Dog Wonder
Veteran
I don't hide behind anyone.
You on the other hand are so chickensh!t, you can live without a gun.
Another School Massacre
- Thread starter signals
- Start date
I don't hide behind anyone.
You on the other hand are so chickensh!t, you can live without a gun.
"...you can live without a gun."
Of course one can live without a gun, except in any situations that would make the "live" part a questionable outcome. You're most welcome to do so, and I'll never seek to infringe on your Right to make that choice in any way. The sad fact is that weapons are like parachutes and fire extinguishers. Should you ever truly need one and NOT have it....well/etc.
An actual Man (versus "internet tough guy") that I've the utmost respect for was Mohandas K. Ghandi, who was indeed willing to die for his beliefs and non-violent approach to confrontation...and did, I might add. Note though, his thoughts on the following: "'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,367
- 1,431
Ooops....YOU post a video of a granny getting rid of 5 thugs with guns after firing 2 shots from a handgun of some type. Since that showed that even with "limits" of 7 shots, a granny could protect a business..we suddenly shift to Koreans during the LA riots. You posted a link to a video that shot to hell the argument that we NEEDED high capacity cartridges and automatic weapons to protect ourselves. Now you're trying to find something that can cover for THAT bonehead move on your part.Had she done so with an AR15, as was not uncommonly the case when Korean-American shop owners protected themselves and their property during the LA Riots....Would that have been a "bad thing"? If so...WHY? Should the shopowners have been made 'criminals" for their actions? Would 7 rounds have worked for them?
I mean, I know, I know..."Of course" this sort of thing could NEVER, EVER happen here in the good old US of A!!!, well, at least ever again...or...well...umm...but...well..err...anyway:
"On the second day of the riots, the police had abandoned much of Koreatown. Jay Rhee, a storeowner in the area, stated to The Los Angeles Times, “we have lost faith in the police.”
With the cops nowhere to be found,................
According to the Los Angeles Times, “From the rooftops of their supermarkets, a group of Koreans armed with shotguns and automatic weapons peered onto the smoky streets . . . Koreans have turned their pastel-colored mini-malls into fortresses against looters tide.”
Rhee claimed that the storeowners shot off 500 rounds into the sky and ground in order to break up the masses of people. The only weapons able to clear that much ammo in a very short time are assault weapons. Single shot pistols or rifles might not have been able to deter the crowd hell-bent on destroying the neighborhood." http://www.amren.com...aved-koreatown/
No matter, I suppose. I'll leave it at this for now: Why don't any of you marvelous folks that so desperately wish to make your fellow citizens helpless and defenseless just march right up to that "Granny", flash an obama sticker or two, and demand that she hand you her weapon(s)? Let us all know how that works out for you.
I mean no direct offence here, but for conversational purposes; you've too-far crossed the boundaries of even marginally acceptable, wholesale ignorance. Point one being that you've not the slightest idea of what the "freaking granny" was even wielding, initially noting only that "they said", and hadn't the vaguest notion that it was indeed a dreaded "semiauto", in fact directly stating that it wasn't, nor had or have you the least clue of it's clip capacity.
I've got a few seconds to spare for a final joke tonight though, so, without further ado; kindly define for us all exactly what a "semiauto" pistol and an "assault rifle" actually are...?....?...? You came to the table tonight without even the tiniest of clues, so one must hope some homework's since been accomplished as to exactly what you want to see banned from public ownership?....? Or...do you base your supposed thinking entirely on what "they said" as you go through life, hoping, one must suppose, that "they" will always be right, which isn'treally too much to ask, since you clearly expect "they" to save you, should you ever find yourself in dire straights.
In an instant of civil unrest with bands of marauding criminals coming down your street, and police already tasked to their extreme, how will you defend you wife ?
Bush Jr and Cheney I've previously noted to be completely contemptible wimps that shirked their Duty...period. I'm not a great fan of either political machine. I don't know Nugent's history. On the other hand; I'm always up for good jokes; so perhaps you could forward us a comprehensive list of liberal "war heroes"? Don't dare even go with JFK. Today's "liberals" would have nothing to do with his beliefs at any level.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Jul 13, 2010
- 9,731
- 9,009
- Banned
- #1,087
You said that liberals were spineless. You did not say that liberals and conservatives were spineless. So it would seem by your statement that you believe conservatives are not spineless. Bush, Cheney and Nugent are but 3 examples of spineless conservatives. Bush bravely guarded IN from foreign invaders when he decided to show up. Cheney got not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4 but 5, yes 5 deferments. Nugent got a 4a by not showering for a month and defecating on him self.
