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

Last post 11 years ago by Brewha. 294 replies replies.
6 Pages«<23456
Wasn't Even A Couple Hours After the Sandy Hook Shooting...
Brewha Offline
#251 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
dpnewell wrote:
No, you totally mis-understood (willfully). There are existing laws in place that banned 30 round mags. NJ also has a far stricter Assault Weapon ban, that was implemented by Florio before Clinton's National ban. NJ's ban did not expire when the National ban did, and is still in place. NJ's existing Assault weapon ban did not stop this guy, nor did the even stricter Connecticut firearm laws, nor did the "Gun Free School Zone" signs. Thinking that adding additional laws will stop a madman, when he broke dozens of existing laws, is wishful thinking or just plain insanity.

Ok DP, I’ll look at this from another angle;
I keep getting from your posts that we don’t need laws because they don’t always work – and you’re too smart for that, so I must be wrong in my interpretation. So let’s be clear –

You would be thinking:
a) We don’t need gun laws.
b) We need to relax gun laws some.
c) Our gun laws are just right.
d) We should tighten up the restrictions a bit.
e) We should ban fire arms.

My guess is “b”. I further assume that you feel additional and current restrictions cost too much in personal freedom for the alleged safety they provide.


Understand why I might be confused by your statements above; the posted speed limit on the highway does not stop people from speeding. Yet we agree on the need for speed limits to be posted (especially on route 46).
DadZilla3 Offline
#252 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
victor809 wrote:
1 - the presence of other armed individuals does not deter a nutjob from opening fire (therefore, while casualties may be reduced, arming all teachers won't actually reduce the number of attacks). Or
2 - that all police officers should be disarmed and left with only billy-clubs, ala Britain, to protect them from any nutjob that decides to take their gun and start shooting at them.


All the more reason in my mind at least, that we should be much more concerned with how to better deal with repeat violent offenders and psychologically impaired individuals in need of help than scrambling to pass even further restrictions on legally owned firearms.

We have convicted murderers walking the streets for crying out loud, released thanks to our legal system. In fact one of then just killed two firemen after deliberately setting a fire to lure them in. Murder used to get you the death penalty. Arson is already against the law. So is a convicted felon possessing a firearm. So, what...we need another law?
Brewha Offline
#253 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
It begs the question “why have laws if people are going to break them?”, but I won’t ask it for a simple reason;
The questions we ask are more important than the answers we get.
DadZilla3 Offline
#254 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
Brewha wrote:
It begs the question “why have laws if people are going to break them?”, but I won’t ask it for a simple reason;
The questions we ask are more important than the answers we get.

Maybe we should be asking, 'why have laws if we aren't going to (or can't) enforce them?'
DrafterX Offline
#255 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
DadZilla3 wrote:
Maybe we should be asking, 'why have laws if we aren't going to (or can't) enforce them?'



Off topic but immigration is a fine example of that.... Mellow
Abrignac Offline
#256 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,376
Brewha wrote:
Ok DP, I’ll look at this from another angle;
I keep getting from your posts that we don’t need laws because they don’t always work – and you’re too smart for that, so I must be wrong in my interpretation. So let’s be clear –

You would be thinking:
a) We don’t need gun laws.
b) We need to relax gun laws some.
c) Our gun laws are just right.
d) We should tighten up the restrictions a bit.
e) We should ban fire arms.

My guess is “b”. I further assume that you feel additional and current restrictions cost too much in personal freedom for the alleged safety they provide.


Understand why I might be confused by your statements above; the posted speed limit on the highway does not stop people from speeding. Yet we agree on the need for speed limits to be posted (especially on route 46).



Perhaps I can shed some light on this. Doubtful, but I'll try.

The native Americans were hunter/gatherers who used among other things bows and arrows to kill prey for which they were able to sustain themselves, their families and their community.

Then among others, Europeans wishing to escape the British throne came to he new world with their muskets which they used to sustain themselves and those dependent upon them. In addition, they used surplus firearms to barter for items with the natives.

Eventually, the British throne saw the settlements of he new world as a source of revenue. Being the rebellious sort, remember why their ancestors had come before them, they grew tired of what they saw as British tyranny, they used their weapons, that at the time were in essence the same as the British military grade arms, to rise up and emancipate themselves from British colonial rule.

