Skip to main content

Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:

Pup is an admitted New Jerseyite, a nanny state that allow you to marry your sister but not pump your own gas.  He can't think for himself.  He truly believes everyone who carries protection will be as careless and reckless as he would be if were to carry.  Psychologists refer to this condition as transference. 

 

All the Somolia/wild west scenarios that play out in his paranoid head never become reality.  The fear he must deal with daily must be debilitating, hence the long hair and unkept look he maintains.  A sad state of affairs, indeed.

--------------------------------

And your problem is obvious.  The s--t between your ears is clouding your vision.

 

I'm not from New Jersey, Einstein. I know some of you southern folk really suck at geography and all you really know is that I'm from that furrin country north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Ya know...those 'founding fathers' you all like to go on and on about? The ones that dreamed up that second amendment that you didn't bother reading the first half of?  Guess where they were from...

Liberal elite blue states up in the northeast. New England, where I spent 33 years of my life-not New Jersey.  I'm originally from New York state anyway- not that t matters as you probably couldn't find it on a map without help....

 

Funny all the stereotypes and jokes point to the south for all the sister-marrying. Transference much, hoobie?  

 

Funny too how the OP just asked 'for' or 'against' new or more gun laws. As long as everyone was against, you had no problem. I say something to the contrary and you feel you need to attack my logic, then when that doesn't work, you attack *me.*

Ya know what?  I think that if I was you I'd be afraid and carry a gun, too.  You guys are total d----heads and exactly what I was talking about.  If that's how you treat people who have differing opinions from yours-it's no wonder you think you got people gunning for ya. 

 

 

 

 

   

Originally Posted by Road Puppy:
Originally Posted by Harald Weissberg:
Originally Posted by Road Puppy:
Originally Posted by Harald Weissberg:
Originally Posted by Road Puppy:
Originally Posted by Harald Weissberg:
Originally Posted by Road Puppy:
Originally Posted by Harald Weissberg:
Originally Posted by Road Puppy:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Road Puppy:
Originally Posted by Harald Weissberg:

---------------

Your argument is invalid.

 

g12

This was written by someone either ignorant of military installations, or a demagogue.  Most weapons are kept in an arms room.  Weapons are locked in racks.  The door and frame are armored and, usually secured by two security locks.

AGAIN. GUN CONTROL.  YOU PEOPLE DON'T EVEN PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS.

 

Try harder. You can't "spin" this one.

 

YOU posted the Ft. Hood propaganda.

 

Gun control worked real well, for the SHOOTER.

He KNEW it would be a GUN FREE ZONE.

So did the Charleston shooter.

 

Didn't work out at all for the UNARMED victims.

 

YOU used the broad brush on anyone that carries as being afraid, or trying to be a badazz.

I am neither. I am a realist. And prepared. At all times. At all places.

I KNOW my piece is on me, but I don't think about constantly. It's no more to me than my wallet.

It does not diminish my dining or shopping experience

Do you think those poor people who where murdered in THEIR CHURCH every expected to be?

IN A CHURCH?

I think you are being a little naive as to when and where this could happen.

It's happened in Small Town, USA many times.

 

 

------------------

Nope. No naivete on my part.  I listen to you people shoot at each other all the time on the scanner.  I read it in the papers regularly.

Honestly I can see why you all think you need to be armed and constasntly f$%&in' ready at all times what with all the gunplay I hear about among you.  It must suck to live in fear like that- and you *are* afraid or you wouldn',t carry a gun.

 

"you people"???

 

Broad brush again? ***?

 

You don't know me no more than I know you. I've never shot/shot at anyone.

Only ever pulled it once when a theft was tried on a van I was in, and the perps didn't know I was in it. The driver and my friend got out at a 7/11 and I stayed in the back seat. Both doors suddenly opened and 2 thugs jumped in. One look at the .45 and the  thugs exited, fast. I COULD have popped both before they could get to me in the back of the van. As I stated, I KNOW what can happen, anywhere, at any time.

