Westside Steve Posted February 21, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Just now, tiamat63 said: I see you've left one (big one) out... Who is That? If you are thinking that's a gotcha I don't consider Fox News the MSM. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Just now, Westside Steve said: Who is That? If you are thinking that's a gotcha I don't consider Fox News the MSM. WSS It's I'm not thinking... and I know you intentionally left them out. Which is why I got a nice little laugh of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 17 hours ago, Westside Steve said: Well I guess anything's possible. Again we are dealing with a microscopic percentage of lunatics. Then again if preservation of life is really your concern why wouldn't you support raising the driving age to 21? WSS Oh I'm not arguing in favor or against either way - simply playing devils advocate. I do also recognize the difference between the intention of a vehicle and the intention of a gun. That's not to say both can't be used for great evil, but only one wasn't designed with the purpose of harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 21, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, tiamat63 said: Oh I'm not arguing in favor or against either way - simply playing devils advocate. I do also recognize the difference between the intention of a vehicle and the intention of a gun. That's not to say both can't be used for great evil, but only one wasn't designed with the purpose of harm. Well I don't accept the premise that Firearms were designed with the intent of murdering innocent people. Just a guess. Like heroin wasn't developed for the sole purpose of making people addicts and killing them from overdoses. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Firearms were designed with the intent of injuring living things. Cars were designed with the intent of transportation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Just now, Westside Steve said: Well I don't accept the premise that Firearms were designed with the intent of murdering innocent people. Just a guess. WSS They're meant to main or kill - the target is irrelavent and then the 'innocence' pov is left to whom is holding the weapon. That's not to say vehicles can't and haven't caused serious harm... but generally that's why it's called an accident. By the way do I have to put the disclaimer I own 4 guns this way I don't hear the "lib, leftist, anti gun anti 2nd amendment" cowpoop because of just relating some things or should I be ok from being mis-quoted by the locals? (Not including you, Steve) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 21, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 33 minutes ago, tiamat63 said: They're meant to main or kill - the target is irrelavent and then the 'innocence' pov is left to whom is holding the weapon. That's not to say vehicles can't and haven't caused serious harm... but generally that's why it's called an accident. By the way do I have to put the disclaimer I own 4 guns this way I don't hear the "lib, leftist, anti gun anti 2nd amendment" cowpoop because of just relating some things or should I be ok from being mis-quoted by the locals? (Not including you, Steve) Nope. Actually you've tiptoed around the subject a little bit though. Are there gun control measures you believe should be enacted and you believe would make a noticeable difference? Or just something to piss off the NRA and the right-wing? Because remember let's say the speech makers get what they want. And president Trump issues an executive order demanding 21 years old background checks for everybody even at gun shows a 30-day waiting period and a ban on assault style rifles. (even though I bet you understand that most of the criteria are purely cosmetic and with a wooden stock many would then be called hunting rifles) what will they do when the next school shooting happens in 2 or 3 months? But allow me to be a little bit facetious at asked why you would have four Implements of death in your possession since that's the only thing they were designed to do??? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Guns aren't designed to kill or maim. They are used for that - but they are also used, as I would, for self-defense. As in, a bear attack, I could fire my weapon into a tree and the bear would/could/should take off and run. Like nuclear weapons, I suppose - they aren't designed to kill entire cities and everything and everybody in it - they are designed to make other countries not do that to us. Guns are designed to shoot a bullet. The use of that function varies. The intent is to defend. If we go on vacation out west with friends this summer, and we end up on the roadside with our tires disabled from some potholes... and some car pulls up with four ugly scums with tire irons, my gun would be a deterrent. So, guns are made to shoot a bullet, and the application would be - we don't get beaten/murdered/robbed because it is designed to shoot a bullet, the bad actors leave and take off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 No Cal, a gun is designed to injure. It isn't designed to be a noise maker. Guns are weapons. A nuclear bomb is designed to be just that, a bomb. To cause destruction on its target. And Steve, I imagine any regulation is going to take time to kick in and slowly make an improvement. Depending on how aggressive it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 21, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 11 minutes ago, DieHardBrownsFan said: That's one of die-hards daughters. The hot chick that he posted before was a great great granddaughter. