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

Last post 8 years ago by Hillbillyjosh770. 274 replies replies.
6 Pages<123456>
Where's the media and POTUS calling for more gun control after this one
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
cacman Offline
#151 Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 10:04 AM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Wonder how much gun-control they have in Israel?? Wll the big "O" use this to further his agenda?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/02/middleeast/saudi-arabia-executes-dozens-terror/index.html
frankj1 Offline
#152 Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 10:04 AM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,252
ZRX1200 wrote:
Banderl, you've gotten answers.

as have I...

I suppose the word "fear" itself may have caused bad feeling. Probably could have used words like "concern" or "worry".

Certainly I am concerned/worried about fire and auto accidents. Guess I assumed that a similar low level of anxiety exists when guns are purchased, at least when purchased for protection vs sportsmen's activities.

So is this a fair question (realizing I am steering the discourse in a new direction) below:

I am not asking for anyone to take a risk of exposure here, but in general, do gun owners believe that other gun owners have a deeper mistrust of government be it current or potential?

Is this a significant percentage of the reasoning behind purchasing weapons?
tonygraz Offline
#153 Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 10:34 AM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,320
cacman wrote:
Wonder how much gun-control they have in Israel?? Wll the big "O" use this to further his agenda?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/02/middleeast/saudi-arabia-executes-dozens-terror/index.html


Heard some unsubstantiated rumbling that Netandyahoo tried or did try to bribe some congressmen to act against the Iranian deal. I wonder if this trend of Israel trying to influence us will continue or end in even less trust and cooperation. The 47 Saudi executions may or may not result in more intra-Arab conflicts - time will tell. Of course we are already being called complicit in that action.
Breakout3030 Offline
#154 Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 10:44 AM EST
Joined: 12-06-2014
Posts: 279
Our founding fathers knew one day that the Republic they built would begin to decay under the corruption of politicians and the abuse of power. In order to give the American people the ability to defend themselves against tyranny it was paramount that the populace have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. As long as the people have a way to fight against an oppressive government then that government has more difficulty taking away the rights and freedoms of the governed. We the people have a right and responsibility to be as EQUALLY armed and prepared as our government in the event we need to fight off a government that no longer represents us. That's what the 2nd amendment is for.

It also allows for the citizens to defend themselves, family, and property against anyone who would try to deny them those liberties. Evil resides in the hearts of evil men and force is all that stops them. If they have guns then it is necessary for good men to possess them as well.

Guns for the purpose of hunting or sport is not the reason the founding fathers wanted the 2nd amendment. It was common practice in those days to use the most advanced weapon available or necessary to provide food for their families by means of hunting. It was a tool of the trade that had a far greater purpose when it came to preserving ones freedom and civil liberties.

I know that when I personally think about what other gun owners may be thinking when they decide to purchase a gun and/or carry a gun I believe they most likely consider all the aforementioned factors and have decided it is not only their right but their duty. This lies at the heart of every patriot.

If a government doesn't like that its people are well armed then I question the true intent and motives of that government. A government should have a healthy fear of its citizens not the other way around!
MACS Offline
#155 Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 11:15 AM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,888
frankj1 wrote:
I am not asking for anyone to take a risk of exposure here, but in general, do gun owners believe that other gun owners have a deeper mistrust of government be it current or potential?

Is this a significant percentage of the reasoning behind purchasing weapons?


Personally, no. I like guns, and enjoy shooting them. My profession doesn't scare me, or I wouldn't do it, but it does require I be a little more 'concerned' than your average citizen.

As far as fear of the government... no. I served 20 years, as you know, and I'd say a large majority of the military would mutiny against the government if they ever attempted to use the military against its own citizens... our families and friends.

The gov't should be afraid of the military if it ever comes to that.
frankj1 Offline
#156 Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 1:05 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,252
#154 & #155

thanks.
tonygraz Offline
#157 Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 1:20 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,320
MACS wrote:
Personally, no. I like guns, and enjoy shooting them. My profession doesn't scare me, or I wouldn't do it, but it does require I be a little more 'concerned' than your average citizen.