 

Could you not comprehend my earlier post? Or are you just a BIGOT? 

 

You can rely on your semi-auto fists and high capacity biceps as you wish. I'm fine with that.

You can enjoy your motorcycle anywhere you like as far as I'm concerned, as long as you are not an infringement on ME.

 You can spew your ignorance on what you THINK you know about responsible, TRAINED, legal gun owners / carriers such as myself all you want. That is your First Amendment right.

 

Leave MY 2nd Amendment right alone.

 

Got it?   Or do I need to type slower and space the letters farther apart?

 

 

 

 

------------

LOL. The only thing I got out of all of that is that I for sure hit a nerve.  Maybe more than one.

I dunno where you got the idea that I was a bigot..... Most of *you* are pretty plainly stating your fear of black people whether you use dog-whistle codewords or outright say so.

 As far as your second amendment? All I have to say to *you* is "no."

 I'm here legally.  I pay my taxes.

Our first amendment says I can say our second amendment s--ks d---s.  

Obviously you fear *me* as well. 

 

 

I didn't think you could grasp it.

Should I have typed in the "knuckle-dragger" dialect for you to understand?

 

Obviously I fear you?    YOU don't know me, bigot.  I think you have watched too many Kung ** shows.

 

 

 

 

 

You keep using that word 'bigot.' 

Explain to me for everyone how I'm a bigot.

That word dosen't mean what you think it means.

Either that or you're playing a childish game of "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?"

I know you better than you think.  You reveal more about yourself with every response, and frankly, I'm not impressed.

Congratulations, you're mediocre.

 

I never liked kung-** shows much. You do know those were *so* seventies, right?  TV is much more diverse nowadays.

 

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
 
  1. a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. ( "Us" gun collectors, carriers, gun "nuts")
     
    Wasn't trying to impress . Don't really care.
    I figure you have a mirror you use for that.
     
    You chimed in on this topic. Fine. Your opinion.
    But, then you TRIED to use the Ft. Hood shooting implying there were guns "surrounding" the shooter. And, that no one with those guns took him out.
     
    It was a FAIL, and you were called out on it.
    When confronted with your ignorance of the situation, you went into some asinine, off track one liners about how gun control WORKED in that situation.
    Egg on your face.
     
    Then you rambled off about listening to "us" on your scanner, shootings every weekend.
    Remember, US, no "some".
     
    I have not tried to compel you to own, carry, or even touch a gun.
     
    But, you have continued to assault gun owners.
    Then you tossed in the race card. A sure sign of having no valid points to contribute.
     
    Now, you will no doubt reply with some more off the wall BS.
     
     
     
     

 

----------------

And the only argument *you* have is " f--- off. I like guns."

 

It's not much of an argument, but it's all you've got.

 

 

And YOU are one of those who for sure don't need to own a firearm.

It's apparent by your ignorance of guns, gun ownership, and reliance on misinformation from the anti-gun lobby that you would swiftly become one of the accident stats.

What? Oh, sorry.  I hadda go rescue a puppy.

Now where was I? 

 

Oh yes....."You can all bite me. That's right, down on all fours and MUNCH AWAAAAAAYYYY."

 

BLAH BLAH BLAH, You still have only the one weak argument. The fact that you've spent the better part of THREE PAGES trying to refute my argument and all you can come up with is a personal attack on me is ample proof that this pizzing contest is over and you are clear!y also soaked. 

Last edited by Road Puppy

There was gun control at Fort Hood that day. Enlisted men were not allowed to carry loaded firearms but the Officers were. They are more trustworthy than the enlisted personnel. Even the Military Police who were departing for deployment were not armed. So gun control works as long as you are in control of the populace. I don't go for that. My rights are guaranteed by the constitution and not by some Liberal who thinks they know what is best for everyone they can not trust. You see the end result.

