And here they come out of woodwork

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clark1961 said:
Are you always passive-aggressive when people don't agree with you or they call you out on your bad behavior?
Click to expand...
Explain the passive aggressive charge.:dunno:
Your post was non-sensical. How else do you want me to say it? That's about as straight forward as I can be.
 
StevieTimes said:
Tell me why anyone NEEDS more than 6 beers in a fridge at one time. You don't need that many beers. You may WANT that many beers, but nobody needs that many.
Click to expand...

Just like some feel the need for speed, I sometimes feel the need for beer, maybe 2, maybe 6, maybe 10-12 but that's rare anymore. Unless I'm having a good time watching Bama whipping Auburn. :D
 
noob said:
If they had a 2nd Amendment would we still be complaining about Kim Jong Un exercising his ‘right to bear arms’ right now?

Seems we’re pretty selective about what ‘arms’ refer to. And the ‘arms’ we need to truly fight back against government oppression bare very little resemblance to guns. And nobody is talking about making tanks, fighters, bombers, rockets and WMDs available to the citizenry. (or are they?)

This isn’t about a right to fight back against the government - It hasn’t been for a long time. It’s about personal prefence and culture - and people making money from gun sales. But if the GMAN is truly coming for you - you know the arms you have legal access to won’t make a dent of a difference.
Click to expand...

Not me alone but when a large proportion of my fellow citizens are also armed equivalent to the GMAN's boots on the ground it will. I already explained in this thread what exact types of weapons the 2nd refers to and it's not Kim Jong Un's warheads. The big man on the block (the USA) has every moral right and duty to stop the proliferation of nukes anywhere else. No sane person thinks the 2nd applies to advanced, mass destruction military equipment.

You cannot suppress and enslave a people (without killing them en masse) without personal street level control as PPC1052 just pointed out (Vietnam, Afghanistan). For this you must infiltrate with foot soldiers and if most of the would- be conquered are armed to the same degree you are, you will have a very hard fight on your hands.

Personal preference and gun culture? This is a term only used by people not familiar with it. There is no "gun culture" separate from the very country itself - I refer you again to the Constitution. Making money from gun sales? That's just supply meeting demand. I see NO advertisements to the general public about buying guns; the manufacturers are not driving it.

When a community upholds the idea that every free man must be allowed to have the means to defend himself with weapons equal to the common soldier, then that community owns the first most basic line of defense against invasion or enslavement. It's not that I alone will be able to repel it, but me along with millions of others sure will, or at least have a chance.
 
Caramon13 said:
Not really, no. There's always been gun violence and there probably always will be, no matter what anyone does.

Guns today are relatively easy to acquire, too easy I think. I think that's a problem. In none of my posts I have argued the point that people should be able to bear arms. In fact I quite agree with that right. I am also not against the spirit of the second amendment, more along the lines with how its been interpreted.

My major concern is access for everyone and quantity. That's basically it.
Click to expand...

My county is very gun-friendly. Anyone who wants a concealed carry pistol permit can get one as long as they have no non-relieved felonies or domestic violence convictions, and no history of serious mental illness. Applicants are not required to demonstrate need. If they want the permit and have no disqualifications (or if the disqualifications have been relieved), they get the permit.

New York City is very gun-unfriendly. It is almost impossible to get a carry permit unless you have an actual need for one. Even then, the process can take well over a year, and the police will try to talk you out of it any way they can. Even non-carry premises permits are very difficult to obtain.

When people in my county who can't buy a handgun because of a felony or domestic violence conviction want a gun, they go to New York City (specifically, The Bronx). The excessively strict gun laws in New York City sustain a thriving black market in guns and ammunition wherein anyone can buy any gun or ammunition they could possibly want, with no forms to fill out, and no questions asked.

Most buyers are not professional criminals. They're store owners, ATM service technicians, livery drivers, and others who want the weapons for protection, but who can't convince the NYPD to issue them a permit. But the illegal gun sellers aren't very picky. It makes no difference to them whether they're selling to an honest bodega owner or a drug kingpin with a string of bodies. They're breaking the same law and taking the same risks either way, so it doesn't matter.

