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

Last post 6 years ago by DrafterX. 167 replies replies.
4 Pages<1234>
March for Our Lives organizers dramatically inflate crowd size
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
DrafterX Offline
#101 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 2:44 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
A university professor studying large-scale, Trump-era protests in Washington says the media is giving the wrong impression about who made up the crowd during last weekend’s anti-gun March for Our Lives demonstration.

“My research tells a different story about who participated in the March for Our Lives — and it is more complicated and less well-packaged for prime time,” University of Maryland sociology professor Dana R. Fisher wrote in a Wednesday story for the Washington Post.

Fisher’s study indicates that -- while news coverage focused on the teenagers marching for gun control in the wake of last month’s shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida --- 90 percent of the crowd was actually adults. She said the average age of adults in the crowd was just under 49.
And we were misled also....



Planned Parenthood, Move On and the Women's March all playing a role in the March for our Lives; Washington Free Beacon reporter Stephen Gutowski examines who's really behind the gun control push.Video
The truth behind the 'student-led' March for our Lives

“Contrary to what’s been reported in many media accounts, the D.C. March for Our Lives crowd was not primarily made up of teenagers,” Fisher wrote. “Only about 10 percent of the participants were under 18.”

Film at 11... Mellow
dstieger Offline
#102 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 2:55 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Mr. Jones wrote:
Teenagers NOGGINS are A lot SMALLER than ADULTS
H.E.A.D.S....

H.E.N.C.E.

YOUINS' can put more DUMBAZZ PUBESCENT NOGGINS in the same square footage as an adult crowd...

^^^ if you believe that ^^^ Than you probably agree with the CRAP those IDJITS were trying to sell to the American Public...

WHICH ...
WAS
A
LOAD
OF
B.U.N.K....

DAVID HOGG'S sorry AZZ LARGESSE TRIANGLE NOGGIN
"WITH ATMOSPHERE" SKEWED THE NUMBERS BADLY and confused the digital camera lenses...which wacked out the
SD cards and messed wit' da' computer algorithms....

Then the short haired Hispanic "future girls gym teacher"
K.E.N.T. gave the finger to the helicopter photographer and that threatened him... which is why he inflated the march number count 400%...( <<< and BLOOMBERG deposited $250 L.A.R.G.E. CASH in a Caymans safe deposit box and delivered the key to the photographer a week before "the march").


Wow....who'd have thought.....Mr. Jones, your post makes more sense to me than nearly every other one above it
ZRX1200 Offline
#103 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 3:06 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,604
Yeah Al, I really celebrate the English telling is to disarm. Again.
Abrignac Offline
#104 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 3:22 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
HuckFinn wrote:
I see zero similarity between cars and guns as weapons.
The former is unintentional, the latter intentional.

It's ridiculous.


No, you’re ridiculous. What difference does it make if a child, or for that matter anyone, is killed by a drunk driver, a botched medical procedure, a drug overdose, falling out of treehouse or being shot with a gun. A dead person is a dead person.

If you truly care about saving lives, then you would also advocate taking cars off the road. IIRC, more people die in car crashes than being shot.

Stray a bit from the talking points memos. Anyone with an ounce sense realizes you have no original thought.
Abrignac Offline
#105 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 3:30 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
delta1 wrote:
yep...if it was, it'd be tough to remain in his presence, and there is ample evidence here that various people tolerated him well...



RE: OP topic...there were many more people, in total, attending the various protests all over the country (and the world - there were reports of solidarity events in many other countries) than attended the inauguration...the targeting of inflated numbers of protesters is a diversion from the impact of the message, and another attempt to scorn the messengers...

I find it telling that the cons stood up for the First Amendment rights of the white supremacists who protested in Charlottesville...and can't accept that the same right belongs to the kids...


I’d be labeled by many as conservative leaning. I also have zero problems with people protesting. In fact, I tend to find it quite comical when considering the rational behind some protests.

Speyside Offline
#106 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 3:44 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
I must have missed it. I don't think any conservative here said the kids did not have the right to protest. They questioned if they understood why they were protesting. In fact I think conservatives would demand those kids have the right to protest.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#107 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 3:59 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,431
Abrignac wrote:
I’d be labeled by many as conservative leaning. I also have zero problems with people protesting. In fact, I tend to find it quite comical when considering the rational behind some protests.