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 no, Woody. A gun is designed to shoot a bullet. Nothing more. the use of that function varies. A baseball bat is designed to hit fast, with force. Is a baseball bat used as a weapon? yep. It's intended use is baseball. The intended use of a gun is to shoot a bullet, or self-defense, even if you don't have to shoot. The bat is a weapon at times. Can murder/maim. Bombs are ILLEGAL. But they were used at the World Trade Center. How is that, when they are illegal? It isn't laws we need - it's stopping the illegal gain/use of weapons. Should we make knives/baseball bats hard to buy? If I'm out in the wilderness, lost and have a broken leg - if I hear someone yelling off in the distance - I shoot my pistol three times into a bank/nearby tree. It's an international signal for help. It's use is a good purpose. It would be heard a mile away. Fire destroys. Fire can destroy an entire street, the homes and everyone in those homes. Should be ban fire? There IS arson, you know. Should we ban matches? Make them very expensive to buy? A knife is designed to cut. Not designed to murder, even though it has been used as a weapon that murders. Cut a rope, carve a piece of wood, whittle.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 25 minutes ago, Westside Steve said: That's one of die-hards daughters. The hot chick that he posted before was a great great granddaughter. WSS She's my youngest.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 1 hour ago, MLD Woody said: No Cal, a gun is designed to injure. It isn't designed to be a noise maker. Guns are weapons. A nuclear bomb is designed to be just that, a bomb. To cause destruction on its target. And Steve, I imagine any regulation is going to take time to kick in and slowly make an improvement. Depending on how aggressive it is. Stuart It pains me to agree with libtards. Guns were invented/designed to kill or maim, not for target practice. Guns are used for protection in what way?....too kill or maim if you have to. That is why they are called weapons. That is why they are called arms. arms ärmz/ noun plural noun: arms 1. weapons and ammunition; armaments. "they were subjugated by force of arms" synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions, matériel "the illegal export of arms" That is why the "cars kill people too" analogy is silly. The core belief of we conservatives regarding the right to bear arms is.... A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.... not for target practice or hunting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted February 22, 2018 Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 3 hours ago, Westside Steve said: Nope. Actually you've tiptoed around the subject a little bit though. Are there gun control measures you believe should be enacted and you believe would make a noticeable difference? Or just something to piss off the NRA and the right-wing? Because remember let's say the speech makers get what they want. And president Trump issues an executive order demanding 21 years old background checks for everybody even at gun shows a 30-day waiting period and a ban on assault style rifles. (even though I bet you understand that most of the criteria are purely cosmetic and with a wooden stock many would then be called hunting rifles) what will they do when the next school shooting happens in 2 or 3 months? But allow me to be a little bit facetious at asked why you would have four Implements of death in your possession since that's the only thing they were designed to do??? WSS I fail to see at all where I've tip-toed around any issue. But to answer your question, it would echo the things DH said. Given the amount of red flags these shooters raise with their social media use I wonder if that could somehow be reviewed as well. Granted the phrase 'slippery slope' comes to mind. As for your follow up question - I asked that very same one to a co-worked. She's orginally from Nigeria, total sweetheart and can't wrap her head around civilians being able to own weapons. She uses the phrase "assault weapons" because, of course, she has no idea what that even means. Basically admitted she would feel a giant sense of relief if AR's were banned. To which, almost word for word I asked "so when this happens again, and it will, will you ban the shotguns and handguns next?". Because clearly she is content with the AR's somehow being the problem. Finally - simply because I recognize a device for what it was created for doesn't preclude me from owning one or believing In responsible use. In fact I feel that makes me respect the item even more. Guns aren't toys or a joking matter.... that satisfy your question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 22, 2018 Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 3 hours ago, Westside Steve said: That's one of die-hards daughters. The hot chick that he posted before was a great great granddaughter. