PDA

View Full Version : Gun Thread


adamt
01-09-2013, 04:00 PM
In honor of senator feinstein I think we need a gun thread. Maybe if it is used enough it could get stickied.

I'll start with one of me shooting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q-x26W12QU&feature=youtu.be

Play The Man
01-09-2013, 05:49 PM
If you care about the Second Amendment now is the time to speak up. NRA membership is $35. You don't have to be a gun owner. Act now or our children will be disarmed. https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?CampaignID=nranews

flo
01-09-2013, 09:06 PM
Loved your video, Adam. Was there a lot of recoil, does it hurt your shoulder? It still looks like a blast to shoot.

Thanks, PTM, for the link. We aren't members of the NRA and I hadn't even thought of it (even though we are gun owners and will NOT be disarmed).

Bonnie
01-10-2013, 01:25 AM
Loved your video, Adam. Was there a lot of recoil, does it hurt your shoulder? It still looks like a blast to shoot.

Thanks, PTM, for the link. We aren't members of the NRA and I hadn't even thought of it (even though we are gun owners and will NOT be disarmed).

Flo, I thought the link you posted in that other thread that Play resurrected recently, the blog by Larry Correia, "An Opinion on Gun Control", would be perfect for this thread!

flo
01-10-2013, 02:06 AM
Flo, I thought the link you posted in that other thread that Play resurrected recently, the blog by Larry Correia, "An Opinion on Gun Control", would be perfect for this thread!

That's a great idea, Bon, thanks. I'll go dig it up and post it. It's very long but well-worth the time. For someone like me, not real knowledgeable about guns, it was very educational but I think anyone could benefit from the guy's vast experience with firearms/training.

Link here (http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/) Sorry about that, my original link didn't work but this one is ok.

huan
01-10-2013, 02:13 AM
In honor of senator feinstein I think we need a gun thread. Maybe if it is used enough it could get stickied.

I'll start with one of me shooting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q-x26W12QU&feature=youtu.be

lol, nice bump fire stock. I concur with the sentiment behind starting this thread...

anyone going to be at SHOT next week?

adamt
01-10-2013, 04:18 AM
If you care about the Second Amendment now is the time to speak up. NRA membership is $35. You don't have to be a gun owner. Act now or our children will be disarmed. https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?CampaignID=nranews


perfect post placement ptm, per usual :)

Loved your video, Adam. Was there a lot of recoil, does it hurt your shoulder? It still looks like a blast to shoot.

Thanks, PTM, for the link. We aren't members of the NRA and I hadn't even thought of it (even though we are gun owners and will NOT be disarmed).

i've never had any issues with being bothered by recoil, so no, recoil is a non factor, it is fun to shoot, but hard on the wallet :) the worst part about shooting a gun like this would be the muzzle jump, but ak's have a muzzle brake that uses escaping gas to keep the barrel steady, so that isn't much of an issue either

lol, nice bump fire stock. I concur with the sentiment behind starting this thread...

anyone going to be at SHOT next week?



i wish i could go to the shot show, maybe someday :)

adamt
01-10-2013, 04:20 AM
epic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCH0ajdnvOc

Bonnie
01-10-2013, 07:07 AM
That's a great idea, Bon, thanks. I'll go dig it up and post it. It's very long but well-worth the time. For someone like me, not real knowledgeable about guns, it was very educational but I think anyone could benefit from the guy's vast experience with firearms/training.

Link here

I thought there was a lot there to make for some good discussion/debate. For instance, should we begin to give serious thought to allowing school staffers and teachers to be armed (some of them at least), after being thoroughly trained of course. Mike had mentioned an idea like this in another thread, and I saw red flags with the idea, but after reading Correia's blog, I got what Nathan and Mike were trying to say about "armed resistance" making these nut jobs think twice.

I hope people will take the time to read it.

Bonnie
01-10-2013, 07:29 AM
i've never had any issues with being bothered by recoil, so no, recoil is a non factor, it is fun to shoot, but hard on the wallet :) the worst part about shooting a gun like this would be the muzzle jump, but ak's have a muzzle brake that uses escaping gas to keep the barrel steady, so that isn't much of an issue either


I admit I recoiled when you started firing. :laugh: You don't need ear protection?

adamt
01-10-2013, 12:51 PM
I admit I recoiled when you started firing. :laugh: You don't need ear protection?

:sad: yes, i should have been wearing ear protection, my ears never rang afterwards or anything, but it's long term damage that you are trying to prevent

rearnakedchoke
01-10-2013, 01:37 PM
:sad: yes, i should have been wearing ear protection, my ears never rang afterwards or anything, but it's long term damage that you are trying to prevent

you were supposed to say "huh? what was that? speak up!"

lol

great thread .. love me some guns!!!!

Neezar
01-10-2013, 02:09 PM
I thought there was a lot there to make for some good discussion/debate. For instance, should we begin to give serious thought to allowing school staffers and teachers to be armed (some of them at least), after being thoroughly trained of course. Mike had mentioned an idea like this in another thread, and I saw red flags with the idea, but after reading Correia's blog, I got what Nathan and Mike were trying to say about "armed resistance" making these nut jobs think twice.

I hope people will take the time to read it.

I still don't like the idea of a teacher having a firearm. I would rather have an armed law enforcement officer. I think the teachers should be protecting/getting the kids to safety without worrying about readying a firearm and preparing for confrontation. Then the officer could solely concentrate on the offender knowing the staff are tending the kids. I wouldn't want a teacher to have two priorities to deal with.

Bonnie
01-10-2013, 05:11 PM
I still don't like the idea of a teacher having a firearm. I would rather have an armed law enforcement officer. I think the teachers should be protecting/getting the kids to safety without worrying about readying a firearm and preparing for confrontation. Then the officer could solely concentrate on the offender knowing the staff are tending the kids. I wouldn't want a teacher to have two priorities to deal with.