As far as fear of the government... no. I served 20 years, as you know, and I'd say a large majority of the military would mutiny against the government if they ever attempted to use the military against its own citizens... our families and friends.

The gov't should be afraid of the military if it ever comes to that.



Yet they did in the depression when MacArthur and troops closed down the shanty town in DC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
ZRX1200 Offline
#158 Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 1:23 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,662
Frank, depends on how you look at it. Easy out to just say yes......but in my experience it's more of a long term outlook both directions in time and less of a here and now. And most of the types I know either served or like me had family that did. The types that some here are quick to label as racist or bigoted but are actually the least I've ever known. Salt of the earth types....to me.

But I digress. You're still talking about a segment of people. So human nature you're not going to have a true linear answer but a rainbow of black white and grey. More so than the general public? Probably BUT that's why I prefaced it with some qualifiers.

Anyone who WANTS to rebel violently against the government is mad. I don't know anyone who I call a friend that's mad.
Brewha Offline
#159 Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 1:41 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
Abrignac wrote:
Scott I do not carry because of fear. Quite the opposite. Pour 6 ozs of milk in a 12 oz glass and to me it's half full. I carry for a few reasons. Mostly because I've encountered thousands of 1%'ers in my career. When off duty, I go to restaurants, shopping malls, the gym, etc. Should I encounter one in a hostile situation I simply want the odds to be even. If I lived in fear I would alter my lifestyle to avoid confrontation. Think preparedness, not fear.

I also carry out of habit. For the past 12 years I've been armed either in uniform or concealed when off duty for so long that a firearm is as much a part of my wardrobe as is a wallet. In fact, many times I'll me leave my wallet in the car, but I've always got a pistol tucked inside my waist band or in my pocket.


Fear is a relative thing. While it is true at a level that I wear a seatbelt out of fear for my life, the statement paints the wrong picture and is misleading. You being in the profession and all, I would not say that you carry out of fear.

Two points here;
My opinion is we are all better off when off duty law enforcement carries.
We are not all better of when common people feel that carrying is prudent like wearing a seatbelt. They are amateurs with these dangerious tools and tend to raise the hazard level.

A lot of people I know carry out of a perceived need for protection. Because of the lives they lead and the places they go it seems apparent that the weapon they never want to be without is a substantial risk to their safety that they fail to realize. They tell me things that boil down to "guns are only dangerous when accidents happen". Oddly, this is the point I wish they saw more clearly.....
Brewha Offline
#160 Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 1:50 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
Breakout3030 wrote:
Our founding fathers knew one day that the Republic they built would begin to decay under the corruption of politicians and the abuse of power. In order to give the American people the ability to defend themselves against tyranny it was paramount that the populace have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. As long as the people have a way to fight against an oppressive government then that government has more difficulty taking away the rights and freedoms of the governed. We the people have a right and responsibility to be as EQUALLY armed and prepared as our government in the event we need to fight off a government that no longer represents us. That's what the 2nd amendment is for.

It also allows for the citizens to defend themselves, family, and property against anyone who would try to deny them those liberties. Evil resides in the hearts of evil men and force is all that stops them. If they have guns then it is necessary for good men to possess them as well.

Guns for the purpose of hunting or sport is not the reason the founding fathers wanted the 2nd amendment. It was common practice in those days to use the most advanced weapon available or necessary to provide food for their families by means of hunting. It was a tool of the trade that had a far greater purpose when it came to preserving ones freedom and civil liberties.

I know that when I personally think about what other gun owners may be thinking when they decide to purchase a gun and/or carry a gun I believe they most likely consider all the aforementioned factors and have decided it is not only their right but their duty. This lies at the heart of every patriot.

If a government doesn't like that its people are well armed then I question the true intent and motives of that government. A government should have a healthy fear of its citizens not the other way around!

You make it sound like armed citizens would have any kind of chance fighting our government. Our government is a super power with more weapons and technology then they will even tell us about. Our government has no fear of its armed citizens- none at all.