Originally Posted by Bulldog63:

There was gun control at Fort Hood that day. Enlisted men were not allowed to carry loaded firearms but the Officers were. They are more trustworthy than the enlisted personnel. Even the Military Police who were departing for deployment were not armed. So gun control works as long as you are in control of the populace. I don't go for that. My rights are guaranteed by the constitution and not by some Liberal who thinks they know what is best for everyone they can not trust. You see the end result.

America hating leftist hate to admit that the terrorist at Fort Hood picked that place because it was a gun free zone. 

Originally Posted by dinosaur:

When I talked to my daughter about the system, this is what she told me, if you kill someone and the DNA and the strong evidence proves it, you pluck their eyes out and cut their arms off. For those molesters you castrate them and cut their hands off. Sending them to jail is not the answer.

___________________

It's really comforting to know that your daughter has such a strong command of the Constitution. 

Originally Posted by Harald Weissberg:
Originally Posted by Road Puppy:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

RP doesn't like it when someone blames his bike for crime.  Of course, a motorcycle is just a tool -- for getting one from one place to another.  That some use it in connection with crime and others as a fetish is not the bike's fault -- no more than the firearm. 

-------------

Nobody blamed my bike for any crime.  How you reached that conclusion is beyond me.

 

I'm a responsible bike owner. I'm trained in the proper use of my bike.

 

Comparing guns to bikes is ridiculous.  Yes, both are tools. One is specifically designed for the express purpose of transport, the other is specifically designed to severely damage or kill whatever it is pointed at when it is operated.  I suppose you *could* kill someone with a motorcycle, but a bike is way too large and unwieldy to replace a gun for killing.  You can't kill  with a bike easily or from a distance. Bikes are harder to conceal as well.  You can't very well put a bike in your pocket or backpack and sneak it into a school or church.

  A tool may just be a shortcut to a desired result, but it isn't fair to say that the tool has no part in achieving the result.  I suppose that a guy with a hammer and a guy with a gun could kill an identical number of people, but the gun makes it more likely that a person will succeed faster and more likely to kill their specific targets.

Guns give people a quick, easy, cheap, and relatively detached (compared to stabbings/beatings) method of killing people—even large numbers of people. By making killing easy, guns directly contribute to the thought process that must go into a killing and facilitate even higher body counts. Without guns, people would still kill others, but it would be a lot more difficult to rack up high body counts.

 

As far as feti. sh. ization? Well, at least my bike was *designed* to fit between my legs.

 

Unlike these things:

 

 

 

 Hmmm...

 

 

 

 

And I guess these Dudes "utilized" horses to get to their destination.

 

About 170 members of rival motorcycle gangs were charged with engaging in organised crime after a shootout at the Twin Peaks restaurant in Waco, Texas, that killed nine people and wounded 18.

 

Ban motorcycles, thus, no biker gangs. No shootouts.

 

Makes sense to me.

 

It makes sense to you because, apparently you're an idiot.

Most of those arrested were doing nothing but attending a meeting. The gun happy cops in Waco didn't even release charges.

 

 

Originally Posted by DHS-86:
Originally Posted by Harald Weissberg:
Originally Posted by Road Puppy:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

RP doesn't like it when someone blames his bike for crime.  Of course, a motorcycle is just a tool -- for getting one from one place to another.  That some use it in connection with crime and others as a fetish is not the bike's fault -- no more than the firearm. 

-------------

Nobody blamed my bike for any crime.  How you reached that conclusion is beyond me.

 

I'm a responsible bike owner. I'm trained in the proper use of my bike.

 

Comparing guns to bikes is ridiculous.  Yes, both are tools. One is specifically designed for the express purpose of transport, the other is specifically designed to severely damage or kill whatever it is pointed at when it is operated.  I suppose you *could* kill someone with a motorcycle, but a bike is way too large and unwieldy to replace a gun for killing.  You can't kill  with a bike easily or from a distance. Bikes are harder to conceal as well.  You can't very well put a bike in your pocket or backpack and sneak it into a school or church.