I would prefer that too. It's not that I like the idea, but, we might need to look at it as a realistic option. You know how they tell parents with babies and toddlers to go through their house, each room, and get low to the ground so they're seeing things from the baby's level, to better see all the possible dangers, that's the approach we need to start taking with our schools. If we're going to protect our children better, we need to look at our kids and schools like the bad guys do, as sitting targets in a death trap.

County Mike
01-10-2013, 06:15 PM
I still don't like the idea of a teacher having a firearm. I would rather have an armed law enforcement officer. I think the teachers should be protecting/getting the kids to safety without worrying about readying a firearm and preparing for confrontation. Then the officer could solely concentrate on the offender knowing the staff are tending the kids. I wouldn't want a teacher to have two priorities to deal with.

Imagine a scenario where a lunatic walks into a classroom and starts shooting. Then moves to the next classroom. If that teacher has access to a firearm he/she could act immediately when the lunatic comes in rather than waiting for the armed guard (or whoever) to arrive. If the guard is at the other end of the school, he might not even know what's happening until it's too late. Armed teachers might not prevent every murder, but I think they could at least reduce the number.

Of course, this would be for teachers who choose the option and are trained in the use and handling of a firearm. Best scenario, lunatic doesn't even enter school because he knows some of the staff are armed.

flo
01-10-2013, 08:04 PM
I still don't like the idea of a teacher having a firearm. I would rather have an armed law enforcement officer. I think the teachers should be protecting/getting the kids to safety without worrying about readying a firearm and preparing for confrontation. Then the officer could solely concentrate on the offender knowing the staff are tending the kids. I wouldn't want a teacher to have two priorities to deal with.

I was a little uneasy with it too but after reading the article I linked to, it did change my mind. Here is the pertinent segment:

Armed Teachers

So now that there is a new tragedy the president wants to have a “national conversation on guns”. Here’s the thing. Until this national conversation is willing to entertain allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons, then it isn’t a conversation at all, it is a lecture.

Now when I say teachers carrying concealed weapons on Facebook I immediately get a bunch of emotional freak out responses. You can’t mandate teachers be armed! Guns in every classroom! Emotional response! Blood in the streets!

No. Hear me out. The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response. The vast majority of the time, as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, it bursts their fantasy world bubble. Then they kill themselves or surrender. This has happened over and over again.

Police are awesome. I love working with cops. However any honest cop will tell you that when seconds count they are only minutes away. After Colombine law enforcement changed their methods in dealing with active shooters. It used to be that you took up a perimeter and waited for overwhelming force before going in. Now usually as soon as you have two officers on scene you go in to confront the shooter (often one in rural areas or if help is going to take another minute, because there are a lot of very sound tactical reasons for using two, mostly because your success/survival rates jump dramatically when you put two guys through a door at once. The shooter’s brain takes a moment to decide between targets). The reason they go fast is because they know that every second counts. The longer the shooter has to operate, the more innocents die.

However, cops can’t be everywhere. There are at best only a couple hundred thousand on duty at any given time patrolling the entire country. Excellent response time is in the three-five minute range. We’ve seen what bad guys can do in three minutes, but sometimes it is far worse. They simply can’t teleport. So in some cases that means the bad guys can have ten, fifteen, even twenty minutes to do horrible things with nobody effectively fighting back.

So if we can’t have cops there, what can we do?

The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.

The teachers are there already. The school staff is there already. Their reaction time is measured in seconds, not minutes. They can serve as your immediate violent response. Best case scenario, they engage and stop the attacker, or it bursts his fantasy bubble and he commits suicide. Worst case scenario, the armed staff provides a distraction, and while he’s concentrating on killing them, he’s not killing more children.

But teachers aren’t as trained as police officers! True, yet totally irrelevant. The teacher doesn’t need to be a SWAT cop or Navy SEAL. They need to be speed bumps.

But this leads to the inevitable shrieking and straw man arguments about guns in the classroom, and then the pacifistic minded who simply can’t comprehend themselves being mandated to carry a gun, or those that believe teachers are all too incompetent and can’t be trusted. Let me address both at one time.

Don’t make it mandatory. In my experience, the only people who are worth a darn with a gun are the ones who wish to take responsibility and carry a gun. Make it voluntary. It is rather simple. Just make it so that your state’s concealed weapons laws trump the Federal Gun Free School Zones act. All that means is that teachers who voluntarily decide to get a concealed weapons permit are capable of carrying their guns at work. Easy. Simple. Cheap. Available now.

Then they’ll say that this is impossible, and give me all sorts of terrible worst case scenarios about all of the horrors that will happen with a gun in the classroom… No problem, because this has happened before. In fact, my state laws allow for somebody with a concealed weapons permit to carry a gun in a school right now. Yes. Utah has armed teachers. We have for several years now.

When I was a CCW instructor, I decided that I wanted more teachers with skin in the game, so I started a program where I would teach anybody who worked at a school for free. No charge. Zip. They still had to pay the state for their background check and fingerprints, but all the instruction was free. I wanted more armed teachers in my state.

I personally taught several hundred teachers. I quickly discovered that pretty much every single school in my state had at least one competent, capable, smart, willing individual. Some schools had more. I had one high school where the principal, three teachers, and a janitor showed up for class. They had just had an event where there had been a threat against the school and their resource officer had turned up AWOL. This had been a wake up call for this principal that they were on their own, and he had taken it upon himself to talk to his teachers to find the willing and capable. Good for them.

After Virginia Tech, I started teaching college students for free as well. They were 21 year old adults who could pass a background check. Why should they have to be defenseless? None of these students ever needed to stop a mass shooting, but I’m happy to say that a couple of rapists and muggers weren’t so lucky, so I consider my time well spent.

