DieHardBrownsFan Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 Nap time MLD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 Nap time MLD. That is for AARP members like yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 That is for AARP members like yourself. Man, you can't beat nap time. It's better than 'work time' or 'laundry time' or 'housework time' - it's even better than '20-minute dump time' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 Beer time............ WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 Beer time............ WSS ...tends to lead to nap time, these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 I don't belong to AARP, its a liberal ogranization. I do belong to the VFW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 Hey, nap time is very excellent. Just ask Uncle Si, on Duck Dynasty. You wake up all refreshed, ready to go switch out the corn head off the combine, to the grain head, which I did. Or, go out back, and see if there are any deer hunters trespassing. None. Or, we have lunch, and move furniture around the house...again. I never want to, like it the way it is... but then I go ahead and we move it around, and I complain that I'd rather be watching TV or playing with my new video editing software... and then I admit I'm amazed how nicer it all looks, only after we're done. And she reminds me that next time I should not complain because I always like the new look but I complain a little every time anyways.... Naps rock. Little Woodypeckerhead sucks sock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 It's our right to own a gun and its our responsibility to protect that right by ensuring that guns aren't being made freely available to madmen. Nothing does less for protecting gun rights than allowing them to be possessed and used by the Adam Lanza's of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 There are two problems with the madmen getting guns things. 1) Why are they madmen? Some people of course will just have mental problems. Others will be driven to madness by things in their lives, feeling hard done by at losing a job, getting discharged from the army, flunking school, whatever. Those are more controllable things. We can't control everything and make everyone's life perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be striving towards that. 2) Why do they have access to guns? For mental illnesses, that's a pretty big red flag right there. But if he/she lives with 'regular' people, those people shouldn't be 'punished' by having their guns taken away (assuming they'll be living in a country that grants them the right to bear arms). But obviously there needs to be restrictions on access. It's trickier in the second scenario, where you have a regular joe that's just been driven to the edge by life. But I don't think regular people go on killing sprees, I think most people that have been involved in that kind of thing. So I guess where you end up is a full psych evaluation for the right to own guns. Would that be so bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 I've advocated that for a long time. Good luck, though, trying to get cal and some other folk to agree that psych evals ought to be a qualification. I also think a total move to only producing "smart" guns makes a hell of a lot of sense. If you had guns that could only fire if you were wearing, say, a magnetic ring, how would that put legal gun owners out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 I've advocated that for a long time. Good luck, though, trying to get cal and some other folk to agree that psych evals ought to be a qualification. I also think a total move to only producing "smart" guns makes a hell of a lot of sense. If you had guns that could only fire if you were wearing, say, a magnetic ring, how would that put legal gun owners out? I'd love to go a step further and get guns that match to palm prints, James Bond style. But that might be a bit prohibitively expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 Maybe but putting a small touchscreen near the stock that reads fingerprints is probably quite cost effective these days. The problem is how quickly can you shoot if you need to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 Maybe but putting a small touchscreen near the stock that reads fingerprints is probably quite cost effective these days. The problem is how quickly can you shoot if you need to. Yes, if the idea is self defence, then you need to be able to draw and fire, like in those good old westerns. Thumb print recognition would be kinda pointless there. Still not seeing a downside to carrying tasers instead, FWIW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 If I had had a taser, and the nutjob screaming epithets at me because he wasn't allowed to hunt on our property had shot at me from 40 yds....a taser helps me defend myself... not at all. All gun owners, I assume, know full well that madmen shouldn't have access to arms. Psychology tests? Issued by... the gov? I'd laugh if that weren't so stupid. All the gov would have to do, is mod the test to have most folks "fail" it. And anti gun gov's would accomplish their disarming objective. Same thing with gun registration, which ObaMao and Moochelle want.. because a lot of the left wants it. Mostly because, it's a political undermining of the American status quo that the left doesn't relate to. Common sense laws mean that background checks are a must. And they are in place allfreakinready. Expanding them, no problem, until "expanding" turns into "registration". Then, just like has already happened in NYC, the "registration" is used as a weapon against gun ownership. It's too bad the arrogance, and ulterior motives, on the part of the left, has alienated the very people whose help they need to be able to come up with some ways to enforce gun safety, and restricted access