With the Parkland shooting victims we have a protest, nay a demonstration that we find the youth of Today wanting their rights taken away. Up until now it was for rights or the abuse of power maybe toss in a war demonstration or 3...can't forget the pu$$y hat brigade parade, a million man march...ya know that kinda thing! This was a new low though for Freedom.
HuckFinn Offline
#108 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 4:52 PM EST
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
Abrignac wrote:
No, you’re ridiculous. What difference does it make if a child, or for that matter anyone, is killed by a drunk driver, a botched medical procedure, a drug overdose, falling out of treehouse or being shot with a gun. A dead person is a dead person.

If you truly care about saving lives, then you would also advocate taking cars off the road. IIRC, more people die in car crashes than being shot.

Stray a bit from the talking points memos. Anyone with an ounce sense realizes you have no original thought.

Yeah, hard to be insulted by someone with obvious anger issues...so here ya go
Some yahoo kid targeting fellow students with a high powered weapon is perpetrating an intentional act of homicide. Right?

If you agree continue reading.
If you don't find somebody who cares about your opinions.
And see if you can get a rise outta them.

A drunk driver kills people not because he's targeting them, not because he's been bullied and made crazy by them, but because he's a reckless, miserable azz9hole who doesn't value his or anyone elses life. But he's not looking for people to kill. Or planning it.

Same with a botched medical procedure. The doctor didn't go in to the operating room thinking 'who should I kill today'.

Yup a dead person is a dead person. Is that an original thought?

Isn't there a difference between planning and executing serial murders and accidently hitting someone with your car?

Maybe not very original on my part but seems self-evident. To me.
delta1 Offline
#109 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 5:07 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
ZRX1200 wrote:
Yeah Al, I really celebrate the English telling is to disarm. Again.


I support the 2nd amendment and believe that the right to bear arms is guaranteed for all Americans. But I also understand that some, very few, circumstances in civil society compel all of us to sacrifice a tiny bit of our civil liberties so that the collective members of the society can be safe, healthy and prosper.

None of us has unfettered rights...each individual right, guaranteed by our Constitution, has established limitations that the wise people before us deemed proper. Just as the primary right to free speech and assembly, guaranteed to all Americans by the First Amendment, has reasonable regulations, so too does the 2nd Amendment. These reasonable limitations evolved over time, as the society evolved. This process will continue as long as we endure.

"Taking away our guns" is fear-mongering...it will never happen. And it isn't the same as reasonable limits to gun ownership in our complex modern society. Reasonable limitations like making it illegal to have machine guns, fully automatic guns, silencers, short barreled shotguns and rifles, and denying ownership rights to specific categories of persons, ie mentally disabled, violent domestic abusers and felons.
ZRX1200 Offline
#110 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 5:18 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,604
Silencers are actually SUPRESSORS. And they are a safety item that are WIDELY ACCEPTED as such by countries in Europe with stricter gun laws than us. God I love getting preached to by people that don't know enough about it to tie their shoes. Machineguns are fully automatic, and can be purchased and owned in some states if you go through the feds for a referral stamp. FYI only ONE CRIME has ever been attributed to such a weapon. Also, your fine state outlawed .50 caliber Barrett Arms rifles. Guess how many crimes had been committed with one..........that's right ZERO. It isn't fear mongering when you have a former SCOTUS judge calling for overturning the 2nd, and ballot initiatives by political "preachers" like #43 here in Oregon trying to turn me into a felon. You can check back in with me when the left gains one iota of "give" because they don't. I'm disgusted by the right and I find the left absolutely repugnant.
tailgater Offline
#111 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 5:22 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
HuckFinn wrote:
Yeah, hard to be insulted by someone with obvious anger issues...so here ya go
Some yahoo kid targeting fellow students with a high powered weapon is perpetrating an intentional act of homicide. Right?

If you agree continue reading.
If you don't find somebody who cares about your opinions.
And see if you can get a rise outta them.

A drunk driver kills people not because he's targeting them, not because he's been bullied and made crazy by them, but because he's a reckless, miserable azz9hole who doesn't value his or anyone elses life. But he's not looking for people to kill. Or planning it.

Same with a botched medical procedure. The doctor didn't go in to the operating room thinking 'who should I kill today'.

Yup a dead person is a dead person. Is that an original thought?

Isn't there a difference between planning and executing serial murders and accidently hitting someone with your car?

Maybe not very original on my part but seems self-evident. To me.