Over the course of a couple years I taught well over $20,000 worth of free CCW classes. I met hundreds and hundreds of teachers, students, and staff. All of them were responsible adults who understood that they were stuck in target rich environments filled with defenseless innocents. Whether they liked it or not, they were the first line of defense. It was the least I could do.

Permit holders are not cops. The mistake many people make is that they think permit holders are supposed to be cops or junior danger rangers. Not at all. Their only responsibility is simple. If someone is threatening to cause them or a third person serious bodily harm, and that someone has the ability, opportunity, and is acting in a manner which suggest they are a legitimate threat, then that permit holder is allowed to use lethal force against them.

As of today the state legislatures of Texas, Tennessee, and Oklahoma are looking at revamping their existing laws so that there can be legal guns in school. For those that are worried these teachers will be unprepared, I’m sure there would be no lack of instructors in those states who’d be willing to teach them for free.

For everyone, if you are sincere in your wish to protect our children, I would suggest you call your state representative today and demand that they allow concealed carry in schools.


Makes a lot of sense, IMO.

Play The Man
01-10-2013, 10:23 PM
Loved your video, Adam. Was there a lot of recoil, does it hurt your shoulder? It still looks like a blast to shoot.

Thanks, PTM, for the link. We aren't members of the NRA and I hadn't even thought of it (even though we are gun owners and will NOT be disarmed).

You should join. The NRA has signed up 100,000 new members since Sandy Hook. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/nra-100k-new-members-after-sandy-hook-86001.html Speak now or forever hold your peace . . . because the Obama administration is not going to let you hold your "piece".

Play The Man
01-10-2013, 10:27 PM
I still don't like the idea of a teacher having a firearm. I would rather have an armed law enforcement officer. I think the teachers should be protecting/getting the kids to safety without worrying about readying a firearm and preparing for confrontation. Then the officer could solely concentrate on the offender knowing the staff are tending the kids. I wouldn't want a teacher to have two priorities to deal with.

Reasonable. I think if it ever did happen it should be voluntary and perhaps 5-10% of teachers would take up the responsibility. It wouldn't be perfect but it might help. If they were concealed carry the shooter would not know who was armed. In his mind, all of them could be armed.

Play The Man
01-10-2013, 10:34 PM
In honor of senator feinstein I think we need a gun thread. Maybe if it is used enough it could get stickied.

I'll start with one of me shooting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q-x26W12QU&feature=youtu.be

I suggest that you delete the video and hide your weapons because an Iowa legislator is proposing confiscation of semi-automatic rifles. http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/09/iowa-lawmaker-calls-for-retroactive-gun-bans-confiscations-of-semi-automatic-weapons/

Neezar
01-11-2013, 12:31 AM
I would prefer that too. It's not that I like the idea, but, we might need to look at it as a realistic option. You know how they tell parents with babies and toddlers to go through their house, each room, and get low to the ground so they're seeing things from the baby's level, to better see all the possible dangers, that's the approach we need to start taking with our schools. If we're going to protect our children better, we need to look at our kids and schools like the bad guys do, as sitting targets in a death trap.

Good point.

Imagine a scenario where a lunatic walks into a classroom and starts shooting. Then moves to the next classroom. If that teacher has access to a firearm he/she could act immediately when the lunatic comes in rather than waiting for the armed guard (or whoever) to arrive. If the guard is at the other end of the school, he might not even know what's happening until it's too late. Armed teachers might not prevent every murder, but I think they could at least reduce the number.

Of course, this would be for teachers who choose the option and are trained in the use and handling of a firearm. Best scenario, lunatic doesn't even enter school because he knows some of the staff are armed.

Very good point.

I was a little uneasy with it too but after reading the article I linked to, it did change my mind. Here is the pertinent segment:

Makes a lot of sense, IMO.

I read it, too. I could be swayed.

Reasonable. I think if it ever did happen it should be voluntary and perhaps 5-10% of teachers would take up the responsibility. It wouldn't be perfect but it might help. If they were concealed carry the shooter would not know who was armed. In his mind, all of them could be armed.

Okay. I changed my mind.

:laugh:

flo
01-11-2013, 01:26 AM
Okay. I changed my mind.

:laugh:

Yay! :happydancing:

huan
01-11-2013, 05:47 AM
I truly believe this clip is something everyone should watch. In such a polarizing and unknown time, Travis' remarks and reflections on being an American really hit home with me. I know it's a bit long at 25 min, but hearing these words from a Marine Recon vet inspire and challenge me. God bless him and all those like him who have risked all for you and me:

Travis Haley Speaks on the Second Amendment and Reflections as an American:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yIGzj6eIwWU

adamt
01-11-2013, 11:45 AM
I suggest that you delete the video and hide your weapons because an Iowa legislator is proposing confiscation of semi-automatic rifles. http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/09/iowa-lawmaker-calls-for-retroactive-gun-bans-confiscations-of-semi-automatic-weapons/



he's back peddling as fast as he can but the media doesn't report that, the iowa gop is already fundraising against him and doing well

here is the iowa gop blog about it with the whole 15 minute audio http://www.iowagop.org/dan-muhlbauer-wants-to-confiscate-your-semiautomatic-weapons

personally i want them to come and try to take them, i'm about tired of being pushed around, i am thinking about sending the vid straight to the guy, i am fed up with tip toeing around, alot of people are ashamed and hide the fact that they have guns but i personally am not going to slink around and hope they don't know i have guns, as far as i am concerned i want my name at the top of the list and i want to be the first one they try to confiscate

rearnakedchoke
01-11-2013, 02:11 PM
Imagine a scenario where a lunatic walks into a classroom and starts shooting. Then moves to the next classroom. If that teacher has access to a firearm he/she could act immediately when the lunatic comes in rather than waiting for the armed guard (or whoever) to arrive. If the guard is at the other end of the school, he might not even know what's happening until it's too late. Armed teachers might not prevent every murder, but I think they could at least reduce the number.