So do us a favor and put your brush down and step away.
So do us a favor and put your brush down and step away.
Homeland "Security" already has a plan in place for that! As I understand it; an initial aerial assault, via the dropping of several tons of wrapped roses, petunias, lillies and other such cluster munitions will be followed by an entire cavalry brigade of leprechaun-mounted unicorns, naturally "led" by the heroic images of Biden and Obama, (via telecast from afar)....Biden will of course be immediately recognizable as the one mounted backwards on his unicorn.
Then permit me to clear up any misunderstanding here. It's been my experience that the percentages of the truly spineless just run off any measurable scale within the "liberal" community. A great many people are spineless. In today's "America"? The fact that we've still enough brave young people willing to wear the Uniform and accept all that goes with it amazes me, especially considering the pathetic, "politically correct" programming that laughably passes for public "education" of late.
Should you wish to employ the term "liberal" in it's most honest, rather than currently, half-azzed communist sense, than I'd likely qualify, as I'm a very strong believer in the Rights of the individual citizen, completely opposed to such insanity as the "War on Drugs", believe that none should be judged, nor offered or refused employement opportunity based on ethinicity or gender, and am fervently against entirely unwaranted governmental intrusion on ANYone's essential Freedom! "Liberals' of today, from what I've observed, have NOTHING to do with any such thoughts.
Programmed, "politically correct", purely opinionated and wholesale ignorance is NOT inherently any virtue, quite the contrary, in fact. Speaking of purely opinionated and wholesale ignorance: None of you seem to wish to address the issue of actually defining what constitutes an "assault rifle/weapon"...Why is that?
You've not the slightest idea of even what they specifically are...BUT...you're VERY certain that "they", should be banned. Is that about right?
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Jul 13, 2010
- 9,731
- 9,009
- Banned
- #1,090
Well, you are nothing if not entertaining.
I have not answered what an assault weapon is because I could not give a crap. As I have stated countless times on here, I have no interest in banning any other weapons. I wanted them registered, and secured. I want owners held responsible for their weapons and I want every gun sale to occur with a national back ground check and title transfer.
I have not answered what an assault weapon is because I could not give a crap. As I have stated countless times on here, I have no interest in banning any other weapons. I wanted them registered, and secured. I want owners held responsible for their weapons and I want every gun sale to occur with a national back ground check and title transfer.
"I have not answered what an assault weapon is because I could not give a crap." No fears of untowardly wandering off into the wild lands of the willfully ignorant and purely opinionated here folks!.
I'm glad you cleared that up though, as some might otherwise have incorrectly assumed that you've simply no clue of what you're discussing here at any level."in banning any other weapons?" So then: Which weapons DO you have any interest in banning? I guess it certainly can't be any "assault weapons", since you admit that you've not even the smallest clue of what those are....? I get it. You've the bizarre fantasy that ensuring that "they" initiate a registry of weapons will magically make the nation a "safer" place? Umm...how well has that worked with even cars so far?
"Well, you are nothing if not entertaining."
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Jul 13, 2010
- 9,731
- 9,009
- Banned
- #1,092
Have you always been a rude asshat or is this a talent you have honed over time? Your sanctimonious holier than thou attitude is very tiresome.
I did not say I did not know what they were I said that I did not care because they do not apply to the conversation. There is a difference and if you bothered to remove your smug head from your rectum you might realize that.
I think weapons such as .50 cal, full autos and the like should remain heavily restricted. I believe that items such as RPG's, land mines, shoulder launched missiles and the like should remain illegal. I do not think banning any semi-autos will accomplish anything.
You do not understand jack chit. I never said it would magically do anything. What I have said is that preventing new weapons from getting into the hands of criminals is a start but that with over 300 million guns in the US any affect will be very long term. I have no idea how cars come into this conversation. I cannot recall the last time I heard of a car being the weapon of choice in a mass murder.
How ever if you are stopped by law enforcement in a stolen car you will be arrested because that car is registered to a owner who has reported the car stolen. If you drive around in a car that is not registered there is a good likely hood that you will be stopped and fined or even have your car impounded. Then again, none of this has anything to do with gun regulations.
I did not say I did not know what they were I said that I did not care because they do not apply to the conversation. There is a difference and if you bothered to remove your smug head from your rectum you might realize that.
I think weapons such as .50 cal, full autos and the like should remain heavily restricted. I believe that items such as RPG's, land mines, shoulder launched missiles and the like should remain illegal. I do not think banning any semi-autos will accomplish anything.