Though no one can be sure why the did it, they added the second amendment to the constitution. Perhaps the memory of an opposition to a tyrannical government had something to do with it.

So that brings us to where we are today. On one hand you have a group of people who for whatever reason desire to possess firearms. Some which to possess "military grade" firearms. Perhaps they feel as though they may one day need to take up arms to resist a tyrannical government. Or perhaps they are like people who I know who just like to go out into a pasture somewhere and blow the chit out of as many inanimate objects as possible with no sinister thought at all.

Regardless, firearms ownership is as much a way of life in America as is going to the grocery store. Good luck changing that.
DrafterX Offline
#257 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
I usually just carry mine for snakes and such..... Mellow
dpnewell Offline
#258 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Brewha wrote:
Ok DP, I’ll look at this from another angle;
I keep getting from your posts that we don’t need laws because they don’t always work – and you’re too smart for that, so I must be wrong in my interpretation. So let’s be clear –

You would be thinking:
a) We don’t need gun laws.
b) We need to relax gun laws some.
c) Our gun laws are just right.
d) We should tighten up the restrictions a bit.
e) We should ban fire arms.

My guess is “b”. I further assume that you feel additional and current restrictions cost too much in personal freedom for the alleged safety they provide.


Understand why I might be confused by your statements above; the posted speed limit on the highway does not stop people from speeding. Yet we agree on the need for speed limits to be posted (especially on route 46).


Where do you keep coming up with this idea that I think we don't need laws? Laws are required as boundaries for good people, and to justify the punishment of criminals. If good, law abiding folks where going out and committing these acts because we didn't have laws against it, then I'd say we need new laws to prohibit this behavior. It's not the law abiding that are committing these acts, it's the looney tunes who don't care if they're breaking 1,000 laws. The idea that a few more laws, that further restrict the freedoms and rights of good folk, is going to do one thing to stop these deranged creatures, is ludicrous. I can’t believe that you actually think that additional laws are the solution to this problem.

NJ has a law against possessing 30 round mags. This law did nothing to stop him. NJ forbids anyone without a Firearms ID card to touch a rifle. This law did not stop him. Federal law forbids the transfer of a firearm over state lines, unless it is unloaded and locked in a case separate from any ammo. This law did not stop him. Connecticut has gun laws that are far stricter then NJ’s extremely restrictive gun laws. These laws did not stop him. There are laws against bringing guns into Gun Free School Zones. These laws did not stop him. We have laws against murder. These laws did not stop him.

What laws, in addition to the thousands that are already on the books, do you think would have stopped him?
Abrignac Offline
#259 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,376
dpnewell wrote:
Where do you keep coming up with this idea that I think we don't need laws? Laws are required as boundaries for good people, and to justify the punishment of criminals. If good, law abiding folks where going out and committing these acts because we didn't have laws against it, then I'd say we need new laws to prohibit this behavior. It's not the law abiding that are committing these acts, it's the looney tunes who don't care if they're breaking 1,000 laws. The idea that a few more laws, that further restrict the freedoms and rights of good folk, is going to do one thing to stop these deranged creatures, is ludicrous. I can’t believe that you actually think that additional laws are the solution to this problem.

NJ has a law against possessing 30 round mags. This law did nothing to stop him. NJ forbids anyone without a Firearms ID card to touch a rifle. This law did not stop him. Federal law forbids the transfer of a firearm over state lines, unless it is unloaded and locked in a case separate from any ammo. This law did not stop him. Connecticut has gun laws that are far stricter then NJ’s extremely restrictive gun laws. These laws did not stop him. There are laws against bringing guns into Gun Free School Zones. These laws did not stop him. We have laws against murder. These laws did not stop him.

What laws, in addition to the thousands that are already on the books, do you think would have stopped him?



None, which is why we need more. Perhaps they'll get it right next time. horse Frying pan Gonz Think Brick wall
ZRX1200 Offline
#260 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
^ that.