Of course, this would be for teachers who choose the option and are trained in the use and handling of a firearm. Best scenario, lunatic doesn't even enter school because he knows some of the staff are armed.

are you serious? more like a teacher goes postal cuz their wife left them (or husband), they are sick of their crappy pay and obnoxious kids ... and the principal just pissed them off one too many times ... they are more likely to use the guns on staff and kids than intruders ... LOL ...

County Mike
01-11-2013, 02:34 PM
are you serious? more like a teacher goes postal cuz their wife left them (or husband), they are sick of their crappy pay and obnoxious kids ... and the principal just pissed them off one too many times ... they are more likely to use the guns on staff and kids than intruders ... LOL ...

No they aren't. Don't believe the hype. Teachers have sweet jobs. Most of them get paid pretty well and they only work 180 days per year. For the mathematically challenged, that's less than half the time. Besides, we're talking about people who have already gone through the requirements to get a conceal carry license. If they were really going to snap and shoot up their classroom, they could still do it anyway. At least with additional armed teachers, someone could stop them.

rearnakedchoke
01-11-2013, 02:51 PM
No they aren't. Don't believe the hype. Teachers have sweet jobs. Most of them get paid pretty well and they only work 180 days per year. For the mathematically challenged, that's less than half the time. Besides, we're talking about people who have already gone through the requirements to get a conceal carry license. If they were really going to snap and shoot up their classroom, they could still do it anyway. At least with additional armed teachers, someone could stop them.

sure ... whatever .. most shootings that happen in school (the ones that don't make the news) are targeted shootings so a student will bring in a gun just to shoot one kid or one teacher ... most of them are not going to be prevented by this ...

rearnakedchoke
01-11-2013, 02:56 PM
i don't know if this is the point of this thread ... so adam, sorry if this derails it .. yes, i know we are talking about guns ... but i wanna see more vids!!!

NateR
01-11-2013, 03:06 PM
are you serious? more like a teacher goes postal cuz their wife left them (or husband), they are sick of their crappy pay and obnoxious kids ... and the principal just pissed them off one too many times ... they are more likely to use the guns on staff and kids than intruders ... LOL ...

Please. :rolleyes: How often do teachers shoot up their own schools because they've had a bad day and they suddenly "go postal"? I'm pretty sure the answer to that is never, because if anybody can get a gun into a school with the current laws, it's going to be a teacher. I understand you have no facts to support your point of view, but there is no need to go making up fairy tales.

You act like the presence of a gun turns normal people into raving lunatics who could snap at any second and become a danger to themselves and everyone around them. That's just typical anti-gun lunacy.

NateR
01-11-2013, 03:09 PM
sure ... whatever .. most shootings that happen in school (the ones that don't make the news) are targeted shootings so a student will bring in a gun just to shoot one kid or one teacher ... most of them are not going to be prevented by this ...

You need to provide a source for a statement like that.

However, the knowledge that one or more of the faculty inside of the school might be armed would likely be a major deterrent towards the kinds of targeted shootings you mention.

rearnakedchoke
01-11-2013, 03:14 PM
Please. :rolleyes: How often do teachers shoot up their own schools because they've had a bad day and they suddenly "go postal"? I'm pretty sure the answer to that is never, because if anybody can get a gun into a school with the current laws, it's going to be a teacher. I understand you have no facts to support your point of view, but there is no need to go making up fairy tales.

You act like the presence of a gun turns normal people into raving lunatics who could snap at any second and become a danger to themselves and everyone around them. That's just typical anti-gun lunacy.

not very often .. i am not saying that .. teachers .. just like anyone .. can snap ... pre planning and snapping are different ... you don't hear teachers shooting up students cuz it doesn't happen that often .. i think imo, if teachers are armed, even if it is a few "responsible" ones, you have more chance of them using it out of rage, then stopping an intruder .. because honestly, there are not that many cases of intruders coming into schools that often ..

and i don't know how its antigun lunacy ... just because i think teachers shoudln't be armed? LOL

rearnakedchoke
01-11-2013, 03:16 PM
You need to provide a source for a statement like that.

However, the knowledge that one or more of the faculty inside of the school might be armed would likely be a major deterrent towards the kinds of targeted shootings you mention.

haha .. more of providing sources ... only when someone doesn't agree with you does someone have to provide a source .. there are shootings all the time in schools against either targeted students or teachers ... way more so than intruders coming in ... an armed teacher isn't going to know that a targeted shooting is going to happen ... and by the time it does, the kid either flees or surrenders ...

NateR
01-11-2013, 03:22 PM
haha .. more of providing sources ... only when someone doesn't agree with you does someone have to provide a source .. there are shootings all the time in schools against either targeted students or teachers ... way more so than intruders coming in ... an armed teacher isn't going to know that a targeted shooting is going to happen ... and by the time it does, the kid either flees or surrenders ...

Again, provide a source for that statistic, because how do we know you are not making that up?

NateR
01-11-2013, 03:26 PM
not very often .. i am not saying that .. teachers .. just like anyone .. can snap ... pre planning and snapping are different ... you don't hear teachers shooting up students cuz it doesn't happen that often .. i think imo, if teachers are armed, even if it is a few "responsible" ones, you have more chance of them using it out of rage, then stopping an intruder .. because honestly, there are not that many cases of intruders coming into schools that often ..

and i don't know how its antigun lunacy ... just because i think teachers shoudln't be armed? LOL

Interesting. How often to armed bank guards "snap" and start shooting up their own banks? How often to do armed air marshals hijack the plane they are paid to defend?