New York City mayors have long complained that people go to states "down South" where it's easier to buy guns, and then bring them back to The City to commit crimes. The truth, however, is quite the opposite. New York City exports more illegal firearms than they import. In places where it's easy to get guns legally it's difficult to get them illegally because legal gun dealers won't sell them to people who are forbidden from possessing them.

The guy selling guns out of his trunk in an alley in The Bronx, on the other hand, has no such qualms. But his business depends on prohibition. If it were easier to get guns legally, no one would pay the price and take the risks to buy them illegally. It just wouldn't make any sense. Why risk being arrested for a crime you didn't commit because the illegal gun you buy has a history? Only a fool would do that -- except when forced to do so by prohibition.

What it comes down to is that prohibition is a prerequisite to black markets, whether we're talking about booze, drugs, guns, or anything else. Make the laws too tough, and all you do is push questionable purchasers over to the black market, thus losing whatever margin of safety the legal sale system provides.

Rich
 
Last edited:
RJM62 said:
My county is very gun-friendly. Anyone who wants a concealed carry pistol permit can get one as long as they have no non-relieved felonies or domestic violence convictions, and no history of serious mental illness. Applicants are not required to demonstrate need. If they want the permit and have no disqualifications (or if the disqualifications have been relieved), they get the permit.

New York City is very gun-unfriendly. It is almost impossible to get a carry permit unless you have an actual need for one. Even then, the process can take well over a year, and the police will try to talk you out of it any way they can. Even non-carry premises permits are very difficult to obtain.

When people in my county who can't buy a handgun because of a felony or domestic violence conviction want a gun, they go to New York City (specifically, The Bronx). The excessively strict gun laws in New York City sustain a thriving black market in guns and ammunition wherein anyone can buy any gun or ammunition they could possibly want, with forms to fill out, and no questions asked.

Most buyers are not professional criminals. They're store owners, ATM service technicians, livery drivers, and others who want the weapons for protection, but who can't convince the NYPD to issue them a permit. But the illegal gun sellers aren't very picky. It makes no difference to them whether they're selling to an honest bodega owner or a drug kingpin with a string of bodies. They're breaking the same law and taking the same risks either way, so it doesn't matter.

New York City mayors have long complained that people go to states "down South" where it's easier to buy guns, and then bring them back to The City to commit crimes. The truth, however, is quite the opposite. New York City exports more illegal firearms than they import. In places where it's easy to get guns legally it's difficult to get them illegally because legal gun dealers won't sell them to people to are forbidden from possessing them.

The guy selling guns out of his trunk in an alley in The Bronx, on the other hand, has no such qualms. But his business depends on prohibition. If it were easier to get guns legally, no one would pay the price and take the risks to buy them illegally. It just wouldn't make any sense. Why risk being arrested for a crime you didn't commit because the illegal gun you buy has a history? Only a fool would do that -- except when forced to do so by prohibition.

What it comes down to is that prohibition is a prerequisite to black markets, whether we're talking about booze, drugs, guns, or anything else. Make the laws too tough, and all you do is push questionable purchasers over to the black market, thus losing whatever margin of safety the legal sale system provides.

Rich
Click to expand...

Brilliant summary.
 
RJM62 said:
My county is very gun-friendly. Anyone who wants a concealed carry pistol permit can get one as long as they have no non-relieved felonies or domestic violence convictions, and no history of serious mental illness. Applicants are not required to demonstrate need. If they want the permit and have no disqualifications (or if the disqualifications have been relieved), they get the permit.

New York City is very gun-unfriendly. It is almost impossible to get a carry permit unless you have an actual need for one. Even then, the process can take well over a year, and the police will try to talk you out of it any way they can. Even non-carry premises permits are very difficult to obtain.