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted February 22, 2018 Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 14 hours ago, DieHardBrownsFan said: Nothing like a family dove hunt, if you're all good enough to hit the flock all in the head. LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted February 22, 2018 Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 On a more serious issue, here are my thoughts on the proposal to arm teachers with concealed weapons on which they have been well trained. Never bring a knife to a gun fight and never bring a pistol to a rifle fight, particularly against a 30 round rifle. I managed to shoot expert with an M-16 and had I been tested, likely I could have done the same with the 1911 .45 Pistol I kept with me. My father taught me well with rifles, pistols and shotguns. There is no comparison. A .45 or any other pistol is at extreme disadvantage to a 30 round military rifle, even if it is semi-auto with no bump stock. Arming teachers is just a poor idea. Teachers would be targets for their own idiot students to get it away from them at a distracted moment during a normal teaching day. Just not a smart idea IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaconHound Posted February 23, 2018 Report Share Posted February 23, 2018 On February 19, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Canton Dawg said: Is there an Amendment to legalize all drugs? I'll let you figure that out. What were the popular weapons in 1789? Can't we simply have a logical discussion without rabid nationalism. The brilliance of the US Constitution is it was never meant to be absolute, you have the Bible for that. The authors had the idea that governance must change with the times and although not easy to do, it is necessary. I have no issue with private citizens owning guns but believe intelligent people can agree on moderation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted February 23, 2018 Report Share Posted February 23, 2018 15 minutes ago, BaconHound said: What were the popular weapons in 1789? Can't we simply have a logical discussion without rabid nationalism. Smooth bore muskets (no rifling) which were very inaccurate and if you were really good you might get off 3 rounds per minute. And Minutemen in the Rev. War were the militia. Back then there were also plenty of frontier dangers such as Native American indians that were not exactly friendly to many of those encroaching on their traditional home grounds. But somehow the well regulated militia gets dropped from all discussion. I don't get that. Don't get me wrong. I have a very nice over/under shotgun and a single action Ruger .357 mag. And I've owned rifles and pistols of various kinds. But military weapons like AR - 15s have no place outside of the military, national guard and well trained police units IMO. As one hunter put it, "If you need a 30 round weapon to hunt dear, find a better hobby in which you are more proficient." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 23, 2018 Report Share Posted February 23, 2018 10 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said: On a more serious issue, here are my thoughts on the proposal to arm teachers with concealed weapons on which they have been well trained. Never bring a knife to a gun fight and never bring a pistol to a rifle fight, particularly against a 30 round rifle. I managed to shoot expert with an M-16 and had I been tested, likely I could have done the same with the 1911 .45 Pistol I kept with me. My father taught me well with rifles, pistols and shotguns. There is no comparison. A .45 or any other pistol is at extreme disadvantage to a 30 round military rifle, even if it is semi-auto with no bump stock. Arming teachers is just a poor idea. Teachers would be targets for their own idiot students to get it away from them at a distracted moment during a normal teaching day. Just not a smart idea IMO. Pretty good - but a pistol would be better than to just be sitting ducks, like they are now, in "gun free" zones. Arming all teachers is dumb, but I think it should not be characterized that way. Arming at least ONE teacher/superintendent, that has experience in the military/martial arts/or a long history with guns etc...is more the point. Like, an ex-Marine who would never be forced to give up his gun in any attempt to take it from him. Or, have a hired police academy graduate be hired full time in schools. I think you need to ban backpacks. They do at stadiums - why not schools? So many times, our 2nd Amendment is called as the fault, but it isn't. A teen can get an illegal gun - ms13 gangs are in at least 27 of our 50 states, mostly thanks to marxist corrupt sombeitch obaMao. Nothing changes. Another change is - the HIPAA Law must be changed to be allowing the background check system to get flags in place. The police had been to that murder's home in Florida what, 38 times??? and someone alerted the FBI and the FBI did NOTHING? Sounds like the ObaMao/clinton members of the mangagement of the FBI is so corrupt up on high, that they HOPE more killings occur, so they can assert more deep state power, and more sentiment vs our 2nd Amendment. Every time this sickening garbage occurs, the sick perps know they have a captive audience, that is completely helpless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 23, 2018 Report Share Posted February 23, 2018 44 minutes ago, BaconHound said: What were the popular weapons in 1789? Can't we simply have a logical discussion without rabid nationalism. The brilliance of the US Constitution is it was never meant to be absolute, you have the Bible for that. The authors had the idea that governance must change with the times and although not easy to do, it is necessary. I have no issue with private citizens owning guns but believe intelligent people can agree on moderation. NO, NO, NO. The brilliance of our Constitution, is that it can be amended to ADD/REINFORCE ABSOLUTE RIGHTS of AMERICAN CITIZENS. There is absolutely NO amending to take away absolute rights. On a whim, the people can take away our 1st Amendment...or our 2nd? or all the others? or invalidate our Constitution entirely? That's nonsense. The amendments are absolute reinforcement declarations of God given rights that will never go away. There already IS moderation. and the idea that an AR-15 is a "military assault" weapon is completely bogus. An ar-15, in .22 caliber, is exactly the same functioning rifle as my .22 semi-auto squirrel gun. Bigger clip... Outlawing the AR-15, then, is just wanting a symbol of major