Your logic is flawed and obviously you have no facts to back up your opinion, so you have to invent stuff. So, provide some statistics for how often teachers snap and shoot up their own schools.

You are the one making these ridiculous claims, so the burden of proof is on you.

rearnakedchoke
01-11-2013, 03:34 PM
Interesting. How often to armed bank guards "snap" and start shooting up their own banks? How often to do armed air marshals hijack the plane they are paid to defend?

Your logic is flawed and obviously you have no facts to back up your opinion, so you have to invent stuff. So, provide some statistics for how often teachers snap and shoot up their own schools.

You are the one making these ridiculous claims, so the burden of proof is on you.

i never said that teachers shoot up students .. i said, imo that if you arm teachers i think the chance for something to go wrong (like them snapping) are more likely then they ever have to use them on an intruder ... its an opinion ... and i am also saying that i wouldn't send my kids to a school if teachers were armed .. thats all ..

NateR
01-11-2013, 03:59 PM
i never said that teachers shoot up students .. i said, imo that if you arm teachers i think the chance for something to go wrong (like them snapping) are more likely then they ever have to use them on an intruder ... its an opinion ... and i am also saying that i wouldn't send my kids to a school if teachers were armed .. thats all ..

So, would you take your kids to a bank that had an armed guard? Y'know many sporting events have armed guards these days too, so do plan to keep your kids away from live sporting events? What about the armed air marshals on planes? Are you going to allow your kids to fly at all, because who knows when one of those air marshals might snap and decide to start shooting up the plane?

rearnakedchoke
01-11-2013, 04:06 PM
So, would you take your kids to a bank that had an armed guard? Y'know many sporting events have armed guards these days too, so do plan to keep your kids away from live sporting events? What about the armed air marshals on planes? Are you going to allow your kids to fly at all, because who knows when one of those air marshals might snap and decide to start shooting up the plane?

what are the prime responsibilities of the jobs you named ... how many hours have they trained to use guns and use them properly and safely ... sure, teachers can learn how to use guns .. but their primary training is in teaching ... some of them still need to improve on that .. LOL ... if more gov't money is going to be spent on training for teachers, i'd prefer it be spent on them training how to better teach and using a gun ...

NateR
01-11-2013, 05:06 PM
what are the prime responsibilities of the jobs you named ... how many hours have they trained to use guns and use them properly and safely ... sure, teachers can learn how to use guns .. but their primary training is in teaching ... some of them still need to improve on that .. LOL ... if more gov't money is going to be spent on training for teachers, i'd prefer it be spent on them training how to better teach and using a gun ...

Well, then what about hiring armed guards for schools? This way they'd have adults monitoring the hallways who's primary responsibility is the safety of the school.

However, I don't understand this idea of yours that a teacher would necessarily be incompetent in the proper handling and use of a firearm. Where are you getting that from? I'm thinking you are forming too many of your opinions about guns based off of what you see on television.

rearnakedchoke
01-11-2013, 05:50 PM
Well, then what about hiring armed guards for schools? This way they'd have adults monitoring the hallways who's primary responsibility is the safety of the school.

However, I don't understand this idea of yours that a teacher would necessarily be incompetent in the proper handling and use of a firearm. Where are you getting that from? I'm thinking you are forming too many of your opinions about guns based off of what you see on television.

if parents in a certain district want guards for a school and if they agree to a tax increase to get a company to do it, sure .. why not ... at least the company is hired for that specific task and trained on it ... its not so much teachers that are incompetent, its the whole issue of their job .. if the shooting happened in a dmv would the talk be arming all tellers at the dmv? or after the shooting at the theatre, was their talk of arming all those who work the concession stands? imo, if you are going to arm people as part of their jobs, its easier said than done ... do they get compensated? who buys the guns and ammo, who pays license fees and for training? how often are they trained? did they also get resiliency training so they don't go postal now that they have a loaded gun in the room .. i wouldn't feel safe sending my kids to a school with an armed teacher (or to the movies with armed tellers) if many of these questions have been thoroughly answered ..

NateR
01-11-2013, 06:29 PM
if parents in a certain district want guards for a school and if they agree to a tax increase to get a company to do it, sure .. why not ... at least the company is hired for that specific task and trained on it ... its not so much teachers that are incompetent, its the whole issue of their job .. if the shooting happened in a dmv would the talk be arming all tellers at the dmv? or after the shooting at the theatre, was their talk of arming all those who work the concession stands? imo, if you are going to arm people as part of their jobs, its easier said than done ... do they get compensated? who buys the guns and ammo, who pays license fees and for training? how often are they trained? did they also get resiliency training so they don't go postal now that they have a loaded gun in the room .. i wouldn't feel safe sending my kids to a school with an armed teacher (or to the movies with armed tellers) if many of these questions have been thoroughly answered ..

You seem to be working under the assumption that we're talking about forcing guns into the hands of teachers who have never touched a gun in their life and aren't comfortable with handling them. I think most of us are talking about simply giving teachers the option to carry a concealed weapon, but only if they want to AND only if they have gone through the process of getting a concealed-carry license.

I wouldn't want an inexperienced teacher, who is scared to death of guns, to be carrying a gun around a bunch of school kids either. However, nobody here is proposing that.

County Mike
01-11-2013, 07:12 PM
sure ... whatever .. most shootings that happen in school (the ones that don't make the news) are targeted shootings so a student will bring in a gun just to shoot one kid or one teacher ... most of them are not going to be prevented by this ...

You're right. Arming the teachers might not prevent a shooting like that. That's not the point of arming the teachers. Letting teachers with a carry license carry in school is to help prevent mass shootings, or at least reduce the number of victims.