I mean it's a nice history lesson, with images of muskets and flutes. But it seems misleadingly irrelevant.
Breakout3030 Offline
#161 Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 2:13 PM EST
Joined: 12-06-2014
Posts: 279
Brewha wrote:
You make it sound like armed citizens would have any kind of chance fighting our government. Our government is a super power with more weapons and technology then they will even tell us about. Our government has no fear of its armed citizens- none at all.

I mean it's a nice history lesson, with images of muskets and flutes. But it seems misleadingly irrelevant.


I disagree. You assume that the government (politicians) would have the full support of the military and its arsenal. I do not believe the military would blindly turn on its citizens simply because they were ordered to do so. The leaders in our armed forces are very capable of discerning lawful and unlawful orders and how to appropriately respond to them. I also believe that at the core of most military service members you will find the heart of a patriot who fully understands more than anyone what the American spirit is and its value if they were forced by a corrupt government to engage a rebellion or revolution. After all they are the most highly trained group of freedom fighters on the planet. I'm betting they side with those seeking to defend and preserve freedom not the ones stripping it away.

Additionally, you discount an organized state militia, the state guard, state and local law enforcement as well as the collective power of many states working together with a common goal. Also, there is the possibility of allies aiding a revolution. The US sure does a good job of engaging in this type of behavior when it benefits them. I belive other countries would follow suit.

Lastly, none of this matters if the American people do not exercise their right. Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it.
cacman Offline
#162 Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 2:35 PM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
6 Time Felon Killed In Shootout By 13 Year Old During Home Invasion
http://gopthedailydose.com/2015/12/08/6-time-felon-killed-in-shootout-by-13-year-old-during-home-invasion/
tonygraz Offline
#163 Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 2:42 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,320
Breakout3030 wrote:
I disagree. You assume that the government (politicians) would have the full support of the military and its arsenal. I do not believe the military would blindly turn on its citizens simply because they were ordered to do so. The leaders in our armed forces are very capable of discerning lawful and unlawful orders and how to appropriately respond to them. I also believe that at the core of most military service members you will find the heart of a patriot who fully understands more than anyone what the American spirit is and its value if they were forced by a corrupt government to engage a rebellion or revolution. After all they are the most highly trained group of freedom fighters on the planet. I'm betting they side with those seeking to defend and preserve freedom not the ones stripping it away.

Additionally, you discount an organized state militia, the state guard, state and local law enforcement as well as the collective power of many states working together with a common goal. Also, there is the possibility of allies aiding a revolution. The US sure does a good job of engaging in this type of behavior when it benefits them. I belive other countries would follow suit.

Lastly, none of this matters if the American people do not exercise their right. Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it.


The State guard was in question at Kent State.
tonygraz Offline
#164 Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 2:47 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,320
cacman wrote:
6 Time Felon Killed In Shootout By 13 Year Old During Home Invasion
http://gopthedailydose.com/2015/12/08/6-time-felon-killed-in-shootout-by-13-year-old-during-home-invasion/


You are cherry picking an incident that supports your views. A 13 year old with access to a gun is not often a good thing.
cacman Offline
#165 Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 3:59 PM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
tonygraz wrote:
YA 13 year old with access to a gun is not often a good thing.

True. But there's something to be said for a teenager knowing how to properly use a weapon. Many are raised from an early age surrounded by guns.

Does this better fit yours and the big "O"s anti-gun policies? Israel has tougher gun laws than we do.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/02/middleeast/tel-aviv-pub-shooting/index.html

Or are you a proponent of the "run & hide" philosophy?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/us/unarmed-aviation-officers/
Brewha Offline
#166 Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 5:20 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
Breakout3030 wrote:
I disagree. You assume that the government (politicians) would have the full support of the military and its arsenal. I do not believe the military would blindly turn on its citizens simply because they were ordered to do so. The leaders in our armed forces are very capable of discerning lawful and unlawful orders and how to appropriately respond to them. I also believe that at the core of most military service members you will find the heart of a patriot who fully understands more than anyone what the American spirit is and its value if they were forced by a corrupt government to engage a rebellion or revolution. After all they are the most highly trained group of freedom fighters on the planet. I'm betting they side with those seeking to defend and preserve freedom not the ones stripping it away.

