounting of government owned firearms would have prevented this person from shooting all these people. That's not to say though he may have some other way to effect the same end result, that being mass murder. Perhaps he would have done as Timothy McVeigh and parked a fertilizer bomb next to the school and detonated it while the children were at recess or perhaps at dismissal. A quick google search turns up many instances of people driving vehicles into crowds. There are many other actions he could have taken that would have yielded the same results. Should we ban vehicles?

I challenge anyone who supports further restriction of gun ownership to put forth a definitive plan that demonstrates beyond any doubt whatsoever that said restrictions would have prevented this person from taking 20 lives at one time. As tragic as this incident is and though I wish it were not so, if someone wants to commit mass murder they are going to find a way.

We as a society have for the most part let ourselves be governed by kneejerks. Instead of a pragmatic approach to "issuses," our leaders put a finger up into the air, determine the direction of the wind and go from there. Bloomberg certainly wasted no time, neither did Obama though he was much more subtle.


I support the right of all citizens to own a single shot flintlock musket and as many mini balls as they can stockpile.
Abrignac Offline
#164 Posted: Sat, Dec 22 2012, 10:11 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,367
pdxstogieman wrote:
I support the right of all citizens to own a single shot flintlock musket and as many mini balls as they can stockpile.



Thanks for proving my point.
DadZilla3 Offline
#165 Posted: Sun, Dec 23 2012, 4:54 AM EST
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
pdxstogieman wrote:
I support the right of all citizens to own a single shot flintlock musket and as many minie' balls as they can stockpile.

Good idea, nobody was ever harmed by a psycho with a single shot weapon. Uh, except maybe for Abraham Lincoln. Then there was that bit of political bad blood between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. Duelling pistols were single shot and usually smoothbore. Anything else wouldn't have been considered gentlemanly.

Hey, maybe we should just let Congress settle their political differences by bringing back duelling? Think
dpnewell Offline
#166 Posted: Sun, Dec 23 2012, 7:24 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
pdxstogieman wrote:
I support the right of all citizens to own a single shot flintlock musket and as many mini balls as they can stockpile.


Once again someone shows their total ignorance of early America and our Founding Father's intent. When the 2nd Amendment was written, most cannon was owned by private citizens. The Kentucky Long Rife and it's variants, the gun owned by most citizens had an effective range of over 300 yards, while the military musket at the time had an effective range of 50 to 100 yards.

Kind of like today's citizens owning most of the tanks, fighter jets, machine guns and .50 sniper rifles, while the military was armed with semi-auto sporting rifles.

How about educating yourself on the real facts and intents of the 2nd Amendment instead of parroting the talking points of the bed wetters?
DadZilla3 Offline
#167 Posted: Sun, Dec 23 2012, 10:36 AM EST
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
dpnewell wrote:
Kind of like today's citizens owning most of the tanks, fighter jets, machine guns and .50 sniper rifles, while the military was armed with semi-auto sporting rifles.

How about educating yourself on the real facts and intents of the 2nd Amendment instead of parroting the talking points of the bed wetters?


Nah. Citizens aren't allowed to own any of that exotic hardware nowadays...we're only obligated to pay for it.
Brewha Offline
#168 Posted: Mon, Dec 24 2012, 12:58 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
dpnewell wrote:

How about educating yourself on the real facts and intents of the 2nd Amendment instead of parroting the talking points of the bed wetters?


I think you should go first.
DAD300 Offline
#169 Posted: Mon, Dec 24 2012, 2:12 PM EST
Joined: 12-08-2011
Posts: 109
Any u.s. Citizen can own a canon. I do:-) It,s like the machine gun issue. It,s perfectly legal for any none felone to own a machine gun, flame thrower, suppresser or cannon, if you can afford it.
Brewha Offline
#170 Posted: Mon, Dec 24 2012, 3:06 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
Owning a pistol or rifle for hunting, protection, or defense is one thing. But there is no more of a reason for people to own assault rifles than there is for people to own grenades, mortars or land mines.

