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

Last post 23 months ago by Sunoverbeach. 131 replies replies.
3 Pages123>
Kapler and Kerr: Where's the Beef???
delta1 Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
Gabe Kapler said he won't acknowledge the national anthem any longer. Steve Kerr refused to answer any sports related questions after his team prevailed in a playoff game, and wanted to speak instead about an important issue. Both were outraged about gun violence and mass murders in the US and the seeming laissez faire attitude in America. As if we tolerate senseless mass killings of our children, just as we tolerate racial discrimination.

Like Colin Kaepernick, Lebron James and other Black celebrities/athletes, Kapler and Kerr spoke out about political issues at the forefront of the day.

One difference: crickets from the right...unlike the reaction to Kaepernick, James and others, who were told to shut up and sit down. Kaepernick was denied an opportunity to work in his chosen profession.

Why are conservatives not outraged in these instances, yet were livid in the others?

First Amendment applies to all Americans, ostensibly equally...not so much in reality...

Sunoverbeach Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,586
Guessing the optics on condemning someone speaking out against dead kids isn't the best
MACS Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
Gabe Kapler and Steve Kerr can STFU.

Millionaires playing childrens' games for entertainment. I give them as much credence as I give any other hypocritical douchebag.
delta1 Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
the primary message that both high profile coaches advocated was the need for gun control.


Knew I could count on MACS...wondering where all his wingmen are...
HockeyDad Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,065
San Francisco is very woke. It is expected. Kerr speaks about EVERY political issue. He hasn’t changed the world yet and the NBA still profits off slave labor in China.

The problem Kapler has is now he has to publish a list of demands before he feels good again and will come out for the national anthem. Kapler is already hedging on what he’s going to do on Memorial Day.
HockeyDad Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,065
delta1 wrote:
the primary message that both high profile coaches advocated was the need for gun control.


Knew I could count on MACS...wondering where all his wingmen are...


We know that the solution is to ban assault rifles. Kamala already said that. Once we do that there will be no more murders. Murderers will not murder if they can’t do it with an assault rifle. Once we ban assault rifles there will be another shooting and then we will realize we need to confiscate the existing assault rifles. Then there will be no more murders.

This is easy. And then Kerr and Kapler can be happy.
delta1 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
so why publicly, loudly and frequently slap down one, while vilifying him ...and not another...
HockeyDad Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,065
delta1 wrote:
so why publicly, loudly and frequently slap down one, while vilifying him ...and not another...


Because one group is athletes and the other are coaches. Duh!
delta1 Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
that's right...coaches are like the plantation owners "overseers"
HockeyDad Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,065
delta1 wrote:
that's right...coaches are like the plantation owners "overseers"


Actually the players make far more money than the coaches so the coaches are more like wait staff in a restaurant.
CelticBomber Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,786
Can we all stop for a moment and take a breath. We need to discuss something that's actually important.

The Reckless way people are coming up with thread titles!

I thought maybe Kapler and Kerr was some Midwest steak house or West coast burger joint I'd never heard of.
(You made me end a sentence with a preposition you basturds!)

I came here expecting talk about steaks or maybe hamburgers. Now, I'm hungry.

Carry on or whatever... I don't care anymore.
HockeyDad Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,065
I got burgers on the grill right now plus fresh corn on the cob from the Central Valley!

(Otherwise I sure could go for a ribeye from Kapler & Kerr)
MACS Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHMHdGxvdu4

WOMAN with a gun shoots a man dead while he was firing at a party in West Virginia. Anyone hear about this on their local news??

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236
HockeyDad Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,065
It did not make our news up here. She didn’t have an Assault Rifle - 15.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,586
You never hear about that, or the church security guard who took a guy out before he could shoot up the congregation, or the guy who shot the guy firing randomly into his apartment building, or the neighbor who interrupted a different church shooting using his "weapon of war" to do so, or the woman who shot her ex boyfriend who was holding a gun to her current boyfriend's head, or on the flip side, the woman who was stabbed by her ex boyfriend who was under a restraining order two days after she had checked in to see why the state was delaying her approval of a carry permit.