Additionally, you discount an organized state militia, the state guard, state and local law enforcement as well as the collective power of many states working together with a common goal. Also, there is the possibility of allies aiding a revolution. The US sure does a good job of engaging in this type of behavior when it benefits them. I belive other countries would follow suit.

Lastly, none of this matters if the American people do not exercise their right. Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it.

If the military did not support the executive branch, we would have no need of armed citizens in the conflict. If they did support them against the will of the people the state militia, guard, police and citizens combined would not have a fighting chance of defeating the US military. So armed citizens, today in this country, remain inconsequential in fighting our government gone bad.

However it is about us exercising our rights - responsibility. And as times and weapons change so should the regulations, if we are to be responsible and deserving of our rights. And no amount of flag waving will change that.
MACS Offline
#167 Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 5:27 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,888
Brewha wrote:
Fear is a relative thing. While it is true at a level that I wear a seatbelt out of fear for my life, the statement paints the wrong picture and is misleading. You being in the profession and all, I would not say that you carry out of fear.

Two points here;
My opinion is we are all better off when off duty law enforcement carries.
We are not all better of when common people feel that carrying is prudent like wearing a seatbelt. They are amateurs with these dangerious tools and tend to raise the hazard level.

A lot of people I know carry out of a perceived need for protection. Because of the lives they lead and the places they go it seems apparent that the weapon they never want to be without is a substantial risk to their safety that they fail to realize. They tell me things that boil down to "guns are only dangerous when accidents happen". Oddly, this is the point I wish they saw more clearly.....


Says you. Like I've already said in this thread... the majority of people I know who carry are a hell of a lot more proficient with a handgun than just about all of the cops I know, save for the prior military cops. You're making assumptions, and I will grant you that some of the folks with a CCW are 'tards... but I firmly believe the percentage of 'tards is small.

If you're not afraid to walk around unarmed with the criminals in this world, why the f*** does a law abiding person with a gun scare you so much?
gummy jones Offline
#168 Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 5:28 PM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
with the bill of rights in general and as it pertains to the 2nd amendment specifically it will be death by a million cuts, not a gov vs citizen stand off. heck, you have the "best and brightest" on college campuses lining up to give away their first amendment rights as it pertains to free speech and we all know (thanks to the media) that the Christians are nothing more than bigots ram27bat

look at what is going on in new york (if you aren't a rich celebrity you can't own let along carry a firearm), connecticut (semi auto rifle confiscation), etc

as far as the military, police, etc "turning on" the people…it is amazing what orders someone will sign when they are being directed by the folks who sign their paychecks. there is already a campaign to make gun owners seem to be people on the fringe of society and you need look no further than the multiple debriefings on the "countless right wing terrorists."
gummy jones Offline
#169 Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 5:31 PM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
MACS wrote:
Says you. Like I've already said in this thread... the majority of people I know who carry are a hell of a lot more proficient with a handgun than just about all of the cops I know, save for the prior military cops. You're making assumptions, and I will grant you that some of the folks with a CCW are 'tards... but I firmly believe the percentage of 'tards is small.

If you're not afraid to walk around unarmed with the criminals in this world, why the f*** does a law abiding person with a gun scare you so much?


with the full court press cnn, msnbc, etc is putting on i really can't blame people with otherwise little to no exposure carrying the viewpoint we see some of our brothers/sisters on this forum carry. i have a feeling if they hung out with some of us a little more they would see just how normal the overwhelming majority of gun owners (and carriers) are.
Breakout3030 Offline
#170 Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 6:24 PM EST
Joined: 12-06-2014
Posts: 279
Brewha wrote:
If the military did not support the executive branch, we would have no need of armed citizens in the conflict. If they did support them against the will of the people the state militia, guard, police and citizens combined would not have a fighting chance of defeating the US military. So armed citizens, today in this country, remain inconsequential in fighting our government gone bad.

However it is about us exercising our rights - responsibility. And as times and weapons change so should the regulations, if we are to be responsible and deserving of our rights. And no amount of flag waving will change that.