What if a thug was shooting a rival thug and the bullet hits an innocent kid on the side of the road?
Is that OK because it's an accident?
Or is it not OK because it's a gun fired on purpose?


Bottom line: If the person in your original statement above is using a gun for an INTENTIONAL act of homicide, do you think for even one moment that taking away a certain type of rifle will stymie that urge?
victor809 Offline
#112 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 5:26 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
What if a thug was shooting a rival thug and the bullet hits an innocent kid on the side of the road?
Is that OK because it's an accident?
Or is it not OK because it's a gun fired on purpose?



But what if the bullet was fired by a thug at another thug, passed through a kid, wounding him but not killing him, went two blocks down the street, turned left, registered to vote as democrat and helped elect a pro-abortion congressman?

Is that OK because it's an accident?
Or is it not OK because it's a gun fired on purpose?
Phil222 Offline
#113 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 5:27 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
ZRX1200 wrote:
FYI only ONE CRIME has ever been attributed to such a weapon.


Do you mean since they were outlawed? I'm far from an expert on the subject, but I thought some of our very first gun legislation was in response to automatic weapons like the Thompson being used in gang violence during the prohibition era...
ZRX1200 Offline
#114 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 5:27 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,604
Doesn't matter tail, you hate children and want them to die obviously. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!! TAKE MY RIGHTS! !!!

there is no honest conversation about cause analysis and what measures might be PRODUCTIVE. Because it's for the children, and shut up you ignorant bitter clinger.
ZRX1200 Offline
#115 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 5:28 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,604
Since the ban yes.
frankj1 Offline
#116 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 5:29 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
what if the bullet turned right?
victor809 Offline
#117 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 5:31 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
frankj1 wrote:
what if the bullet turned right?

A nod to subliminal messaging... I didn't even intentionally use the "left" direction. :)
Phil222 Offline
#118 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 5:31 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
ZRX1200 wrote:
Since the ban yes.


So bans can prevent certain types of gun murders?? Cool
frankj1 Offline
#119 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 5:33 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
ZRX1200 wrote:
Since the ban yes.

dead serious here cuz I don't know a thing about this gun or this ban...but are you saying since the ban zero (or one) person has been killed by the banned gun???

Wouldn't that support those in favor of that ban?
delta1 Offline
#120 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 6:31 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
ZRX1200 wrote:
Silencers are actually SUPRESSORS. And they are a safety item that are WIDELY ACCEPTED as such by countries in Europe with stricter gun laws than us. God I love getting preached to by people that don't know enough about it to tie their shoes. Machineguns are fully automatic, and can be purchased and owned in some states if you go through the feds for a referral stamp. FYI only ONE CRIME has ever been attributed to such a weapon. Also, your fine state outlawed .50 caliber Barrett Arms rifles. Guess how many crimes had been committed with one..........that's right ZERO. It isn't fear mongering when you have a former SCOTUS judge calling for overturning the 2nd, and ballot initiatives by political "preachers" like #43 here in Oregon trying to turn me into a felon. You can check back in with me when the left gains one iota of "give" because they don't. I'm disgusted by the right and I find the left absolutely repugnant.



dayum...musta hit a nerve...sorry dude....oh, BTW....I've moved....
HuckFinn Offline
#121 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 6:36 PM EST
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
tailgater wrote:
What if a thug was shooting a rival thug and the bullet hits an innocent kid on the side of the road?
Is that OK because it's an accident?
Or is it not OK because it's a gun fired on purpose?


Bottom line: If the person in your original statement above is using a gun for an INTENTIONAL act of homicide, do you think for even one moment that taking away a certain type of rifle will stymie that urge?

A thug shooting a thug...and then....hmm
Thinking. Seems like a good question. Let's see.

Thugs are gonna shoot each other. That's a given, just part of the job description.
Innocent bystander dies? How can that be OK? It's murder, intentional murder. Wrong target.
Even if the right guy died it's murder. Pre-planned murder.

Unlike our careless doctor, drunk driver or tree climber.

The urge you mention isn't going anywhere. And anyway what you call an 'urge' is as often as not a survival instinct in a horrible neighborhood, no?
Taking away this or that gun isn't going to stop him from finding another lethal weapon, granted.
But probably taking away certain weapons will lessen the collateral damage.
Guns, especially automatic weapons, make murder very easy.