And I vote A.
HockeyDad Offline
#261 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
DrafterX wrote:
Off topic but immigration is a fine example of that.... Mellow



Illegal immigrant guns shoot people that American guns won't shoot.
HockeyDad Offline
#262 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
Although clearly identifying himself as a "gun-banner", Brewha has dodged the slippery slope of what he actually wants banned.

Gun-banners tend to be just like gay-homo militant extremists in that they can never be satisfied.

OK, Brewha......what should the gun restricting law be that meets your needs desires?
DrafterX Offline
#263 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
I wonder if Chik-fila is gun friendly.... Think
nicholasjames Offline
#264 Posted:
Joined: 10-15-2012
Posts: 505
HockeyDad wrote:
Although clearly identifying himself as a "gun-banner", Brewha has dodged the slippery slope of what he actually wants banned.

Gun-banners tend to be just like gay-homo militant extremists in that they can never be satisfied.

OK, Brewha......what should the gun restricting law be that meets your needs desires?


good comparison.

the gun banners want all guns banned just like the sodomites want all men to take it in the azz.
DrafterX Offline
#265 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
Damn sodomites..... Mad
nicholasjames Offline
#266 Posted:
Joined: 10-15-2012
Posts: 505
DrafterX wrote:
Damn sodomites..... Mad


dam sodomites is right.
DadZilla3 Offline
#267 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
HockeyDad wrote:
Illegal immigrant guns shoot people that American guns won't shoot.

Thanks to the current administration's Operation Fast and Furious, illegal immigrants are probably shooting American guns anyway.
Brewha Offline
#268 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
Abrignac wrote:
Perhaps I can shed some light on this. Doubtful, but I'll try.

The native Americans were hunter/gatherers who used among other things bows and arrows to kill prey for which they were able to sustain themselves, their families and their community.

Then among others, Europeans wishing to escape the British throne came to he new world with their muskets which they used to sustain themselves and those dependent upon them. In addition, they used surplus firearms to barter for items with the natives.

Eventually, the British throne saw the settlements of he new world as a source of revenue. Being the rebellious sort, remember why their ancestors had come before them, they grew tired of what they saw as British tyranny, they used their weapons, that at the time were in essence the same as the British military grade arms, to rise up and emancipate themselves from British colonial rule.

Though no one can be sure why the did it, they added the second amendment to the constitution. Perhaps the memory of an opposition to a tyrannical government had something to do with it.

So that brings us to where we are today. On one hand you have a group of people who for whatever reason desire to possess firearms. Some which to possess "military grade" firearms. Perhaps they feel as though they may one day need to take up arms to resist a tyrannical government. Or perhaps they are like people who I know who just like to go out into a pasture somewhere and blow the chit out of as many inanimate objects as possible with no sinister thought at all.

Regardless, firearms ownership is as much a way of life in America as is going to the grocery store. Good luck changing that.

I was so taken with your narrative that I read it twice. I could not help but envision Kevin Costner with a long rifle and an undomesticated canine . . . . .
Brewha Offline
#269 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
dpnewell wrote:
Where do you keep coming up with this idea that I think we don't need laws? Laws are required as boundaries for good people, and to justify the punishment of criminals. If good, law abiding folks where going out and committing these acts because we didn't have laws against it, then I'd say we need new laws to prohibit this behavior. It's not the law abiding that are committing these acts, it's the looney tunes who don't care if they're breaking 1,000 laws. The idea that a few more laws, that further restrict the freedoms and rights of good folk, is going to do one thing to stop these deranged creatures, is ludicrous. I can’t believe that you actually think that additional laws are the solution to this problem.

NJ has a law against possessing 30 round mags. This law did nothing to stop him. NJ forbids anyone without a Firearms ID card to touch a rifle. This law did not stop him. Federal law forbids the transfer of a firearm over state lines, unless it is unloaded and locked in a case separate from any ammo. This law did not stop him. Connecticut has gun laws that are far stricter then NJ’s extremely restrictive gun laws. These laws did not stop him. There are laws against bringing guns into Gun Free School Zones. These laws did not stop him. We have laws against murder. These laws did not stop him.

What laws, in addition to the thousands that are already on the books, do you think would have stopped him?