Then again, the situation you're describing might be deterred if the shooter knows he faces the possibility of armed faculty. As it is, everyone knows you can walk into a school and expect to face zero armed resistance.

rearnakedchoke
01-11-2013, 07:15 PM
You seem to be working under the assumption that we're talking about forcing guns into the hands of teachers who have never touched a gun in their life and aren't comfortable with handling them. I think most of us are talking about simply giving teachers the option to carry a concealed weapon, but only if they want to AND only if they have gone through the process of getting a concealed-carry license.

I wouldn't want an inexperienced teacher, who is scared to death of guns, to be carrying a gun around a bunch of school kids either. However, nobody here is proposing that.

well, i don't know what the process is of getting a concealed carry permit .. is it just a background check to say they have no criminal history? is there mandatory training for handling, using etc the gun in crowded areas such as classes or schools? is there target practice testing they have to do to show they can actually shoot the thing ... and then when this is in place, have the parents in the school voted to give their ok that teachers who have permits are granted permission ... i think you would probably have very little schools getting passing votes on teachers carrying guns ..

NateR
01-11-2013, 08:00 PM
well, i don't know what the process is of getting a concealed carry permit .. is it just a background check to say they have no criminal history? is there mandatory training for handling, using etc the gun in crowded areas such as classes or schools? is there target practice testing they have to do to show they can actually shoot the thing ... and then when this is in place, have the parents in the school voted to give their ok that teachers who have permits are granted permission ... i think you would probably have very little schools getting passing votes on teachers carrying guns ..

The background check is what everyone needs just to purchase a gun, regardless of whether they want to carry a concealed weapon or not. The specific laws differ from state to state, but usually people have to attend a gun safety class in order to get the concealed carry permit. So you can own a gun without being allowed concealed carry. That's how it is in Illinois right now, because concealed carry has been illegal in this state. However, they just struck down that ban last month, so we should have the ability to get a concealed carry permit here soon. Illinois was actually the very last hold-out state that banned the carrying of concealed firearms. Now it's legal across all 50 states.

I have no problem with allowing the people in that school district to vote on whether or not their teachers are allowed concealed carry on school grounds. Let the people decide for themselves what's right for their specific area, don't let the government force its will upon them. You say that you think very few parents would vote to allow it in their schools, but I think it would be just the opposite.

NateR
01-11-2013, 08:03 PM
Then again, the situation you're describing might be deterred if the shooter knows he faces the possibility of armed faculty. As it is, everyone knows you can walk into a school and expect to face zero armed resistance.

I 100% agree. Just the knowledge that they might come face to face with armed resistance inside of the school, would be enough of a deterrent to stop a large percentage of those targeted shootings. Not all of them, of course, but some of them.

TENNESSEAN
01-11-2013, 10:33 PM
Anyone have any experience with this one?
http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/shotguns/ksg/
it could be my next purchase. :fighting0008:

adamt
01-12-2013, 02:21 AM
Anyone have any experience with this one?
http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/shotguns/ksg/
it could be my next purchase. :fighting0008:

dual tube feed is impressive,


i don't know if it is considered a bull pup design or not, but it looks like it would feel like a bull pup, and i just haven't gotten into the bull pup stuff


here's my next gun.... it's actually on order, a little sooner than i wanted to order it but didn't have much choice with the awb coming up....

http://www.rwsgunsmithing.com/extreme-long-range-rifles/

i got it in 50 bmg, green stock black barrel with interrupt fluting

BradW
01-13-2013, 02:59 AM
the USA for the most part is a culture of violence...
and that is what separate's you guys from the rest of the free world.

but its not your fault...its what you have been taught and until you decide to teach your children something different it will always be that way.

huan
01-13-2013, 03:30 AM
the USA for the most part is a culture of violence...
and that is what separate's you guys from the rest of the free world.

but its not your fault...its what you have been taught and until you decide to teach your children something different it will always be that way.

separates us from the middle east which regularly hangs people for not following islam you mean, right? the sad reality is you have been taught and accepted a fiction of what the USA really is and will continue to believe that until you decide to start thinking for yourself. let us know when that happens, then maybe we can have meaningful and intellectual discourse...

Play The Man
01-13-2013, 08:21 AM
http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html
This is a link to the Ruger website advocacy page. They will send copies of the letter below, in your name, to: "the President, Vice-President, your Senators, Representative, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, State-Level Elected Officials and State Attorney General." All you have to do is enter your contact information.

Dear (Recipient),

I am a law-abiding citizen and responsible gun owner.

I am saddened by the tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut, but I believe that efforts to impose new restrictions on me and other lawful and responsible owners like me are misguided. Did you know that violent crime with firearms has declined since the Federal "assault weapons ban" expired in 2004?

Your focus should be on strengthening mental health care and improving the quality of data supporting NICs checks (National Instant Criminal Background Check System). Do NOT pass more gun laws; instead, work to enforce the more than 20,000 gun laws already on the books.

I am your constituent and I vote. Please represent me.

Sincerely,
(Your Contact Information)

County Mike
01-13-2013, 12:51 PM
the USA for the most part is a culture of violence...
and that is what separate's you guys from the rest of the free world.

but its not your fault...its what you have been taught and until you decide to teach your children something different it will always be that way.