HuckFinn Offline
#122 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 6:55 PM EST
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
victor809 wrote:
But what if the bullet was fired by a thug at another thug, passed through a kid, wounding him but not killing him, went two blocks down the street, turned left, registered to vote as democrat and helped elect a pro-abortion congressman?

Is that OK because it's an accident?
Or is it not OK because it's a gun fired on purpose?

Hey, a vote is a vote.
delta1 Offline
#123 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 7:32 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
zrx is right about a former lib SCOTUS saying the 2nd Amendment should be repealed...BS...that will never happen.

But after his post momentarily silenced me, I had to SUPPRESS some laughter...

Jamie actually made the point for positive results of gun control measures. He argued quite vigorously and persuasively that weapons that have been banned have not been involved in many crimes... ONE....kinda disproves the argument that if you make it illegal, only the bad guys will have them...


imagine what would've happened had there been a ban on other weapons... the ones with millions in circulation...


Tell me again why the NRA opposes the CDC studying the relationship between gun ownership and gun deaths...
tailgater Offline
#124 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 8:06 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
But what if the bullet was fired by a thug at another thug, passed through a kid, wounding him but not killing him, went two blocks down the street, turned left, registered to vote as democrat and helped elect a pro-abortion congressman?

Is that OK because it's an accident?
Or is it not OK because it's a gun fired on purpose?


You finally get me.
HuckFinn Offline
#125 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 8:07 PM EST
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
tailgater wrote:
You finally get me.


TG, you drinking?
tailgater Offline
#126 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 8:09 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:
what if the bullet turned right?


That's when it ricocheted out of Kennedy's throat.
tailgater Offline
#127 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 8:15 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:
dead serious here cuz I don't know a thing about this gun or this ban...but are you saying since the ban zero (or one) person has been killed by the banned gun???

Wouldn't that support those in favor of that ban?


If the purpose of the ban is to prevent deaths BY THAT WEAPON, then yes.

But if the purpose of the ban is to prevent deaths, then no.

That's the crux of the argument and the left is shape shifting the facts to make pseudo points.

Does anyone deny that banning the AR15 would lessen the number of deaths by an AR15?


The issue in an honest discussion is whether that ban would result in less overall deaths.


ZRX1200 Offline
#128 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 8:32 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,604
California banned the Barrett .50 Cal rifle zero crimes had been comitted with it.

Full auto? Oh we've had crime.....at the boarder.......again people who aren't familiar with the law, here's a readable link.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/05/21/machine-guns-legal-practical-guide-full-auto/

Again all the act did was move criminals to other weapons and we're back to blaming an inanimate object, and not putting a big enough STICK on enforcement on criminal action. Period.
ZRX1200 Offline
#129 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 8:34 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,604
I'm actually OK with the full auto process but the 86 law is utter BS.
Phil222 Offline
#130 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 8:44 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
tailgater wrote:
The issue in an honest discussion is whether that ban would result in less overall deaths.


Correct. I have seen nothing as of yet that leads me to believe it would.
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#131 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 10:04 PM EST
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
Jamie, we are on the same side, but you are incorrect about only one fully automatic weapon being used in a crime (post #110). Since the Firearm Act of 1934, there are been four LEGALLY OWNED fully automatic weapons used in a crime. Three of them where performed by Law Enforcement Officers with their service weapons. The latest one happened in NJ some years back when a SWAT officer used his fully automatic MP-5 Submachine gun to kill his wife, neighbors and Police Chef. All media outlets referred to this Submachine gun as the officer's "Service Rifle". A semi-auto AR-15 in the hands of a civilian is reported as a "deadly high powered bullet spewing military assualt weapon", yet a fully automatic Submachine gun in the hands of a criminal police officer is described as a "service rifle". Yet there are some who still believe that the media does not have an agenda and is not feeding the American people propaganda.

Illegal fully automatic weapons (many of them smuggled into the country) have been used numourous times to commit crime and murder. In the 1997 "Hollywood Shootout", bank robbers clad in home made body armor and armed with illegally modified fully automatic weapons had a rolling shootout with police on the streets. The robbers where eventually killed, but 12 police officers and 8 civilians where wounded. Throughout the years there have been many more then that. So no, the Firearm Act of 1934 did not stop illegally smuggled or modified machine guns from ending up on our streets and being used in crimes and murders.

I'm just setting the record straight.