Clearly you underestimate the spirit of an American patriot, the resolve in a free citizen, and the undeniable will of a revolutionary to live free or die trying. The only way for evil to prevail is through the indifference of good men. You may not believe what I believe but given the choice I believe in the collective power of the people to throw off their government when diplomacy is dead.

I'm a Texan, I'm a southerner, I'm a rebel at heart and if ever the time comes that I need to take up arms against my government I have that right as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment because of the wisdom our forefathers. I'm not afraid of the US military. The only ones needing regulation are the damned politicians and elitist in Washington!
frankj1 Offline
#171 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 12:17 AM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,252
ZRX1200 wrote:
Frank, depends on how you look at it. Easy out to just say yes......but in my experience it's more of a long term outlook both directions in time and less of a here and now. And most of the types I know either served or like me had family that did. The types that some here are quick to label as racist or bigoted but are actually the least I've ever known. Salt of the earth types....to me.

But I digress. You're still talking about a segment of people. So human nature you're not going to have a true linear answer but a rainbow of black white and grey. More so than the general public? Probably BUT that's why I prefaced it with some qualifiers.

Anyone who WANTS to rebel violently against the government is mad. I don't know anyone who I call a friend that's mad.

I understand. I don't disagree.

And I also wanted the discussion to include comments about gun ownership as it relates to potential rebellion. I agree with your take on that as well. I am not surprised that we agree.

But we never wander down the rebellion path here, and it seems to me it is a path inhabited by very passionate people.

So while thinking about this polarizing issue, and looking inward a bit to find from where my discomfort stems, I realize I have no opposition to the right to bear arms. I accept the right to own, my confusion, or rather my lack of understanding the strong desire to own, is not really about those who feel their families and possessions will be better protected or who enjoy hunting or just like target shooting (sounds like fun actually).

I guess I have a difficult time with two types:

One group would be the crazies, those hearing voices, those with a grudge, the lunatics that show up in schools and theaters and malls who are mentally ill, who's wives left them, managers fired them, classmates mocked them. I am worried about those people but that is a risk in this free life and there is no proactive medicine or law that can save me if I am in proximity to them when they go off. Nor do I ask for a law inhibiting you just to pretend to keep me safe. It is what it is, good luck everyone.

The other group is made up of those that are convinced they need to be ready to fight the government. Here is where it gets murky for me.

I am from an era that was taught to fear Commies. But I always believed that although guns may be able to physically take over our country, they were powerless to change hearts and minds. And without controlling the hearts and minds of the citizenry, it is only a matter of time until a takeover fails...without any shots being fired. So I am more than a bit worried about stockpiling weapons, especially when in reality it is like slingshots against nukes.

When it comes to preserving freedom, better to have consensus than force.
ZRX1200 Offline
#172 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 1:08 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,662
For Brewha:
http://www.usacarry.com/anti-gun-sheriff-negligently-discharges-weapon-shoots-himself/
ZRX1200 Offline
#173 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 1:11 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,662
The thing is Frank if it got there, the feds cannot simply nuke everyone.
tonygraz Offline
#174 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 10:31 AM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,320
Frank, I never feared communism. It sounds good, but is so opposed to human nature that it may never work. All the so-called communist countries were nothing more than dictatorships.
tailgater Offline
#175 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 11:35 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
tonygraz wrote:
Frank, I never feared communism. It sounds good, but is so opposed to human nature that it may never work. All the so-called communist countries were nothing more than dictatorships.


Really?
What part of communism "sounds good"?
Speyside Offline
#176 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 11:43 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Interesting post. MACS commented on the potential of the military revolting. To add to that point the oath that all military personnel take is to uphold the constitution. This has a far different meaning than to uphold the government.
gummy jones Offline
#177 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 11:44 AM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
tonygraz wrote:
Frank, I never feared communism. It sounds good, but is so opposed to human nature that it may never work. All the so-called communist countries were nothing more than dictatorships.


has never and will never

fixed it for ya
tonygraz Offline
#178 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 11:53 AM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,320
tailgater wrote:
Really?
What part of communism "sounds good"?