And, remember,
"There will always be some right wing crack pot droning on about what the founding fathers meant, despite its lack of relevance"
- Abraham Lincoln
DadZilla3 Offline
#171 Posted: Mon, Dec 24 2012, 4:13 PM EST
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
DAD300 wrote:
Any u.s. Citizen can own a canon. I do:-) It,s like the machine gun issue. It,s perfectly legal for any none felone to own a machine gun, flame thrower, suppresser or cannon, if you can afford it.

Or, maybe not.
Brewha Offline
#172 Posted: Mon, Dec 24 2012, 4:39 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
Well, in Ft. Worth they did open up a 'Flametrowers R Us' just in time for the holidays . . . .
dpnewell Offline
#173 Posted: Mon, Dec 24 2012, 5:46 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Brewha wrote:
Owning a pistol or rifle for hunting, protection, or defense is one thing. But there is no more of a reason for people to own assault rifles than there is for people to own grenades, mortars or land mines.

And, remember,
"There will always be some right wing crack pot droning on about what the founding fathers meant, despite its lack of relevance"
- Abraham Lincoln


For the most part, Americans are not permitted to own assault rifles. Educate yourself, my friend. Assault rifles are full auto or select fire military weapons. Private ownership was practically banned under the 1932 Firearm Act. You can only own them in a handful of states, they must be registered and a $200 tax stamp must be purchased for them yearly. IIRC, only 4 legally owned assault rifles have been used in a crime since 1932, and two of them where by police officers.

What the left, politicians and the media want to ban are semi-auto sporting rifles that are made to "look" like assault rifles. Real assault rifles have a rate of fire that is up to 10x that of a semi-auto sporting rifle.

And remember,
"Before we can truly screw the American people, we have to disarm them first".
-Barack Obama
dpnewell Offline
#174 Posted: Mon, Dec 24 2012, 5:55 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Brewha wrote:
I think you should go first.


Awwwhhh, you’re implying that I don’t know what I’m talking about. It’s so cute how you liberals ignore and disregard facts that don’t promote your agenda.
DadZilla3 Offline
#175 Posted: Mon, Dec 24 2012, 7:17 PM EST
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
dpnewell wrote:
And remember,
"Before we can truly screw the American people, we have to disarm them first".
-Barack Obama

Well, at least there's one Obama campaign promise I can believe he'll actually carry out.
Brewha Offline
#176 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 1:06 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
dpnewell wrote:
For the most part, Americans are not permitted to own assault rifles. Educate yourself, my friend. Assault rifles are full auto or select fire military weapons. Private ownership was practically banned under the 1932 Firearm Act. You can only own them in a handful of states, they must be registered and a $200 tax stamp must be purchased for them yearly. IIRC, only 4 legally owned assault rifles have been used in a crime since 1932, and two of them where by police officers.

What the left, politicians and the media want to ban are semi-auto sporting rifles that are made to "look" like assault rifles. Real assault rifles have a rate of fire that is up to 10x that of a semi-auto sporting rifle.

And remember,
"Before we can truly screw the American people, we have to disarm them first".
-Barack Obama

While technically correct, your post is intentionally misleading.
Assault STYLE rifles, such as the 'civilian' version of the M-16, are the issue. What 'sport' needs a rifle retofitted with a 100 round clip?

It takes a conservative to turn the issue of better regulations on a few weapons that are PROVING too dangerous into fear mongering 'their gonna take all our guns'.
HockeyDad Offline
#177 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 1:11 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
Brewha wrote:
What 'sport' needs a rifle retofitted with a 100 round clip?



Target shooting. (I also don't think it requires any retrofitting. I think you just insert the clip instead of inserting a 30 round clip. Retrofitting makes it sound like some sort of custom gunsmith modification.)
HockeyDad Offline
#178 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 1:13 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
So now assault rifles are assault STYLE rifles?