That statement is is pure ignorance. USA is not a culture of violence. At least, no more than the majority of other countries. If you check the stats based on the population (ie: Number of homicides per 100,000 residents) we're way down the list. We just have a lot of people, so our total number of homicides seems really high compared to countries with a much smaller population.

adamt
01-13-2013, 12:55 PM
http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html
This is a link to the Ruger website advocacy page. They will send copies of the letter below, in your name, to: "the President, Vice-President, your Senators, Representative, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, State-Level Elected Officials and State Attorney General." All you have to do is enter your contact information.

excellent link thanks


the USA for the most part is a culture of violence...
and that is what separate's you guys from the rest of the free world.

but its not your fault...its what you have been taught and until you decide to teach your children something different it will always be that way.

yep!!! and proud of it.... some people think that violence is bad, they also misunderstand and misconstrue what violence is

God is a God of violence, read the OT

God is still God of violence, read the New Testament....

violence isn't to be a predominating part of your personality, but God uses violence

The USA was founded by violence, Israel was founded by violence, it's too bad, but in a war of good vs evil, violence is necessary

read Revelation and tell me if you think Jesus is violent

david killed goliath in a violent way, king david went out and killed two hundred phillistines and cut off their foreskins as a dowry to king saul for his daughter.....is that violent?

samson killed 1000 people!!!!! with the jaw bone of a donkey, is that violent

God destroyed the whole planet with a flood, God answered Elijah's sacrifice then they killed 400 prophets of baal

evil must be answered with violence, any culture that is not violent is a lukewarm or entirely evil culture that is disposable

rearnakedchoke
01-13-2013, 01:57 PM
That statement is is pure ignorance. USA is not a culture of violence. At least, no more than the majority of other countries. If you check the stats based on the population (ie: Number of homicides per 100,000 residents) we're way down the list. We just have a lot of people, so our total number of homicides seems really high compared to countries with a much smaller population.

I wouldn't say that the us is a culture of violence .. but I don't think you can ignore the homicide rates with guns ... they are way down the list on the grand scheme of things, developing countries and eastern euro are at the top of the list, but among developed countries, the us is near the top of the list ... anti gun people are going to say its due to the availability of guns and pro gun folks are going to say its because there are not enough guns .... the us is never going to get rid of guns ... but when you have guys like adam posting things like violence is good ^^^^^^ it doesn't really paint a pretty picture if others think like that ...

Bonnie
01-13-2013, 05:23 PM
the USA for the most part is a culture of violence...and that is what separate's you guys from the rest of the free world.

but its not your fault...its what you have been taught and until you decide to teach your children something different it will always be that way.

Oh, so that's why so many have fled their own countries for the U.S.A...for our culture of violence. What in the free world were they thinking! :blink:

:laugh:

flo
01-13-2013, 08:28 PM
Oh, so that's why so many have fled their own countries for the U.S.A...for our culture of violence. What in the free world were they thinking! :blink:

:laugh:

:happy0159:

adamt
01-13-2013, 09:52 PM
violence is a good thing


have you had a burger lately? that cow died....because of violence

have you been raped lately? probably not...whynot? because everyone in the world is nice? no, probably because if someone rapes you, even in canada, they will be met with violence, either from you at the time, or from someone else like law enforcement at a later point in time.

violence goes both ways.

violence is the only way to stop a weirdo psychopath evil person like the shooters in massacres, even if it is a self imposed violent death, but i haven't heard anyone indict someone else for the violence inflicted on others out of self defense

there can be righteous violence

you can't label all violence as bad

BradW
01-14-2013, 12:31 AM
Oh, so that's why so many have fled their own countries for the U.S.A...for our culture of violence. What in the free world were they thinking! :blink:

:laugh:

they flee to the US trying to find a better life...doesn't mean it always works out that way.

I didn't say its a bad thing...its just the way I see it.

we could discuss this forever but I don't see why you think that guns are the solution to all your problems
and at the same time you don't understand why I think guns are the problem...so maybe we should just agree to disagree.

BradW
01-14-2013, 12:39 AM
separates us from the middle east which regularly hangs people for not following islam you mean, right? the sad reality is you have been taught and accepted a fiction of what the USA really is and will continue to believe that until you decide to start thinking for yourself. let us know when that happens, then maybe we can have meaningful and intellectual discourse...

why do you feel the need to try and run people down when you address them ?

it makes me think I keep touching a nerve and you don't know any other way to respond.

NateR
01-14-2013, 01:07 AM
there can be righteous violence

you can't label all violence as bad

Yep, GOD used violence many times throughout the Bible to accomplish His will. Even Jesus overturning tables in the Temple and whipping the money-changers would have been seen as a violent act.

If you really study history, guns have acted as a great equalizer across the world. In other words, guns have actually made the world a less violent place that it has been in the past.

Look at it like this, before the invention of gunpowder, people's primary form of self-defense was swords. However, swords require physical strength, size and the full use of both arms and legs. On top of all that, they also require training and conditioning to learn how to use them effectively.

So if you take a 30-year-old, 6-foot tall, 200-pound man, who's been trained in swordplay for years, and put him up against a 13-year-old, 5'2", 90-pound girl who has never touched a sword in her life. What's going to happen if you give them both a sword and have them fight to the death? The answer is easy, she's going to get cut to pieces fairly quickly and without much effort.

However, take the same two people and place a loaded gun in each of their hands. Now you've leveled the playing field and changed the entire game. It's no longer about physical size or training level, it's about who can pull that trigger the fastest. The girl who has never touched a weapon in her life is suddenly just as dangerous as the highly-trained, physically-powerful man.

Before the invention of guns, all of humanity lived in a 'might makes right' world. Guns have actually helped humanity tame a wild planet and made modern civilization possible.

Of course, many will try to claim that humanity has "evolved" past the need for guns, because we are becoming more intelligent and more civilized through the process of Evolution. Well that just one more lie of this world. Humanity is just as evil and corrupt as we've always been.

adamt
01-14-2013, 01:52 AM
they flee to the US trying to find a better life...doesn't mean it always works out that way.