When people in my county who can't buy a handgun because of a felony or domestic violence conviction want a gun, they go to New York City (specifically, The Bronx). The excessively strict gun laws in New York City sustain a thriving black market in guns and ammunition wherein anyone can buy any gun or ammunition they could possibly want, with no forms to fill out, and no questions asked.

Most buyers are not professional criminals. They're store owners, ATM service technicians, livery drivers, and others who want the weapons for protection, but who can't convince the NYPD to issue them a permit. But the illegal gun sellers aren't very picky. It makes no difference to them whether they're selling to an honest bodega owner or a drug kingpin with a string of bodies. They're breaking the same law and taking the same risks either way, so it doesn't matter.

New York City mayors have long complained that people go to states "down South" where it's easier to buy guns, and then bring them back to The City to commit crimes. The truth, however, is quite the opposite. New York City exports more illegal firearms than they import. In places where it's easy to get guns legally it's difficult to get them illegally because legal gun dealers won't sell them to people who are forbidden from possessing them.

The guy selling guns out of his trunk in an alley in The Bronx, on the other hand, has no such qualms. But his business depends on prohibition. If it were easier to get guns legally, no one would pay the price and take the risks to buy them illegally. It just wouldn't make any sense. Why risk being arrested for a crime you didn't commit because the illegal gun you buy has a history? Only a fool would do that -- except when forced to do so by prohibition.

What it comes down to is that prohibition is a prerequisite to black markets, whether we're talking about booze, drugs, guns, or anything else. Make the laws too tough, and all you do is push questionable purchasers over to the black market, thus losing whatever margin of safety the legal sale system provides.

Rich
Click to expand...
 
Half Fast said:
My wife (Auburn grad) downloaded that youtube clip and played it over and over and over. She still plays it any time she needs a pick-me-up.
Click to expand...

The run back for the win in '13? The Kick Six. That was unreal and wild for sure.
 
Half Fast said:
Yep, in the Iron Bowl. And I assumed that was Mike's tongue-in-cheek message in his "wait one second" post. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah he's always bring it up. Auburn doesn't have too many ya know. :D
 
mscard88 said:
Yeah he's always bring it up. Auburn doesn't have too many ya know. :D
Click to expand...

By longstanding nuptial agreement, I am obligated to cheer for any team opposing Alabama, and She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed is obligated to cheer for whoever is playing against the University (sic) of Georgia. When Auburn plays Ga Tech, we turn off the TV.

Before entering GT, I did a math degree at Samford U in Birmingham, so I got the watch the Auburn/Alabama feud from a ringside seat for a while.
 
Yeah it's crazy, year round, every day, 24/7. Season record up to the Iron Bowl doesn't matter. I keep wanting to go to a Samford game, nice stadium and campus.
 
mscard88 said:
Yeah he's always bring it up. Auburn doesn't have too many ya know. :D
Click to expand...

45-35-1 all time, bammer has the edge, but saying "doesn't have too many" is inaccurate. In the last 20 years it's 11-9. Sooner or later the turds will return to the days of the three blind Mikes. @Half Fast , you were correct at what I was referencing, your wife is awesome.
 
Samford didn't have a football program when I was there. They restarted it a year or two after I graduated, with Terry Bowden coaching. We did have a decent basketball program back then, though.

If you don't make it to a game, try going to a concert or two at Samford. World-class music program.
 
Here's the cool thing about the US Constitution. If the people of the USA don't like say, the 2nd Amendment and want the second basically nullified because there is a real, serious threat of being gunned down someday by a worthless looney tune with a intense desire to be a famous talk of the town, the Constitution provides the means to do that! Simply write up and get a new Amendment passed by the House, the Senate and the President that negates the 2nd Amendment. That's all there is to it!

With this new amendment it would then become the military's and law enforcement's duty to disarm all the people. It would be the duty of all US citizens to hand in all their firearms. We then could be safe from being gunned down by douche bag freak, or anybody else. We would finally be safe from gun violence and no longer able to shoot ourselves. Think of the drop in suicides!