Global warming now equals climate change. Tax increase = revenue enhancement.
Brewha Offline
#179 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 1:23 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
dpnewell wrote:
Awwwhhh, you’re implying that I don’t know what I’m talking about. It’s so cute how you liberals ignore and disregard facts that don’t promote your agenda.

Bravo! Your inference is spot on.
I don't think you could find the facts with both hands and a flash light.
Brewha Offline
#180 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 1:27 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
HockeyDad wrote:
Target shooting. (I also don't think it requires any retrofitting. I think you just insert the clip instead of inserting a 30 round clip. Retrofitting makes it sound like some sort of custom gunsmith modification.)

You need a 100 round clip for target shooting?
Must be a particularly dangerous target, like one that shoots back.
Brewha Offline
#181 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 1:29 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
HockeyDad wrote:
So now assault rifles are assault STYLE rifles?

Global warming now equals climate change. Tax increase = revenue enhancement.

thinkspeak.
Numismaniac Offline
#182 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 1:35 PM EST
Joined: 01-13-2012
Posts: 12,222
Looks like the most dangerous weapon still seems to be stupidity...........
ZRX1200 Offline
#183 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 1:36 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
I can change a mag in 2.5 seconds in the cold.

Mag capacity is a faux argument.

Select fire is a more real argument, and as dpnewell pointed out these have NOT been an issue.

Look at Californias ban on. 50 caliber rifles. Not ONE CRIME in US history has been commited with a .50 caliber "sniper" type rifle (non blackpowder). Yet they made then illegal.


Hey libs lets be more selective about the FIRST AMENDMENT then.....words of crazy people have stirred movements that have killed many more than guns in the US have.
HockeyDad Offline
#184 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 2:42 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
Brewha wrote:
You need a 100 round clip for target shooting?



How many do you think is needed?
Brewha Offline
#185 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 2:55 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
HockeyDad wrote:
How many do you think is needed?

Clips or rounds?
Brewha Offline
#186 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 2:59 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
ZRX1200 wrote:
I can change a mag in 2.5 seconds in the cold.

Mag capacity is a faux argument.

Select fire is a more real argument, and as dpnewell pointed out these have NOT been an issue.

Look at Californias ban on. 50 caliber rifles. Not ONE CRIME in US history has been commited with a .50 caliber "sniper" type rifle (non blackpowder). Yet they made then illegal.


Hey libs lets be more selective about the FIRST AMENDMENT then.....words of crazy people have stirred movements that have killed many more than guns in the US have.

Z, do you think automatic weapons should be largely illegal as they are now?
ZRX1200 Offline
#187 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 3:08 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
No.

And they are not illegal right now there is just a lot of legal work to legally possess them.

Any weapon available to the US government should be available to a US citizen. Now take a second don't overreact I also believe that the US government has more weapons in it should. I believe the US federal government has way overstepped it's bound in the name of keeping us safe.
Abrignac Offline
#188 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 3:11 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,367
^Makes sense. Isn't our government one of the people, by the people?
ZRX1200 Offline
#189 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 3:15 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
http://www.cigarbid.com/...1_Start-em-young-2.aspx


Brewha she shoots a good grooping too...
dpnewell Offline
#190 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 3:41 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Brewha wrote:
Bravo! Your inference is spot on.
I don't think you could find the facts with both hands and a flash light.


We continue to state facts, yet you choose to ignore them and burry your head in the sand. That's your right, and you can do so if you wish, but I thought a man of your intelligence would be more interested in truth then self imposed ignorance.
HockeyDad Offline
#191 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 3:47 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
Brewha wrote:
Clips or rounds?



Yes
DadZilla3 Offline
#192 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 4:59 PM EST
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
Abrignac wrote:
^Makes sense. Isn't our government one of the people, by the people?

In theory at least, but we've morphed into something out of Orwell's Animal Farm...'all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.'
Brewha Offline
#193 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 6:35 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
ZRX1200 wrote:
No.