  A tool may just be a shortcut to a desired result, but it isn't fair to say that the tool has no part in achieving the result.  I suppose that a guy with a hammer and a guy with a gun could kill an identical number of people, but the gun makes it more likely that a person will succeed faster and more likely to kill their specific targets.

Guns give people a quick, easy, cheap, and relatively detached (compared to stabbings/beatings) method of killing people—even large numbers of people. By making killing easy, guns directly contribute to the thought process that must go into a killing and facilitate even higher body counts. Without guns, people would still kill others, but it would be a lot more difficult to rack up high body counts.

 

As far as feti. sh. ization? Well, at least my bike was *designed* to fit between my legs.

 

Unlike these things:

 

 

 

 Hmmm...

 

 

 

 

And I guess these Dudes "utilized" horses to get to their destination.

 

About 170 members of rival motorcycle gangs were charged with engaging in organised crime after a shootout at the Twin Peaks restaurant in Waco, Texas, that killed nine people and wounded 18.

 

Ban motorcycles, thus, no biker gangs. No shootouts.

 

Makes sense to me.

 

It makes sense to you because, apparently you're an idiot.

Most of those arrested were doing nothing but attending a meeting. The gun happy cops in Waco didn't even release charges.

 

 

LOL!

Looks like I have woken up, a sleeping, mental Giant!

 

"Waco was a Cop ambush!"

 

Yeah, and Elvis is still alive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:

Pup is an admitted New Jerseyite, a nanny state that allow you to marry your sister but not pump your own gas.  He can't think for himself.  He truly believes everyone who carries protection will be as careless and reckless as he would be if were to carry.  Psychologists refer to this condition as transference.  

All the Somolia/wild west scenarios that play out in his paranoid head never become reality.  The fear he must deal with daily must be debilitating, hence the long hair and unkept look he maintains.  A sad state of affairs, indeed.

--------------------------------

Originally Posted by Road Puppy:

And your problem is obvious.  The s--t between your ears is clouding your vision.

 

I'm not from New Jersey, Einstein. I know some of you southern folk really suck at geography and all you really know is that I'm from that furrin country north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Funny all the stereotypes and jokes point to the south for all the sister-marrying. Transference much, hoobie?   

Ya know what?  I think that if I was you I'd be afraid and carry a gun, too.  You guys are total d----heads and exactly what I was talking about.  If that's how you treat people who have differing opinions from yours-it's no wonder you think you got people gunning for ya.    

_______

Hoob, I don't think you have s--t between your ears. Pup never fails to let anyone that loves the South/Alabama know exactly what he thinks of it & it's people. He hates the South, Alabama, what it stands for & everyone in it. He's never bothered to tell why he can't go back North where he can make much more money than he can here in the nasty ole state of Alabama.

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
 
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:

Pup is an admitted New Jerseyite, a nanny state that allow you to marry your sister but not pump your own gas.  He can't think for himself.  He truly believes everyone who carries protection will be as careless and reckless as he would be if were to carry.  Psychologists refer to this condition as transference.  

All the Somolia/wild west scenarios that play out in his paranoid head never become reality.  The fear he must deal with daily must be debilitating, hence the long hair and unkept look he maintains.  A sad state of affairs, indeed.

--------------------------------

Originally Posted by Road Puppy:

And your problem is obvious.  The s--t between your ears is clouding your vision.

 

I'm not from New Jersey, Einstein. I know some of you southern folk really suck at geography and all you really know is that I'm from that furrin country north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Funny all the stereotypes and jokes point to the south for all the sister-marrying. Transference much, hoobie?   

Ya know what?  I think that if I was you I'd be afraid and carry a gun, too.  You guys are total d----heads and exactly what I was talking about.  If that's how you treat people who have differing opinions from yours-it's no wonder you think you got people gunning for ya.    