Until this glorious day comes... stop trying to erode the 2nd Amendment with useless feel good regulation and laws!
Leave the law abiding believers in the Constitution alone!
 
Mike Smith said:
45-35-1 all time, bammer has the edge, but saying "doesn't have too many" is inaccurate. In the last 20 years it's 11-9. Sooner or later the turds will return to the days of the three blind Mikes. @Half Fast , you were correct at what I was referencing, your wife is awesome.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean wins, I meant highlights. And leave Bo out of this! ;)
 
Mike Smith said:
Now you just wait 1 second here.......
Click to expand...

mscard88 said:
I didn't mean wins, I meant highlights. And leave Bo out of this! ;)
Click to expand...
Oh, there are lots of highlights on both sides. I could name a bunch. I think the most famous is the kick six, the most infamous being "happy Birthday Bo from Van Tiffins toe". Funny, with all the fabulous athletes both teams have had, the two most memorable plays are field goals.

ETA...and a couple of punts. Hehe
 
Mike Smith said:
Oh, there are lots of highlights on both sides. I could name a bunch. I think the most famous is the kick six, the most infamous being "happy Birthday Bo from Van Tiffins toe". Funny, with all the fabulous athletes both teams have had, the two most memorable plays are field goals.

ETA...and a couple of punts. Hehe
Click to expand...

Yup, great series. Funny how the Bear lost Bo to AU though. What an athlete. I remember when he ran over Brian Bosworth in maybe Bo's first pro game, not sure. Bosworth ran his mouth and Bo showed him he knows. :D
 
@Caramon13, if I understand correctly, your position is the ability to purchase firearms is not regulated tightly enough, the quantity of firearms one person owns in unregulated, and there are entirely too many deaths attributed to firearms.

Is that correct?
 
TCABM said:
@Caramon13, if I understand correctly, your position is the ability to purchase firearms is not regulated tightly enough, the quantity of firearms one person owns in unregulated, and there are entirely too many deaths attributed to firearms.

Is that correct?
Click to expand...
I wonder if more die in automobiles.....? :confused:
 
over 40,000 people die in cars every year.....vs. 11,583 people are murdered by guns.


maybe we should outlaw cars? o_O
 
Cooter said:
;)
Click to expand...
I understand you do not want to accept the message in posts that disagree with you or that point out bad behavior. I understand that you don't want to put any effort into understanding posts that you disagree with. I understand that you attack those that disagree with you and that is your defensive behavior.

I have pointed out that you are disrespectful. You have not denied this and in fact you embraced it. At this point nothing else need said. HTH and HAND.
 
steingar said:
Roughly half are suicides. You are far more likely to drown or be poisoned (and far, far more likely to overdose on opioids) than die from a firearm.
Click to expand...

Removing guns won't lower suicides. It will just change how they do it. Sadly when one gets to that dark place they find a way.

The US and the UK have pretty much the same suicide rate. The only difference is how they do it.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
over 40,000 people die in cars every year.....vs. 11,583 people are murdered by guns.


maybe we should outlaw cars? o_O
Click to expand...

Of course, you don't have an accurate count of how many people aren't murdered or injured because they had a gun for self defense. 20 years ago Gary Kleck found about 2.5 million defensive guns uses in a year; I don't know the number today.

I don't think a similar claim can be made for cars, so you're probably correct that cars should be outlawed. It's for the children.
 
Clark1961 said:
I understand you do not want to accept the message in posts that disagree with you or that point out bad behavior. I understand that you don't want to put any effort into understanding posts that you disagree with. I understand that you attack those that disagree with you and that is your defensive behavior.

I have pointed out that you are disrespectful. You have not denied this and in fact you embraced it. At this point nothing else need said. HTH and HAND.
Click to expand...
You have made claims with no evidence, and obviously can't take a joke. I'm happy to show you how you've made baseless charges but I'm sure you will just offer another round. The fact is, I disagreed with your post and you couldn't handle it. Evidenced by claiming things that we're not true about my post at all. Who gets offended by "in all due respect"?