And they are not illegal right now there is just a lot of legal work to legally possess them.

Any weapon available to the US government should be available to a US citizen. Now take a second don't overreact I also believe that the US government has more weapons in it should. I believe the US federal government has way overstepped it's bound in the name of keeping us safe.

I don’t think you mean (at least I hope you don’t mean) that any US citizen should have any government weapon. You wouldn’t want that crazy hillbilly down the street to have a tactical nuke, bazooka or all the C4 it took make him feel “safe”.

I think it is a matter of degree. We both agree to having a shotgun for home protection and a revolver for snakes and such. But a 75mm cannon on the back of your pickup incase someone cuts you off seems unreasonable (but not so much in Texas). I simply question the benefit/return ration of AR-15’s and the like. Seems to me they are doing more damage than good.

But we can agree to disagree – if you think Wal-Mart should sell phosphorus grenades as though they were .22 shells, well, we are going to differ . . . .
Brewha Offline
#194 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 6:54 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
dpnewell wrote:
We continue to state facts, yet you choose to ignore them and burry your head in the sand. That's your right, and you can do so if you wish, but I thought a man of your intelligence would be more interested in truth then self imposed ignorance.

A few facts seldom paint a complete or true picture. Has it occurred to you that it is not the facts you site, but the conclusions you draw that I disagree with?

If you really want to argue the topic out, then don’t post some point and put it in the light of final and damning proof of your conclusion – because you have not been able to do it successfully as yet.

This is about a nations need to revisit weapon regulations. No one is taking about banning the home shot gun (except the conservatives). Whether you recognize it or not, there don’t appear to be a lot of benefits to having semi-military grade weapons in open market. And the nut could not have done what he did with a revolver and double barreled shot gun.
frankj1 Offline
#195 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 6:55 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,257
nicholasjames wrote:
what ever the case may be. this is an evil travesty. i pray for the victims families.

i say an armed guard at each school. the crazies will think twice.


I see what you mean, but you are ignoring the fact that the "crazies" are actually crazy, and that means they do not think or react like you normally would when they are actively crazy. Normal reactions are something you have, so it would work on you, 'cept you aren't crazy enough to hatch a deadly massacre plot.

They're tetched, follow?
Brewha Offline
#196 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 6:56 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
HockeyDad wrote:
Yes

I object to this line of questioning.
cacman Offline
#197 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 7:01 PM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Isn't somewhere in CA doing a buy-back program - guns for grocery store cards?
Seems there's plenty that will freely give-up their guns without any further laws.
Brewha Offline
#198 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 7:13 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
cacman wrote:
Isn't somewhere in CA doing a buy-back program - guns for grocery store cards?
Seems there's plenty that will freely give-up their guns without any further laws.

It is called “Rifles for Raviolis”.
But there aren't enough Italians in California to make it work.
ZRX1200 Offline
#199 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 7:23 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
I am.

However I think some context is needed with your concern. Do you know how much a REAL machine gun or ASSAULT rifle costs?

A belt fed machine gun is gonna set you back 10-15000$

And background checks are fine by me. Legally you can own a tank, semi-automatic Browning. 50 belt fed tripod gun.

In a broader sense I believe whats central here is the devaluation of life.
Brewha Offline
#200 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 7:35 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
ZRX1200 wrote:
I am.

However I think some context is needed with your concern. Do you know how much a REAL machine gun or ASSAULT rifle costs?

A belt fed machine gun is gonna set you back 10-15000$

And background checks are fine by me. Legally you can own a tank, semi-automatic Browning. 50 belt fed tripod gun.

In a broader sense I believe whats central here is the devaluation of life.


Sorry, Z - you lost me. Devaluation of life?

An insane person went on a murder spree - and was aided by high efficiency weapon.


Anyway, I do not agree that high military should be openly available. There are reasons for the laws we do have.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
6 Pages<123456>
Back to Top