_______

Hoob, I don't think you have s--t between your ears. Pup never fails to let anyone that loves the South/Alabama know exactly what he thinks of it & it's people. He hates the South, Alabama, what it stands for & everyone in it. He's never bothered to tell why he can't go back North where he can make much more money than he can here in the nasty ole state of Alabama.

_______________________________________________

Restraining order or outstanding warrant under his real name come to mind.

Originally Posted by Road Puppy:

What? Oh, sorry.  I hadda go rescue a puppy.

Now where was I? 

 

Oh yes....."You can all bite me. That's right, down on all fours and MUNCH AWAAAAAAYYYY."

 

BLAH BLAH BLAH, You still have only the one weak argument. The fact that you've spent the better part of THREE PAGES trying to refute my argument and all you can come up with is a personal attack on me is ample proof that this pizzing contest is over and you are clear!y also soaked. 

 

 

Rescued a puppy?

If so, that was a good thing. I may cut you a little slack.

Animals Matter.

I thought you just bailed.

 

Bite you?

Don't think so.

 

Refute your argument?

No, Son, just trying to educate you.

Looks like I failed.

 

Personal attack? 

Check the thread, Boy.

I never directly addressed YOU until after your direct address to me. "Pfft you're not even trying".

Check it out.

 

Then, again, there's that direct post to me, "That's actually pretty child-like logic". 

 

YOU made it personal.

 

Some said you were a Northerner. New York, Jersey, Hampshire, I don't care where you are from.

We're all from somewhere else. We're both Americans.

Just a little different.

 

Funny. I don't feel "soaked" at all. 

You consider our exchange of opinions a "pizzin contest"?

You ain't been out much, around here. Have you.

 

You try to pull that BS much, be you from here or there, and someone around "here" is going to call you on it.

 

No. Fact is, you got waxed, good, on the Ft Hood post.

 

Invalidated anything prior to, or after, that you posted.

 

Just walk it off. And come back for more.

 

Your Friend,

Harald

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Bestworking: 

Oh, please don't have a gun in the house with me.

Smoking stock photo

 Smoking..... stock photo

The wifey is a BA too!

Young Children Suffering The Effects of In Car Passive Smoking stock photo

Guns in the house with kids! Shameful! 

 --------------------------

Originally Posted by Road Puppy:

You must be off your meds.  What does smoking have to do with anything? 

_______

Look at that! Those pictures of smoking around a baby & he don't get it! He & his must be smokers, & don't care.

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
 
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:

Pup is an admitted New Jerseyite, a nanny state that allow you to marry your sister but not pump your own gas.  He can't think for himself.  He truly believes everyone who carries protection will be as careless and reckless as he would be if were to carry.  Psychologists refer to this condition as transference.  

All the Somolia/wild west scenarios that play out in his paranoid head never become reality.  The fear he must deal with daily must be debilitating, hence the long hair and unkept look he maintains.  A sad state of affairs, indeed.

--------------------------------

Originally Posted by Road Puppy:

And your problem is obvious.  The s--t between your ears is clouding your vision.

 

I'm not from New Jersey, Einstein. I know some of you southern folk really suck at geography and all you really know is that I'm from that furrin country north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Funny all the stereotypes and jokes point to the south for all the sister-marrying. Transference much, hoobie?   

Ya know what?  I think that if I was you I'd be afraid and carry a gun, too.  You guys are total d----heads and exactly what I was talking about.  If that's how you treat people who have differing opinions from yours-it's no wonder you think you got people gunning for ya.    

_______

Hoob, I don't think you have s--t between your ears. Pup never fails to let anyone that loves the South/Alabama know exactly what he thinks of it & it's people. He hates the South, Alabama, what it stands for & everyone in it. He's never bothered to tell why he can't go back North where he can make much more money than he can here in the nasty ole state of Alabama.

----------------

You must be a twit.  SRSLY.  The teachers were always making sure you didn't have crayons hidden in your jowls back in the day, weren't they?