Ok - so your opinion is "c". The laws are good - don't change a thing. Guess I was wrong, figured you for a "b".

I never posited that a new law would stop the evil insane, hell bent on murder. I have questioned the risk/benefit ratio of the existing laws regarding assault style rifles. It's a question of the availability of these weapons in society - not about the lunatic fringe.
ZRX1200 Offline
#270 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
Ideas are possibly dangerous on a massive scale.

We should burn books.
Brewha Offline
#271 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
HockeyDad wrote:
Although clearly identifying himself as a "gun-banner", Brewha has dodged the slippery slope of what he actually wants banned.

Gun-banners tend to be just like gay-homo militant extremists in that they can never be satisfied.

OK, Brewha......what should the gun restricting law be that meets your needs desires?

HD, truly you are a “Genius in France”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VuiBBX6aZA


I have not called for a ban – I have asked people to tell me how it is worth having assault rifles. And based on spurious cogent responses, I begin to think the real issues (to me) is the availability of large magazines.


And HD, thank you for sharing you personal experience with gay-homo militant extremists. I’m sure you have lots of stories we’d rather not hear . . . .
Brewha Offline
#272 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
ZRX1200 wrote:
Ideas are possibly dangerous on a massive scale.

We should burn books.

Always good to hear from our "A" Listers.

They tried it - buried lots of books they did. That's why them little smart alec's invested the internets - they's fire proof.
ZRX1200 Offline
#273 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
In the context of murders in the USA what percentage do you think "assault" weapons represent? And what do other things doI you think is higher?

You mislabel these rifles and and falsely find these as a major problem. That is where you're losing folks here..... Whats the purpose of evil nasty words?

**** makes people cringe when they hear it. But its not illegal........because we have free speech. You don't have to like it but you should respect it. Just like the 2nd amendment.
Brewha Offline
#274 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
ZRX1200 wrote:
In the context of murders in the USA what percentage do you think "assault" weapons represent? And what do other things doI you think is higher?

You mislabel these rifles and and falsely find these as a major problem. That is where you're losing folks here..... Whats the purpose of evil nasty words?

**** makes people cringe when they hear it. But its not illegal........because we have free speech. You don't have to like it but you should respect it. Just like the 2nd amendment.

Well, we look at this differently. I don’t think my neighbor has the right to keep military grade weapons/explosives near my home. I have a right not be exposed to the danger.
He does have a right to reasonable gun ownership for protection and sport – that does not include a bazooka.

And I don’t need to review the number of people who have been killed by civilians with bazookas to conclude that they are just too dangerous to have for sale at Wal-Mart.

I question the reasonable need for an antipersonnel weapon with a 100 round clip.
nicholasjames Offline
#275 Posted:
Joined: 10-15-2012
Posts: 505
cars kill more people than guns. lets ban those to.
HockeyDad Offline
#276 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
Brewha wrote:

I have not called for a ban – I have asked people to tell me how it is worth having assault rifles. And based on spurious cogent responses, I begin to think the real issues (to me) is the availability of large magazines.



"availability"? Don't you mean "ban". What is it you want to ban?
HockeyDad Offline
#277 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
Brewha wrote:
Well, we look at this differently. I don’t think my neighbor has the right to keep military grade weapons/explosives near my home. I have a right not be exposed to the danger.
He does have a right to reasonable gun ownership for protection and sport – that does not include a bazooka.



Military grade explosives? Sounds just a bit dishonest still.
Brewha Offline
#278 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
HockeyDad wrote:
"availability"? Don't you mean "ban". What is it you want to ban?

Well if you must know;
People that wear sock with flip-flops.
"Near beer".
Sarah Palin.
Grays Anatomy.
People who boast "I never drink".
Four cylinder cars.
Sweet cocktails.
DrMaddVibe ( just kidding ;)
Bras.
People who can't accept the cultural differences of others.
The French.

Say, this should be it's own thread . . . .
ZRX1200 Offline
#279 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
I know we see it differently I'm just showing you I'm right and you're wrong!

Explosives have actually killed alot of people, in fact the worst school massacre was at the hands of explosives. They are heavily regulated and this thread and many arguments had nothing to to with anything other than guns.