But this was a 1st amendment question thread, I think, so we'll just disregard those examples for this discussion
MACS Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
Al's premise is that when white people say stupid sh*t, there's no uproar, but when people of color say stupid **** we tell them to STFU.

I disagree. I've been hearing a lot of people saying they're both f---ing idiots.
Brewha Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,147
Give yourself more credit macs, you’re a major contributor.
ZRX1200 Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
I must admit, MACS covered all the bases here.

The 94 ban did nothing and saying otherwise is an outright lie. Focusing on 3% of the numbers while not actually proposing hardening schools is beyond dishonest.

Standing on the dead bodies of children for your agenda is pretty much the high water mark for POS.

YMMV
Speyside2 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,304
I think Al is saying when white people speak about racial injustices and gun reform no one b itches. When people of color speak about racial injustices and gun reform many people b itch.
Krazeehorse Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 04-09-2010
Posts: 1,958
And don’t prop the doors open on those hardened schools.
HockeyDad Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,065
Speyside2 wrote:
I think Al is saying when white people speak about racial injustices and gun reform no one b itches. When people of color speak about racial injustices and gun reform many people b itch.


There is no way Al could be saying that. Al doesn’t get to play the race card for black athletes. Asians can’t do that. Asian is basically whitey with a calculus textbook. Blacks don’t like Asians….that’s why we have stop AAPI hate stuff.
ZRX1200 Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Yup Asians are white on the racial Justice scorecard.

Enjoy your white male privilege Al.

You should be outraged at the purposeful ignoring of context, causation and what can actually make a difference paleface.

rfenst Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,100
Did the finding fathers even perceive of something like AR-15s or were there thoughts just about muskets, one shot hunting/military weapons and the other weapons of that time period?
I think not.
MACS Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
Did they think of TV? Internet? Automobiles? Tanks? Airplanes? Nukes?

Come on, bro. That argument is crazy dumb.
MACS Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
rfenst wrote:
Did the finding fathers even perceive of something like AR-15s or were there thoughts just about muskets, one shot hunting/military weapons and the other weapons of that time period?
I think not.


AND - have you any idea what an AR-15 is? Ever shot one? Ever shot a handgun, rifle, M-60, .50 cal?

They're all tools. The tools are not the fkn problem. The real weapon is the mind behind it.
BuckyB93 Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,111
One gun I'd like to try is an old M1 Garand.
BuckyB93 Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,111
And also drive a Sherman tank, and fly a P-51 Mustang (my most favorite plane of all time).
Sunoverbeach Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,586
At the time the amendment was crafted, they allowed the most modern weapons available at that time. Also, it should probably be noted, the same weapons used by military forces at that time, a.k.a. weapons of war. Also, while there weren't fully functional automatic weapons at the time, they did have weapons such as the Puckle Gun, patented in 1718, and is a mounted, portable, crew-served revolving machine gun. Do you really think they believe they'd reached the epitome of firearms technology? Also, it's worth noting, cannons are still completely legal to own, and you don't even need a license if firing shot or grape shot type of shell. Explosive rounds require a license for each round.

Why aren't motorways governed by laws applicable to the horse and buggy if we're to hold strictly to what the founding fathers could envision? Why were all those slaves emancipated? Why are women allowed to vote now?

In other words, what Macs said.
ZRX1200 Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Fenster you serious?

What were the weapons of war during our founding…..ya boi Plugs LIED through his teeth about cannons btw. You can still own them.

The FOUNDING fathers also didn’t anticipate cell phones and the internet yet were still allegedly supposed to have free speech.

Take away 54% for suicide and what do you have. Crime and prevention of crime with a tiny percent of accidental discharge death. Let’s keep arguing about the wrong thing….