  HOW MANY TIMES have I explained where I was from and why I was here and why I haven't gone back?  Many.  Apparently each time you were out taking your head for a dump. . Ya know, I wouldn't pick on yas if you didn't get all indignant and *prove my point* every single time you post anything at me.  You're very predictable. (And *quite* the whiner.)

 

Naw, Harrry... You didn't wax anybody.. You just provided me with an example of why it's pointless to play chess with a pigeon..  All you had was a single, mainly irrelevant point that you latched onto like a lifeline to support your weak argument.  Then you knocked the pieces all over the place, crapped on the board and started strutting around the room declaring yourself the winner.

 

Best... I get the whole 'smoking around the baby-not wanting a gun in the house' hipocrisy angle.

What I don't get is why you directed it at me.  Y'see.. I haven't smoked in over a year.  I've quit, but maybe you were too busy spewing your contempt for non-Caucasian people to notice the few times I directly told you I don't smoke anymore.  There are no babies/ children in my house- they're all grown now, and even when they were living in my house, I never smoked around them.

  See, unlike here in the south, it's been illegal to smoke inside public buildings in the northeast for almost forty years.  I was already in the habit of going outside to smoke even when I was at my home. It just became normal to smoke outside and I smoked outside my whole life.  Now since I quit, it's no longer an issue anymore.  I've already made this abundantly clear directly to you a couple times but I guess your cognitive dissonance prevents you from actually processing or accepting it.  

  For an insult or an argument to be effective, it has to be relevant, otherwise you just come across as a slow-witted retard.

 

Like I said before and like the comedian said in his video, you 've all pretty much only got one argument.  It isn't much of an argument, but it's all you've got, and that's "F--- off!  I like guns."

 

 

Last edited by Road Puppy
Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
 
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:

Pup is an admitted New Jerseyite, a nanny state that allow you to marry your sister but not pump your own gas.  He can't think for himself.  He truly believes everyone who carries protection will be as careless and reckless as he would be if were to carry.  Psychologists refer to this condition as transference.  

All the Somolia/wild west scenarios that play out in his paranoid head never become reality.  The fear he must deal with daily must be debilitating, hence the long hair and unkept look he maintains.  A sad state of affairs, indeed.

--------------------------------

Originally Posted by Road Puppy:

And your problem is obvious.  The s--t between your ears is clouding your vision.

 

I'm not from New Jersey, Einstein. I know some of you southern folk really suck at geography and all you really know is that I'm from that furrin country north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Funny all the stereotypes and jokes point to the south for all the sister-marrying. Transference much, hoobie?   

Ya know what?  I think that if I was you I'd be afraid and carry a gun, too.  You guys are total d----heads and exactly what I was talking about.  If that's how you treat people who have differing opinions from yours-it's no wonder you think you got people gunning for ya.    

_______

Hoob, I don't think you have s--t between your ears. Pup never fails to let anyone that loves the South/Alabama know exactly what he thinks of it & it's people. He hates the South, Alabama, what it stands for & everyone in it. He's never bothered to tell why he can't go back North where he can make much more money than he can here in the nasty ole state of Alabama.


Would you want him back?

Originally Posted by Road Puppy:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:

Pup is an admitted New Jerseyite, a nanny state that allow you to marry your sister but not pump your own gas.  He can't think for himself.  He truly believes everyone who carries protection will be as careless and reckless as he would be if were to carry.  Psychologists refer to this condition as transference. 

 

All the Somolia/wild west scenarios that play out in his paranoid head never become reality.  The fear he must deal with daily must be debilitating, hence the long hair and unkept look he maintains.  A sad state of affairs, indeed.

--------------------------------

And your problem is obvious.  The s--t between your ears is clouding your vision.

 

I'm not from New Jersey, Einstein. I know some of you southern folk really suck at geography and all you really know is that I'm from that furrin country north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Ya know...those 'founding fathers' you all like to go on and on about? The ones that dreamed up that second amendment that you didn't bother reading the first half of?  Guess where they were from...