victory towards outlawing all guns. Which, as we used to say, is what the left wants - a gigantic political victory over the non-left. That can't be denied anymore - far, far too many admissions that it is true. THE AR-15 IS NOT A MILITARY WEAPON, DAMMIT. It's a semi-auto rifle, that is modular and can be customized to add sight components, different stocks (my stock has a compartment inside for some survival equipment) There IS moderation. Can't own a machine gun. can't own a bazooka/grenade launcher, etc etc. Can't own a cut-off shotgun. But the more you outlaw guns, the more outlaws are free to use theirs. Personally, I think the bumb stock thing should be outlawed. But it's the corrupt left that looks at any outlawing, as the proverbial camel nose under the tent. My little squirrel .22 has a ten shot clip. An ar-15 has ...30? Using words like "common sense", and "moderation" is leftist code for "haha, stupidasses, we are going to take away your right to own guns". The idea that banning ar-15s would be "moderate": is just bullship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted February 23, 2018 Report Share Posted February 23, 2018 cal the shame of it is that this school in Florida did have an armed and trained sheriff's deputy on duty, but he sat outside rather than go in against the shooter with the rifle. He resigned and retired today when it all came to light. My son's school has an armed and trained security officer inside and all doors except the front where you must sign in are always locked so you can go out but not in. Their classrooms also remain locked during classes. Since the shooting they have had one threat there so my son first goes out himself to scope out the areas before releasing his students from his classroom at the end of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 23, 2018 Report Share Posted February 23, 2018 6 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said: cal the shame of it is that this school in Florida did have an armed and trained sheriff's deputy on duty, but he sat outside rather than go in against the shooter with the rifle. He resigned and retired today when it all came to light. My son's school has an armed and trained security officer inside and all doors except the front where you must sign in are always locked so you can go out but not in. Their classrooms also remain locked during classes. Since the shooting they have had one threat there so my son first goes out himself to scope out the areas before releasing his students from his classroom at the end of the day. That's a disgrace. Was he afraid of a lawsuit or what? What kind of coward would refuse to go in and stop the shooter??? All the more reason to have someone on the inside. Sad day - apparently metal detectors are in order. I'm so sick of all the coverage, I've been avoiding it, we're busy anyways, and didn't hear that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted February 23, 2018 Report Share Posted February 23, 2018 Just now, calfoxwc said: That's a disgrace. Was he afraid of a lawsuit or what? What kind of coward would refuse to go in and stop the shooter??? All the more reason to have someone on the inside. Sad day - apparently metal detectors are in order. I'm so sick of all the coverage, I've been avoiding it, we're busy anyways, and didn't hear that. I think it comes under my prior part of the discussion, "Never bring a pistol to a rifle fight." Kind of reinforces what I said. He was too afraid to go in. The Sheriff said it made him sick at his stomach to realize his officer hid outside rather than do his duty as has been required since Columbine to got in and not wait for backup to engage the shooter the best you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 23, 2018 Report Share Posted February 23, 2018 9 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said: I think it comes under my prior part of the discussion, "Never bring a pistol to a rifle fight." Kind of reinforces what I said. He was too afraid to go in. The Sheriff said it made him sick at his stomach to realize his officer hid outside rather than do his duty as has been required since Columbine to got in and not wait for backup to engage the shooter the best you can. That is so sickening - I suggest he isn't qualified to get his retirement. It was his job to protect those kids. even worse: The FBI did nothing, too. What...in...the................ Could it be possible, they LET this happen, to turn Americans against our 2nd Amendment, and against Trump? Is it about politics? Is that even POSSIBLE ??? What other explanation IS there? "The F.B.I. received a tip last month from someone close to Mr. Cruz that he owned a gun and had talked of committing a school shooting, the bureau revealed last week, acknowledging that it had failed to investigate. The tip about Mr. Cruz appeared to be the second in four months, after another person told the bureau about an online comment apparently posted by Mr. Cruz that he wanted to become “a professional school shooter.” " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted February 23, 2018 Report Share Posted February 23, 2018 I wouldn't go that far with it cal. If anything this has taken away from Trump still not acting against Russian interference, so there would be no point if you stayed focused on that alone. It's just someone in a large bureaucracy screwed up badly and one coward decide his own life was more important than the lives of those in his charge. It is disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 23, 2018 Report Share Posted February 23, 2018 I suppose. but obaMao never acted on it, either, way before the actual election..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.