If only we could ban cars that went over 20mph there would be fewer drunk driving deaths. If it only saves one life it’s worth it! The goddamn stupidity is staggering sometimes (that sentence isn’t directed at you btw but in general).
MACS Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
delta1 wrote:
that's right...coaches are like the plantation owners "overseers"


Candace got ya number, Al... and you ain't even white! lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axVF1HxlUyM
Sunoverbeach Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,586
OK, Racial discussion abandoned

45,222 gun related deaths in 2020
As Jamie mentioned, 54% were suicides. Not the people who think about it. The ones that did it. How many do you save by taking away firearms?

43% were homicides. 80% of that 43% being gang related or career criminal related. Not the type who would give up guns, nor own them legally in the first place.

On the opposite end, studies have estimated annual defensive gun use anywhere from 500k - 2.8m instances. Now these would tend to be the law abiding types since it was reported to authorities. If you remove their ability to defend themselves, how many have you sacrificed in order to possibly intervene in a few suicides and slap another charge onto a criminal?
MACS Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
SOB brings up even more salient points...

The founders made the constitution pliable. And we've made changes. Know why there hasn't been a change to the second amendment? Because no matter what the media and idiot politicians try to tell you, the vast majority of Americans support it as is... and the gov't has already overstepped its authority with regard to the second amendment.

Robert, serious question: As a lawyer, what part of "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" confuses you or is ambiguous in any way?

Keep (own) bear (carry). Is a permit (gov't permission to exercise a RIGHT) not infringement? I believe that it is. I also believe that if more responsible citizens were carrying more often there would be a lot less violence, not more.

And studies have shown that is the case.
Krazeehorse Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 04-09-2010
Posts: 1,958
BuckyB93 wrote:
One gun I'd like to try is an old M1 Garand.

The garands are a blast. I like the tell tale Ching when it spits the clip out after the last round.
BuckyB93 Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,111
Krazeehorse wrote:
The garands are a blast. I like the tell tale Ching when it spits the clip out after the last round.


I've never shot one but it is a classic rifle for the hall of fame for sure.
MACS Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
I shot the M14 just as accurately as I shot the M16. The 16 was easier on the shoulder and a lot faster getting back on center.

Everyone is appalled at the AR-15 (M16 equivalent) but nobody cares about a .308 rifle (M14 equivalent and a very popular deer rifle) and the 14 will leave a much, much larger hole in you.
bgz Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
308 is a filthy round.
MACS Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
bgz wrote:
308 is a filthy round.


Not sure why we went from .308 to .223... especially when one shot would do the trick of 3-4.

Probably money, and the fact that most of the time in war it's spray and pray. Snipers still use .308 or .300 winmag.

One and done. Sometimes one shot 2 kills if you line 'em up right.
ZRX1200 Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Because research found that for untrained soldiers capacity was a bigger positive than hydrostatic damage.
bgz Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Spray and pray is a real phenomenon.
MACS Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
ZRX1200 wrote:
Because research found that for untrained soldiers capacity was a bigger positive than hydrostatic damage.


Science... and stuff.

But the untrained are askeered of a gun and a round that does far less damage than a deer rifle. Because some dbag politician called it an "assault rifle".

smdh
Abrignac Online
#41 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
MACS wrote:
Not sure why we went from .308 to .223... especially when one shot would do the trick of 3-4.

Probably money, and the fact that most of the time in war it's spray and pray. Snipers still use .308 or .300 winmag.

One and done. Sometimes one shot 2 kills if you line 'em up right.


The main reason was because the .308 is a punishing round when repeatedly firing it. The 5.56, not so much. Plus, the 5.56 is cheaper to produce. Also, their is a significant difference in the cartridge weight which allows for more rounds to be carried.
CelticBomber Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,786
MACS wrote:
Did they think of TV? Internet? Automobiles? Tanks? Airplanes? Nukes?

Come on, bro. That argument is crazy dumb.