Liberal elite blue states up in the northeast. New England, where I spent 33 years of my life-not New Jersey.  I'm originally from New York state anyway- not that t matters as you probably couldn't find it on a map without help....

 

Funny all the stereotypes and jokes point to the south for all the sister-marrying. Transference much, hoobie?  

 

Funny too how the OP just asked 'for' or 'against' new or more gun laws. As long as everyone was against, you had no problem. I say something to the contrary and you feel you need to attack my logic, then when that doesn't work, you attack *me.*

Ya know what?  I think that if I was you I'd be afraid and carry a gun, too.  You guys are total d----heads and exactly what I was talking about.  If that's how you treat people who have differing opinions from yours-it's no wonder you think you got people gunning for ya. 

 

 

 

 

   


Can't help myself pup, I treat all Dikheads that way.

Originally Posted by direstraits:

A one note message, RP refuses to read the counter arguments -- offering only the senseless comment of an alleged comedian. 

 

No. I believe he reads them.

Understands the logic in them? No.

 

NASA needs to stop wasting money sending those "Anybody out there?" signals into outer space.

After "probing" a few like RP, do you actually believe ANY other life forms out there are going to want to have any kind of contact with Earthlings? 

Seriously?

 

Originally Posted by Road Puppy:
There are no babies/ children in my house- they're all grown now, and even when they were living in my house, I never smoked around them.

See, unlike here in the south, it's been illegal to smoke inside public buildings

________

 

The baby your wife is holding on her FB page was referred to as her "grandbaby" & it's not allowed in your home?

 

What public buildings around the Shoals area is people allowed to smoke in?

Originally Posted by direstraits:

Swiss have the most firearms per household. The presence of firearms does not present a climate for crime.

 

Banning those noisy, unsafe motorcycles would save lives and rid us of the outlaw motorcycle gangs.

==================

Damm, heretofore, I only thought you were merely slightly dumb, but with statements like that you may slip down into the deranged category .

 

Originally Posted by gbrk:

The second Amendment was considered, by the founders, to be essential for the people and in constructing it they certainly meant that sane and reasonable people should have the right to possess, buy, and use firearms.    Today too many liberals would gladly like to do away with the ability to possess and buy firearms all together and sadly our current President seems to be one of them.  He would love to do so by Executive Order and never know he might just try it.

 

The SCOTUS has ruled on the meaning of the Second Amendment, and while I like the way the decision came down, I disagree with the literal meaning . 
In order to understand the Second Amendment , one must understand the importance of the Militia to the protection of the United States in the late 1700 and early 1800s when militias were widely used to actually protect our homeland from the British , and any other invading army that would try. The Constitution says that the President is the Commander of the Militia, and the second amendment is referring to a "well regulated militia" in it's statement. 
However, I don't believe that Congress would ever have made any law to restrict gun ownership as in those days, a household firearm was a damm near necessity for everything from protection from bears to harvesting game. I just personally see the Second Amt referring to a militia under presidential command.

Now, and admonishment, don't put all Liberals in one pot. What I , and most Liberals I know want in the form of gun control , is sensible use of a background check to make it difficult for crazies and formal criminals to obtain a gun. Maybe you couldn't stop it, but you could make it a lot more difficult . NOW GET THIS : none of us (with the exception of some in the big cities up Nortyh) , want to take anybody's guns away, or stop them from getting them. 

 

Just like with all other freedoms there comes restrictions and the need to guard against misuse.  You don't go into a crowded theater and yell fire and you don't let certain people buy firearms.  Still though that won't keep firearms out of their hands for that doesn't stop a father or mother from buying their child or someone else a gun.  There are also ample examples of people murdering people with knives, swords, hammers, and cars so even if you could remove all guns there would still be murders because you have faulty people.

 I agree with the majority of all that statement. However , ONCE AGAIN, We are not talking about "taking away guns from the public in general. Please quit trying to play this Liberal vs Conservative thing , what it is is sensible vs idiocy thing.