Again nuclear weapons should be legal for a US citizen, but actually being able to attain one isnt going to happen on a large scale. I'll talk to your neighbor.
HockeyDad Offline
#280 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
Brewha wrote:
Well if you must know;
People that wear sock with flip-flops.
"Near beer".
Sarah Palin.
Grays Anatomy.
People who boast "I never drink".
Four cylinder cars.
Sweet cocktails.
DrMaddVibe ( just kidding ;)
Bras.
People who can't accept the cultural differences of others.
The French.

Say, this should be it's own thread . . . .




You're still being dishonest.
Brewha Offline
#281 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
HockeyDad wrote:
You're still being dishonest.

No, I never lie.
ZRX1200 Offline
#282 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
http://youtu.be/0Pl9T1QLvQw

Too funny
schusler Offline
#283 Posted:
Joined: 09-21-2010
Posts: 3,531
just an fyi


AR does NOT stand for Assault Rifle, as is commonly believed. AR stands for the original company that manufactured it, ArmaLite. ArmaLite sold their rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 designs in 1959 to Colt.
wheelrite Offline
#284 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
Brewha wrote:
No, I never lie.


you just did...
Brewha Offline
#285 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
wheelrite wrote:
you just did...

Well,,,,,,,,
There is always a first time.
wheelrite Offline
#286 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
Brewha wrote:
Well,,,,,,,,
There is always a first time.


See for me, it's the Tony Montana thing,,,
"Even when I lie, I tell the truth"...

say halloo to my little friend,,,
Brewha Offline
#287 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
schusler wrote:
just an fyi


AR does NOT stand for Assault Rifle, as is commonly believed. AR stands for the original company that manufactured it, ArmaLite. ArmaLite sold their rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 designs in 1959 to Colt.

No. These rifles we originally constructed of prefabulated Amulite. But contiguous assembly of the marsel vains was too costly and created sinusoidal depleneration. So they went with ArmaLite as the primary material. Because of this the AR15 no longer uses a girdle spring as did the AR14.
wheelrite Offline
#288 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
I have a Bushmaster and a Mini 14, seversl other Bolt Action Long guns,pistols, Lever action 44 Mag and a numerous other guns,,,
I have a chit load of IMR4350 powder,brass , a press, primers and bullets,,,

good to go...

I won't register or fingerprint,,,,

come and get them,,,
if ya can...
Brewha Offline
#289 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
When the zombies show, you'll be my bro!
wheelrite Offline
#290 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
Brewha wrote:
When the zombies show, you'll be my bro!


ok,,
btw,
when ya going to shoot pool again ?
bloody spaniard Offline
#291 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
wheelrite wrote:
I have a Bushmaster and a Mini 14, seversl other Bolt Action Long guns,pistols, Lever action 44 Mag and a numerous other guns,,,
I have a chit load of IMR4350 powder,brass , a press, primers and bullets,,,

good to go...

I won't register or fingerprint,,,,

come and get them,,,
if ya can...




All it takes is a reward/incentive for a snitch or a nosy neighbor that doesn't like you & poof they'll be gone after a Government visitWhistle
Brewha Offline
#292 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
wheelrite wrote:
ok,,
btw,
when ya going to shoot pool again ?

Should be the 9th from 4 to 6.
At the same old place.
DadZilla3 Offline
#293 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
Brewha wrote:
No. These rifles we originally constructed of prefabulated Amulite. But contiguous assembly of the marsel vains was too costly and created sinusoidal depleneration. So they went with ArmaLite as the primary material. Because of this the AR15 no longer uses a girdle spring as did the AR14.

Not many people know that Rockwell International experimented with prefabulated Amulite for precision cast spurving bearings long before Chrysler did.
Brewha Offline
#294 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
DadZilla3 wrote:
Not many people know that Rockwell International experimented with prefabulated Amulite for precision cast spurving bearings long before Chrysler did.

I did not know that. I would assume it was part of their delopment effort on encabulators as Chrysler building tank engines for the DOD. All of this would have been decades before Ford got in the defense game with the antipersonnel (self detonating) Pinto.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
6 Pages«<23456