Actually... they did. That's why our Constitution is called a living document. They knew they didn't know everything and left room for change and procedures to change it. They knew the future would bring changes they couldn't account for so we got an Amendments system. It can be changed to account for things they didn't foresee.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled argument already in progress!
RayR Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,796
Calling the Constitution a "living document" is a leftist deception. Just because there is an amendment process does not make the Constitution a "living document". Amending the Constitution is hard and fraught with danger and folly, which is why it is rarely even attempted.

Rather than understanding what those wurds on paper were supposed to mean as was debated and settled upon by its framers, the lefties and their sympathizers on the right have instead used a bit of useful trickery to try to fool the feckless proles most of which have never did any of that hard learning stuff.

They instead say the Constitution means whatever it ought to mean according to them at a given time which befits their nefarious agenda to centralize power so they can rape and pillage the land. See...much simpler. No amendments.

That's what a "living constitution" is to them, a “living constitution” that is no constitution at all – it is in fact nothing.




JadeRose Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
I liked him in Welcome Back Kotter. I don't know about the other guy. What was he in?
MACS Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
CelticBomber wrote:
Actually... they did. That's why our Constitution is called a living document. They knew they didn't know everything and left room for change and procedures to change it. They knew the future would bring changes they couldn't account for so we got an Amendments system. It can be changed to account for things they didn't foresee.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled argument already in progress!


What they wanted, what they were thinking, is that the gov't should never "control" the people.

We all know the constitution was designed to be amended, if necessary, but the founders were not thinking about specific weapons. They wanted to ensure the people ran the gov't and not the other way around.

Well look where the f--k we are, now?!
Brewha Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,147
MACS wrote:
AND - have you any idea what an AR-15 is? Ever shot one? Ever shot a handgun, rifle, M-60, .50 cal?

They're all tools. The tools are not the fkn problem. The real weapon is the mind behind it.

Then why can you not buy hand grenades - for self defense I mean?
CelticBomber Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,786
RayR wrote:
Calling the Constitution a "living document" is a leftist deception. Just because there is an amendment process does not make the Constitution a "living document". Amending the Constitution is hard and fraught with danger and folly, which is why it is rarely even attempted.

Rather than understanding what those wurds on paper were supposed to mean as was debated and settled upon by its framers, the lefties and their sympathizers on the right have instead used a bit of useful trickery to try to fool the feckless proles most of which have never did any of that hard learning stuff.

They instead say the Constitution means whatever it ought to mean according to them at a given time which befits their nefarious agenda to centralize power so they can rape and pillage the land. See...much simpler. No amendments.

That's what a "living constitution" is to them, a “living constitution” that is no constitution at all – it is in fact nothing



Last Amended in 1992.

It's a living document. Dictionary.com is your friend. Were the founding fathers all leftists?

You should get a hobby. Try gardening. Maybe view your lawn as a leftist lawn. Think of the satisfaction you'd get every time you mow it!
CelticBomber Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,786
MACS wrote:
What they wanted, what they were thinking, is that the gov't should never "control" the people.

We all know the constitution was designed to be amended, if necessary, but the founders were not thinking about specific weapons. They wanted to ensure the people ran the gov't and not the other way around.

Well look where the f--k we are, now?!


Well... the whole right to keep and bare arms sounds weaponish... Maybe they meant wearing wife beaters and pocket tee's when they said bare arms? Personally, I can't wait to own a personal rail gun. Traffic will move then boyo let me tell you! I hope you're stocking up on Pliny! Beer


Brewha Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,147
CelticBomber wrote:
Well... the whole right to keep and bare arms sounds weaponish... Maybe they meant wearing wife beaters and pocket tee's when they said bare arms? Personally, I can't wait to own a personal rail gun. Traffic will move then boyo let me tell you! I hope you're stocking up on Pliny! Beer




Ok, should I excessive may right as an American to own a few tactical nukes?

You can't be too safe you know....
Sunoverbeach Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,586
Brewha, because hand grenades are explody.

Dam big difference between grenades and the most popular rifle type in the country, which still only accounts for a part of the 3% of firearm fatalities attributed to rifles in 2020, in spite of its demonization due to its scary appearance
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages123>