Fact is that there are far more (innocent people, children etc) killed by drunk drivers than there are with guns yet in consideration of personal freedoms and allowing people to have their drinks when and if they want we tolerate he deaths from drunk drivers.   In many cases judges let the offenders out of jail or prison and they repeat their offenses again.   

 

 

If you really want to eliminate guns then do it in a constitutional way with a new amendment to the constitution and if it passes so be it and if it doesn't then honor and live by the amendments and Constitution as we have it now.   That's my opinion.

Don't want to eleminate guns , Get rid of that talking point. We need gun laws that are effective, such as background checks and a good system of keeping up with who is criminal / crazy and who is not.  If you are not crazy or a criminal, why would you oppose that ?
If you want to walk around with a gun on your hip, get a license (permit) . You gotta have one if you drive a car, ride a bike, drive a boat, or a number of other activities, and as far as open carry of long guns , if you come in a restaurant where me and my family are dining, wearing an automatic or semiautomatic (both look about the same so the semantics here are useless), I will immediately take my family and exit, no asking the watress for the tab, no finishing my tea, just leave NOW !/ The argument that you are wearing it to protect the 'rest of us' from the crazy, how do I know that you are not the crazy ? 
My first responsability is to protect my family and keep them out of harms way, not try to figure out if you are the crazy , or if you are which 10 or 20 or more people you will shoot before some "good guy" ends your life and the slaughter. Not my circus, not my monkeys,. I'm out of there ASAP.
That's my opinion.

 

Last edited by seeweed
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Swiss have the most firearms per household. The presence of firearms does not present a climate for crime.

 

Banning those noisy, unsafe motorcycles would save lives and rid us of the outlaw motorcycle gangs.

==================

Damm, heretofore, I only thought you were merely slightly dumb, but with statements like that you may slip down into the deranged category .

 _____________________________________________________________

Seeweed, I see sarcasm is beyond your mental capabilities.  If, you read my subsequent posts, you would have determined I was using false logic. 

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
 

if you come in a restaurant where me and my family are dining, wearing an automatic or semiautomatic (both look about the same so the semantics here are useless), I will immediately take my family and exit, no asking the watress for the tab, no finishing my tea, just leave NOW !/ 

__________

They would probably call the Police if you walked out w/o paying.

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
 

 

as far as open carry of long guns , if you come in a restaurant where me and my family are dining, wearing an automatic or semiautomatic (both look about the same so the semantics here are useless), I will immediately take my family and exit, no asking the watress for the tab, no finishing my tea, just leave NOW !/ The argument that you are wearing it to protect the 'rest of us' from the crazy, how do I know that you are not the crazy ? 

 

Anyone who comes into a restaurant with a long gun  IS crazy.

I carry concealed, but I would get out of there also.

Seaweed says  "We need gun laws that are effective, such as background checks and a good system of keeping up with who is criminal / crazy and who is not.  If you are not crazy or a criminal, why would you oppose that ?"

 

Please tell me why it is that you support any changes to or additional background checks when the DoJ does not enforce the current background checks that are in place?  Here is a good article - one that fact checks the claims for you.  So, your idea is to 'improve' laws because they supposedly arent working?  You think it might be possible that the background checks are working?  Why does the government not want to enforce the background check laws and prosecute those that fail them?  How do you know they are not effective?

 

More importantly - why aren't all the gun control nuts in a frenzy about this issue?

 

Personally, I think they fear that the background check system in place is effective as is.  If that were the case, they would have no argument to 'improve' it and would have one less thing to blame these mass killings on.  Heaven help them blame it one something like the 'Gun Free Zones' they created.

 

And to answer your question above - we oppose any changes because the current laws aren't enforced, why should we think any new laws will be?

 

Most people trying to buy a gun illegally are never prosecuted....

http://www.politifact.com/new-...gally-us-senator-ke/

 

Last edited by Capt James T

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×