You do not understand jack chit. I never said it would magically do anything. What I have said is that preventing new weapons from getting into the hands of criminals is a start but that with over 300 million guns in the US any affect will be very long term. I have no idea how cars come into this conversation. I cannot recall the last time I heard of a car being the weapon of choice in a mass murder.
How ever if you are stopped by law enforcement in a stolen car you will be arrested because that car is registered to a owner who has reported the car stolen. If you drive around in a car that is not registered there is a good likely hood that you will be stopped and fined or even have your car impounded. Then again, none of this has anything to do with gun regulations.
1) I see...You just can't actually define what they are. Understood. That makes perfect sense.
2) http://www.sfgate.co...man-3655389.php is it at all reasonable to perhaps assume that the dire fear of being "stopped and fined" MIGHT not prevent murderous rampages...? Just asking here.
For future reference: When anyone proves utterly incapable of articulating intelligent and rational answers to even the simplest of questions within any debate or discussion format....well...such a person must necessarily expect some occasional laughter. Get over yourself!
Ms Tree: "I think weapons such as .50 cal, full autos and the like should remain heavily restricted." Well...I've several assault rifles that even exceed .50 cal, and are .58 cal in fact. Should those be surrendered to the glorious government? One served a forebear at both Chancellorsville and Gettysburg.
Btw: What exactly now, does "heavily restricted" mean?..Why is .50 cal any magic number to your mind? The rifle used for the following, literally amazing battlefield success, was "merely" an 8.59/.338....? http://www.gizmag.co...ll-247km/14992/
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Jul 13, 2010
- 9,731
- 9,009
- Banned
- #1,094
If it makes you happy believing that knock your self out.
Part of the definition of 'mass murder' is that there be more than 1 person killed. Now, there very well may be a case or two or even more where a car was intentionally used to kill a person or persons but they are few and far between. There are far more instances of guns being used to intentionally kill people. There were close to 9,000 gun homicides last year. How many car homicides were there?
Vehicles are heavily regulated. They must be registered to be used on public roads. They must pass inspections in most parts of the country. The title must be transferred upon sale. They must be insured. There are age restrictions for their use on public roads. Hmmmmmm. Perhaps that is why there are so few car homicides in the US. We should treat guns the same way. May be we would have the same success? You might be onto something.
Again, try reading what I wrote and not lying about what I have said. I said regulated not surrendered. Are you being purposefully obtuse or willfully ignorant? Judging from the time frame of the weapons you describe it does not sound like they fall under the NFA classification.
The very least you could do when referencing my posts is to at least not lie and put words in my mouth which you know very well I did not say.
The .50 was merely one of the first weapons that came to mind. Perhaps you would be happier if I mentioned a M-2 carbine, Thompson submachine gun, M-14 or maybe a .55 tank rifle?
Part of the definition of 'mass murder' is that there be more than 1 person killed. Now, there very well may be a case or two or even more where a car was intentionally used to kill a person or persons but they are few and far between. There are far more instances of guns being used to intentionally kill people. There were close to 9,000 gun homicides last year. How many car homicides were there?
Vehicles are heavily regulated. They must be registered to be used on public roads. They must pass inspections in most parts of the country. The title must be transferred upon sale. They must be insured. There are age restrictions for their use on public roads. Hmmmmmm. Perhaps that is why there are so few car homicides in the US. We should treat guns the same way. May be we would have the same success? You might be onto something.
Again, try reading what I wrote and not lying about what I have said. I said regulated not surrendered. Are you being purposefully obtuse or willfully ignorant? Judging from the time frame of the weapons you describe it does not sound like they fall under the NFA classification.
The very least you could do when referencing my posts is to at least not lie and put words in my mouth which you know very well I did not say.
The .50 was merely one of the first weapons that came to mind. Perhaps you would be happier if I mentioned a M-2 carbine, Thompson submachine gun, M-14 or maybe a .55 tank rifle?
Well...it's certainly comforting that "it does not sound like they fall under the NFA classification."
I certainly wouldn't want to "offend" the Pimp-In-Chief or his halfwitted, court jester Biden, with any mere family heirlooms of that magnitude.Ms Tree: "Vehicles are heavily regulated. They must be registered to be used on public roads. They must pass inspections in most parts of the country. The title must be transferred upon sale. They must be insured. There are age restrictions for their use on public roads."
All of which naturally makes everyone "safe", doesn't it? http://www.cnn.com/2...ffic-fatalities