This whole thing is silly enough to be laughed at by 8yr olds. But if you are going to claim "bad behavior", you need to back it up or apologize. Your tactic of trying to silence doesn't intimidate me, so I will press you to back up your words.
When I tried before to get an answer for your claims, you disappeared. Let's try again, use the quote function to show where in my OP to you I was "demeaning".
 
Your child is far more likely to die in your neighbor's swimming pool than to die by your neighbor's gun. It's not even close (1/11,000 vs 1/1,000,000+ according to the authors of Freakonomics).
 
Cooter said:
You have made claims with no evidence, and obviously can't take a joke. I'm happy to show you how you've made baseless charges but I'm sure you will just offer another round. The fact is, I disagreed with your post and you couldn't handle it. Evidenced by claiming things that we're not true about my post at all. Who gets offended by "in all due respect"?

This whole thing is silly enough to be laughed at by 8yr olds. But if you are going to claim "bad behavior", you need to back it up or apologize. Your tactic of trying to silence doesn't intimidate me, so I will press you to back up your words.
When I tried before to get an answer for your claims, you disappeared. Let's try again, use the quote function to show where in my OP to you I was "demeaning".
Click to expand...
You were demeaning by typing “in all due respect” while stating that your opinion was the only one that mattered. You gave no respect whatsoever to my opinion. I don’t need the quote function for this stuff. You’ve already hung yourself.

As for “crickets”. I reply on my schedule, not yours. That you expect otherwise is just one more piece of evidence that you are passive-aggressive and prone to bad behavior. I’m sorry that your actions have to be called out like this but you just keep pushing. You can apologize now or later, it really doesn’t matter to me.
 
Rushie said:
Your child is far more likely to die in your neighbor's swimming pool than to die by your neighbor's gun. It's not even close (1/11,000 vs 1/1,000,000+ according to the authors of Freakonomics).
Click to expand...

Somewhere between 40% and 50% of US households own guns. The number of guns in the US may be around 300,000,000 but nobody really knows for sure. Any way you slice it, guns are much more common than swimming pools, so pools must be much MUCH more dangerous than guns.
 
I have a pool. I have guns. Slingshot too, and oh, a BB gun. Oh a dog too.
 
I have a brain. The most dangerous weapon of all.

It should probably be registered as a WMD... ;-)
 
Clark1961 said:
You were demeaning by typing “in all due respect” while stating that your opinion was the only one that mattered. You gave it no respect whatsoever to my opinion. I don’t need the quote function for this stuff. You’ve already hung yourself.
Click to expand...
The sad part is that you don't know how ridiculous you sound. Any person who can construe the simple phrase "with all due respect", as a demeaning insult has problems that won't be resolved in a forum post.

But just to enlighten you so as to protect you from further injury, the phrase in question uses the word "DUE", which you seem to miss completely. That means the respect that is DUE, which in this case is being lessened with each post. For some reason you seem to think it means "I respect you". It pays to be attentive to the actual words that are being used.

Also, for some reason you have joined respect with agreement in a way that makes you think it is impossible to have respect for someone's opinion and yet be in disagreement. This is a serious error and incidentally, the reason this conversation has gone in the direction that it has. Any man who can't handle a simple disagreement without inferring disrespect, is a man who is incapable of meaningful interaction. Do you demand that type of fawning subservience from all your friends?

The content of my OP to you was to say that you are arguing from preference as opposed to arguing from bestowed rights. The result of such a line of argument is that another's preference can be equally valid. Gun control is a serious threat to our freedoms and needs to be argued from that which provides that right to own them in the first place. Sorry that you can't handle a difference of opinion. If you want a further apology, you'll have to do a much better job of pointing out my transgressions.

Edit: Forgot to include, you have made another baseless charge. I knew they would keep coming. Since you are averse to the quote function, please tell me where you find justification for this: "while stating that your opinion was the only one that mattered."

This type of falsehood only highlights your sensitivity to disagreement. I suggest you stick to what's actually been said.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top