Equality.
gummy jones Offline
#179 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 11:57 AM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
tailgater wrote:
Really?
What part of communism "sounds good"?







don't be dense, its easy
maybe its:

the part where no one is better than average
or the part where everyone is locked into the same social class
or the part where the small ruling class runs the country as kings
or maybe the part where millions of civilians end up executed by one means or another
gummy jones Offline
#180 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 11:58 AM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
tonygraz wrote:
Equality.


equality by making it unequal for everyone above the set line of demarcation

sounds great
frankj1 Offline
#181 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 12:05 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,252
tonygraz wrote:
Frank, I never feared communism. It sounds good, but is so opposed to human nature that it may never work. All the so-called communist countries were nothing more than dictatorships.

I agree. and it was as a polarizing, fear inducing issue used to lead the eloctorate in a certain direction...I am concerned that ISIS et al are being presented to us the same way today, but I am not certain at this point...yet.

Ironic that the people who most mistrust today's gov't come from the right, as gov't has swung left of center. My most active protest years were as the gov't swung right of center, late 1960's to early 1970's. Oddly, many of the issues were exactly the same as today, especially:

military involvement in far away countries.

government spying on private citizens' private communications (pre cell phone/e-mail)

"enemies" lists being compiled, those not in line with the powers were labeled as "subversives"

left leaning people felt quite Patriotic, it was an obligation to regain lost freedoms.

does all this sound familiar to my friends here on the right? HA!

Perhaps the lessons of my younger days has made me more tolerant of the issues considered important on these right leaning forums.
ZRX1200 Offline
#182 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 12:27 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,662
Yeah they do Frank, and I wasn't yet a twinkle in my dad's eye.
frankj1 Offline
#183 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 4:20 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,252
ZRX1200 wrote:
Yeah they do Frank, and I wasn't yet a twinkle in my dad's eye.

I guess the lesson is never expect the home team to always behave as well as they did when they were struggling on the road...even when the home team is your own.
tailgater Offline
#184 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 4:38 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
tonygraz wrote:
Equality.


Government issued equality.
A liberals dream, despite the known fact that forced equality doesn't lift the lowest portion, but rather pulls down the highest.

I find it repulsive.
frankj1 Offline
#185 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 6:27 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,252
apology due here, I took us off track.
frankj1 Offline
#186 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 6:34 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,252
...and turned on the news only to see an armed militia take over of a fed location in Oregon!
ZRX1200 Offline
#187 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 6:45 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,662
Careful what you take for truth from the media on it Frank.
Brewha Offline
#188 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 6:51 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
MACS wrote:
Says you. Like I've already said in this thread... the majority of people I know who carry are a hell of a lot more proficient with a handgun than just about all of the cops I know, save for the prior military cops. You're making assumptions, and I will grant you that some of the folks with a CCW are 'tards... but I firmly believe the percentage of 'tards is small.

If you're not afraid to walk around unarmed with the criminals in this world, why the f*** does a law abiding person with a gun scare you so much?

Because of the growing number of tards. And the amount of gun violence from them. I wish I agreed with you that the people who carry are almost exclusively response and more proficient than cops. But I don't.

And I speak of keeping regulations current and reasonable. Not taking everyone's weapons.

Why don't the growing number of gun owners who are of diminished capacity scare you?
MACS Offline
#189 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 6:53 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,888
Brewha wrote:
Because of the growing number of tards. And the amount of gun violence from them. I wish I agreed with you that the people who carry are almost exclusively response and more proficient than cops. But I don't.

And I speak of keeping regulations current and reasonable. Not taking everyone's weapons.

Why don't the growing number of gun owners who are of diminished capacity scare you?


Because I'm armed... and likely a better shot. Too easy.
Brewha Offline
#190 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 7:05 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
Breakout3030 wrote:
Clearly you underestimate the spirit of an American patriot, the resolve in a free citizen, and the undeniable will of a revolutionary to live free or die trying. The only way for evil to prevail is through the indifference of good men. You may not believe what I believe but given the choice I believe in the collective power of the people to throw off their government when diplomacy is dead.