to those who should not have access. But when the left continuously, and belligerently, advocates laws that will do nothing to solve their alleged concerns, but will restrict gun ownership for ALL gun owners... the ulterior motive is out there, like a far too large and bright Broadway neon sign. Until the left accepts responsibility for that, working together will never happen. Case in point - a simple emphasis on criminalizing open access to those who shouldn't have guns. Lending your gun to a criminal. Leaving loaded guns unsecured in a home. You can bet if it was a felony, several of the killings wouldn't have happened, because the parents/relatives would have their guns locked up. Of course, a person could be coerced into giving a nutjob a key via threats of being killed with a knife... But at least a sincere group work effort could take place. Meanwhile, the left is it's own worst enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 Half the drugged up people wouldn't be affected by the taser. My .357 mag, .40 cal semi auto, AR-15, and Remington 870 provide adequate home defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted December 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 is anyone going to actually respond to the topic of the post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 Half the drugged up people wouldn't be affected by the taser. My .357 mag, .40 cal semi auto, AR-15, and Remington 870 provide adequate home defense. Being drugged up would have nothing to do with it. The electricity affects the signals sent to the muscles which cause spasms - it's not something determination of mind can really overcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 I'm telling you from experience. I've seen people pull the wires out and keep coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 anyway to respond to the video I'm not particularly impressed by that or any of Aaron Sorkin's left wing horse shit. But no president Obama has not made any substantial strides toward taking guns out of the hands of the public. That doesn't mean it isn't a goal of the hard core left but that the moderates and conservatives have kept any of those things from happening. People used to criticize Reagan for being anti-choicers but when you look at the records was any substantial progress made toward outlawing abortion? Not really. As I said before Obama is wise enough to not let this be a key talking point. I'm sure there is a faction, probably a big one, in America that believes our gun laws should be very similar to those in jolly old England. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 I've got to agree with diehard here. A taser is not guaranteed to put an assailant. It might. It might kill said assailant, or it might not stop them at all. There's a reason cops also carry firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 And no, Obama has no power to pass any significant legislature that reaches towards disarmament. Gun control advocates need to start thinking outside the box and start by looking more towards firearm safety and responsibility options and less toward getting rid of guns. Leaving the responsibility in the hands of the end user is a bad mistake. People who consider themselves responsible will still leave loaded guns on their nightstands and somehow justify that in their minds as safe and responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koalabazooka Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 Also, I made Mrs gft and myself a thanksgiving dinner last night, after watching the packers get stuffed by the lions. Mostly just christmas dinner, but with scalloped corn and sweet potato mallow - since my aunt is from Ohio (Newark) I grew up on this stuff! Glad we could get an outsider to comment on this American Thread! And gft is your last name, lol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 The Newsroom is one of the worst liberal POS shows to ever play on TV, and we are supposed to take a statement from an actor and make comments? One of the most ignorant posts you have ever made Kosar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 8, 2013 Report Share Posted December 8, 2013 The Newsroom is one of the worst liberal POS shows to ever play on TV, and we are supposed to take a statement from an actor and make comments? One of the most ignorant posts you have ever made Kosar. That wasnt the point at all really... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 8, 2013 Report Share Posted December 8, 2013 You never have a point, woodypeckerhead. You just chime in to bitch about what anybody else says. You got nothin, Michigan hairdresser/toe nail polisher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 8, 2013 Report Share Posted December 8, 2013 You never have a point, woodypeckerhead. You just chime in to bitch about what anybody else says. You got nothin, Michigan hairdresser/toe nail polisher. what was the point of your point though? I seem to be missing the rule here where my posts have no point, no effort... but the responses to these meaningless posts are just super critical... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koalabazooka Posted December 8, 2013 Report Share Posted December 8, 2013 You never have a point, woodypeckerhead. You just chime in to bitch about what anybody else says. You got nothin, Michigan hairdresser/toe nail polisher. Weakest insult, ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPPT1974 Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 It is not the gun itself that kills you. But the person that uses the gun recklessly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 it is actually the gun that kills you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 it is actually the gun that kills you. No, it is the bullet. or the blood loss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.