David (dpnewell)
ZRX1200 Offline
#132 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 10:22 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,604
Well that was legal rifles, illegally modified so not technically "machine guns". They actually would have been more aptly described as ACTUAL assault rifles.
Ewok126 Offline
#133 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 10:28 PM EST
Joined: 06-25-2017
Posts: 4,356
Here is Eddie G talking about that bank robbery. Don't watch with kids around.

https://goo.gl/E4nVbD
Phil222 Offline
#134 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 10:36 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
Ewok126 wrote:
Here is Eddie G talking about that bank robbery. Don't watch with kids around.

https://goo.gl/E4nVbD


Laugh
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#135 Posted: Wed, Mar 28 2018, 10:49 PM EST
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
The Barrett .50 was outlawed for one reason and one reason alone. To protect the ruling class. Politicians where fearful of being assassinated by it due to it's extreme range (1.1 miles). The idea that a criminal would use a $10,000.00, 31 lb., 5' long rifle to commit crimes is laughable.

David (dpnewell)
frankj1 Offline
#136 Posted: Thu, Mar 29 2018, 8:37 AM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
other than to use as a sniper, why would I want one?
forget legal illegal, what was it developed for?
dstieger Offline
#137 Posted: Thu, Mar 29 2018, 8:53 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Varmint control....in South Dakota......from Kansas
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#138 Posted: Thu, Mar 29 2018, 9:53 AM EST
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
frankj1 wrote:
other than to use as a sniper, why would I want one?
forget legal illegal, what was it developed for?


The only thing it is used for in civilian life is competition and sport shooting, by very rich folk. $10,000 for the rifle and $5.00 to $8.00 for EACH bullet. It was outlawed under the lie that criminals would favor it. Yes, I can just see some dude holding up a liquor store with a $10,000 rifle, that is almost 5' long, weights 31 lbs., and has the recoil kick of a mule. It is only the politicians wishing to enslave us who fear this massive target shooting rifle.

David (dpnewell)
ZRX1200 Offline
#139 Posted: Thu, Mar 29 2018, 11:10 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,604
Frank, shooters often want to push their abilities and being able to shoot distance is a big draw for many. Ballistics have caught up with the .50 though as many are using various .30 Cal magnums instead because of better coefficients.

Why would someone buy a $10k .22 rifle?

Because they want to take something as far as they can.

Also, many guys shot .50 Cal rifles in the service and the Barret is a fun gun to shoot.
Ewok126 Offline
#140 Posted: Thu, Mar 29 2018, 11:47 AM EST
Joined: 06-25-2017
Posts: 4,356
I remember when I was doing long range comps, I was looking at the Barret. No public range or club would allow it due to the simple fact it screwed up the berms to badly. There was a military range that allowed civilians on to shoot 50 cals but the cost of the rifle and to only be able to shoot it at one place within 2 states yeah not worth it.


Yes it is assinine to think a criminal would favor it. Even with common sense it still requires a sizeable learning curve to be able to shoot consistent at long range.

I ended up loving the .284 and the .308

As Z said, some do want to take something as far as they can.

I was one of those types.
delta1 Offline
#141 Posted: Thu, Mar 29 2018, 12:25 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
so....fun and recreation by guys that don't wanna pay for a $10K rifle, but actually spend that or more buying numerous less expensive guns...that's the reason for not evaluating whether or not the sheer number of weapons in the US contributes to gun violence...

There is a consensus among police chiefs and sheriffs across the country who have supported the passage of gun control measures that would reduce the fire-power our LEOs contend with protecting us. They are all staunch defenders of the 2nd Amendment who also realize there are serious consequences of unrestrained gun ownership...
DrafterX Offline
#142 Posted: Thu, Mar 29 2018, 12:29 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
By across the country you mean a couple states on da west coast and a couple states on da east coast right...?? Huh
victor809 Offline
#143 Posted: Thu, Mar 29 2018, 12:59 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Ummm... not to point out the obvious...

But claiming a massive sniper rifle isn't going to be used by criminals because it's only value is to a sniper shooting politicians from a mile away .... is an odd statement.

Sure... sports shooters can use it too... I knew people that blew crap up with dynamite for fun... anything can have a "recreational" value... I know people who only use drugs recreationally...one could recreationally develop weaponized smallpox. theoretically we outlaw things which have a recreational use when that recreational use is outweighed by the risks.