I'm a Texan, I'm a southerner, I'm a rebel at heart and if ever the time comes that I need to take up arms against my government I have that right as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment because of the wisdom our forefathers. I'm not afraid of the US military. The only ones needing regulation are the damned politicians and elitist in Washington!

Well I'm a Texan too. And we can agree to disagree on the practical ability of "the American Patriot". But I admire your vision - seems honorable enough.

I think the current focus on revising regulations is and should be about people having access to guns out side of the system, like guns shows or friends rather than dealers or some regulated channel. Right now. I can be bat sh1t crazy but still just go buy me a gun. And I still se no rational is selling 30 round clips.

We prolly also differ on this; it isn't damned politicians or the elitists that are the problem. It is the owners of our country that they work for. And that ain't us brother.....
Brewha Offline
#191 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 7:08 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
MACS wrote:
Because I'm armed... and likely a better shot. Too easy.

Because gunfight are always fought fairly, right?
I mean it's not like they could shoot you without warning, right?
Brewha Offline
#192 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 7:12 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
ZRX1200 wrote:
For Brewha:
http://www.usacarry.com/anti-gun-sheriff-negligently-discharges-weapon-shoots-himself/

Guess he understands the inherent risk of fire arms....

Pity so few others do.
MACS Offline
#193 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 7:19 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,888
Brewha wrote:
Because gunfight are always fought fairly, right?
I mean it's not like they could shoot you without warning, right?


Dude... that was a joke. You set me right up, I had to.

Frankly, I think your fears are misguided. I don't think any more crazies are armed today than there was years ago, I just think it's fear mongering.
tonygraz Offline
#194 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 7:24 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,320
More guns, people getting crazier, nothing to fear.
Abrignac Offline
#195 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 8:04 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,363
Brewha wrote:
Well I'm a Texan too. And we can agree to disagree on the practical ability of "the American Patriot". But I admire your vision - seems honorable enough.

I think the current focus on revising regulations is and should be about people having access to guns out side of the system, like guns shows or friends rather than dealers or some regulated channel. Right now. I can be bat sh1t crazy but still just go buy me a gun. And I still se no rational is selling 30 round clips.

We prolly also differ on this; it isn't damned politicians or the elitists that are the problem. It is the owners of our country that they work for. And that ain't us brother.....



You do realize that the number of multiple deaths of a single incident shot outside a war zone with a weapon using a high high capacity is probably less than the times CBidders sharted in 2015?

Banning high capacity magazines will have a smaller effect on unnatural death than banning school busses.
frankj1 Offline
#196 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 8:09 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,252
ZRX1200 wrote:
Careful what you take for truth from the media on it Frank.

I know, I know.
But what amazing timing, no?
cacman Offline
#197 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 8:27 PM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Abrignac wrote:
You do realize that the number of multiple deaths of a single incident shot outside a war zone with a weapon using a high high capacity is probably less than the times CBidders sharted in 2015?

Banning high capacity magazines will have a smaller effect on unnatural death than banning school busses.

And probably even less than the number of over-bids.
gummy jones Offline
#198 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 9:41 PM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
Brewha wrote:
Guess he understands the inherent risk of fire arms....

Pity so few others do.


The risk that if you aim it at yourself and pull the trigger you will shoot yourself?
Seems inherently stupid too me, similar to driving your car into a tree
TMCTLT Offline
#199 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 11:09 PM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
tonygraz wrote:
More guns, people getting crazier, nothing to fear.



Apparently Rahm Emmanual and the other Chitcagoan's agree with you.


http://patriotpowerednews.com/chicago-airport-police-told-to-run-hide-in-an-active-shooter-scenario/

There's nothing to fear ( just run and HIDE!!!! )
ZRX1200 Offline
#200 Posted: Sun, Jan 3 2016, 11:56 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,662
Frank.
https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/723
Users browsing this topic
Guest
6 Pages<123456>
Back to Top