Now I'm not for outlawing 50cal sniper rifles. But to claim it isn't going to be used by criminals while saying it's mainly for killing people from long distance is a bit of a logical misstep.
frankj1 Offline
#144 Posted: Thu, Mar 29 2018, 1:19 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
138 and 139

when Ed (edin508) took me and tail to his sportsmen's club, I did so much better shooting whatever it was (big and heavy!) from 125 yards than with the pistol from 20 yards...it really was fun, mildly competitive, but I really had no chance to win.

But making that metal plate dance was the balz!
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#145 Posted: Thu, Mar 29 2018, 2:53 PM EST
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
frankj1 wrote:
138 and 139

when Ed (edin508) took me and tail to his sportsmen's club, I did so much better shooting whatever it was (big and heavy!) from 125 yards than with the pistol from 20 yards...it really was fun, mildly competitive, but I really had no chance to win.

But making that metal plate dance was the balz!



Frank, did you feel "dirty" afterwards, like you had just partaken in some forbidden pleasure?




Sarcasm

David (dpnewell)
tailgater Offline
#146 Posted: Thu, Mar 29 2018, 3:25 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Mrs. dpnewell wrote:
Frank, did you feel "dirty" afterwards, like you had just partaken in some forbidden pleasure?




Sarcasm

David (dpnewell)


We made frank sweep up.

I've got pics to prove it.


And let's be honest, Frank.
Ed set us up with the sight properly aligned and with a comfy position to shoot that plate.

We did better with the M1 Garand than we did with the AR15.

In fact, it wasn't even close.
frankj1 Offline
#147 Posted: Thu, Mar 29 2018, 4:47 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
tailgater wrote:
We made frank sweep up.

I've got pics to prove it.


And let's be honest, Frank.
Ed set us up with the sight properly aligned and with a comfy position to shoot that plate.

We did better with the M1 Garand than we did with the AR15.

In fact, it wasn't even close.



well, that's what I heard.
Abrignac Offline
#148 Posted: Thu, Mar 29 2018, 6:52 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
HuckFinn wrote:
Yeah, hard to be insulted by someone with obvious anger issues...so here ya go
Some yahoo kid targeting fellow students with a high powered weapon is perpetrating an intentional act of homicide. Right?

If you agree continue reading.
If you don't find somebody who cares about your opinions.
And see if you can get a rise outta them.

A drunk driver kills people not because he's targeting them, not because he's been bullied and made crazy by them, but because he's a reckless, miserable azz9hole who doesn't value his or anyone elses life. But he's not looking for people to kill. Or planning it.

Same with a botched medical procedure. The doctor didn't go in to the operating room thinking 'who should I kill today'.

Yup a dead person is a dead person. Is that an original thought?

Isn't there a difference between planning and executing serial murders and accidently hitting someone with your car?

Maybe not very original on my part but seems self-evident. To me.


That's real funny. Not accurate, but funny nonetheless.
Abrignac Offline
#149 Posted: Thu, Mar 29 2018, 6:56 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
HuckFinn wrote:
A thug shooting a thug...and then....hmm
Thinking. Seems like a good question. Let's see.

Thugs are gonna shoot each other. That's a given, just part of the job description.
Innocent bystander dies? How can that be OK? It's murder, intentional murder. Wrong target.
Even if the right guy died it's murder. Pre-planned murder.

Unlike our careless doctor, drunk driver or tree climber.

The urge you mention isn't going anywhere. And anyway what you call an 'urge' is as often as not a survival instinct in a horrible neighborhood, no?
Taking away this or that gun isn't going to stop him from finding another lethal weapon, granted.
But probably taking away certain weapons will lessen the collateral damage.
Guns, especially automatic weapons, make murder very easy.







You wouldn't by chance have a link to automatic weapons being used to make very easy would you?
Abrignac Offline
#150 Posted: Thu, Mar 29 2018, 6:59 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
delta1 wrote:
so....fun and recreation by guys that don't wanna pay for a $10K rifle, but actually spend that or more buying numerous less expensive guns...that's the reason for not evaluating whether or not the sheer number of weapons in the US contributes to gun violence...

There is a consensus among police chiefs and sheriffs across left leaning areas of the country who have supported the passage of gun control measures that would reduce the fire-power our LEOs contend with protecting us. They are all staunch defenders of the 2nd Amendment who also realize there are serious consequences of unrestrained gun ownership...


Fixed it for you
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234>
Back to Top