I didn't say its a bad thing...its just the way I see it.

we could discuss this forever but I don't see why you think that guns are the solution to all your problems
and at the same time you don't understand why I think guns are the problem...so maybe we should just agree to disagree.

i understand why you think guns are the problem, i just don't agree
i don't think it is a fair assessment to say that we think guns are the solution to our problems, we don't believe that at all, we just so adamantly believe that guns are not the problem that we are incredibly protective of our guns, we are so sure that they are not the problem that we refuse to give them up

i think the problem is the lack of morals to do such a thing, and the lack of God's protection on us to prevent such things

i think God's hand of protection is gone because we are so sinful, yet we actually claim to be christians,

i think that is something that we would strongly disagree on brad

brad, at least you are an atheist, you stand up for what you believe, but millions of americans are enjoying the ambiance of being a christian but they don't suffer the hardships of actually living that life, thusly we don't enjoy God's protection

Bonnie
01-14-2013, 03:00 AM
they flee to the US trying to find a better life...doesn't mean it always works out that way.

I didn't say its a bad thing...its just the way I see it.

we could discuss this forever but I don't see why you think that guns are the solution to all your problems
and at the same time you don't understand why I think guns are the problem...so maybe we should just agree to disagree.

I've never said I think guns are the solution to all our problems, you didn't even mention guns in that post. I was responding to you saying the U.S. is mostly a culture of violence and that's what separates us from the rest of the free world.

If we ever do discuss it though, of course, I'll be happy to just agree to disagree--I prefer that over fruitless arguing. :laugh:

Neezar
01-14-2013, 12:38 PM
we could discuss this forever but I don't see why you think that guns are the solution to all your problems
and at the same time you don't understand why I think guns are the problem...so maybe we should just agree to disagree.

:huh: wth?

Where did this come from? You know, even though I don't always agree with you, you at least usually have an intelligent viewpoint. But this is way out there.

rearnakedchoke
01-14-2013, 05:59 PM
Yep, GOD used violence many times throughout the Bible to accomplish His will. Even Jesus overturning tables in the Temple and whipping the money-changers would have been seen as a violent act.

If you really study history, guns have acted as a great equalizer across the world. In other words, guns have actually made the world a less violent place that it has been in the past.

Look at it like this, before the invention of gunpowder, people's primary form of self-defense was swords. However, swords require physical strength, size and the full use of both arms and legs. On top of all that, they also require training and conditioning to learn how to use them effectively.

So if you take a 30-year-old, 6-foot tall, 200-pound man, who's been trained in swordplay for years, and put him up against a 13-year-old, 5'2", 90-pound girl who has never touched a sword in her life. What's going to happen if you give them both a sword and have them fight to the death? The answer is easy, she's going to get cut to pieces fairly quickly and without much effort.

However, take the same two people and place a loaded gun in each of their hands. Now you've leveled the playing field and changed the entire game. It's no longer about physical size or training level, it's about who can pull that trigger the fastest. The girl who has never touched a weapon in her life is suddenly just as dangerous as the highly-trained, physically-powerful man.

Before the invention of guns, all of humanity lived in a 'might makes right' world. Guns have actually helped humanity tame a wild planet and made modern civilization possible.

Of course, many will try to claim that humanity has "evolved" past the need for guns, because we are becoming more intelligent and more civilized through the process of Evolution. Well that just one more lie of this world. Humanity is just as evil and corrupt as we've always been.

i agree that humans are still evil and will always be .. but i think the world is still the same 'might makes right' ..... its just the ones with guns now are the ones with the upperhand and doing the pushing around .. but so goes the world ...

NateR
01-14-2013, 06:45 PM
i agree that humans are still evil and will always be .. but i think the world is still the same 'might makes right' ..... its just the ones with guns now are the ones with the upperhand and doing the pushing around .. but so goes the world ...

Not really, because all you need to do is arm the weak and helpless populations and they stop being so weak and helpless. If the government controls all the guns then you would be right. This is why "gun control" is the enemy of freedom, not a guarantee of freedom.

rearnakedchoke
01-14-2013, 07:53 PM
Not really, because all you need to do is arm the weak and helpless populations and they stop being so weak and helpless. If the government controls all the guns then you would be right. This is why "gun control" is the enemy of freedom, not a guarantee of freedom.

i wouldn't say that gun control is the enemy of freedom .. i'd say we have gun control up here ... but i can go and buy guns and own them all i want ..i can't get assault rifles, but i can get a license pretty easily for guns and stockpile as many guns as i want .. our guns are controlled in a sense that i can't walk around wherever armed ... i can use them for protecting my home, hunting whatever, but the control is that they are not allowed in public .. i understand that some think it starts at controlling when and where you can carry guns ... but i don't see it that way .. i don't think the govt is trying to take away your guns ... but like someone said, we are never going to agree on this and can argue til the cows come home!

flo
01-14-2013, 07:53 PM
i agree that humans are still evil and will always be .. but i think the world is still the same 'might makes right' ..... its just the ones with guns now are the ones with the upperhand and doing the pushing around .. but so goes the world ...

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/ellipsis_zps3d16e3c7.jpg

:)

rearnakedchoke
01-14-2013, 07:55 PM
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/ellipsis_zps3d16e3c7.jpg

:)

are those cherry tomatoes? or are you saying i am cherry picking? ... sorry, i am slow flo .. don't get it ..

flo
01-14-2013, 09:35 PM
are those cherry tomatoes? or are you saying i am cherry picking? ... sorry, i am slow flo .. don't get it ..

c'mon, rnc...you get it don't you...think about it...

adamt
01-15-2013, 12:11 AM
yeah. . . flo . . . I . . . don't . . . get it . . . either . . .

flo
01-15-2013, 01:21 AM
yeah. . . flo . . . I . . . don't . . . get it . . . either . . .

tee....hee...

:ninja:

Neezar
01-15-2013, 01:29 AM
tee....hee...

:ninja:


Flo! :laugh:

TENNESSEAN
01-15-2013, 01:36 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

BradW
01-15-2013, 01:51 AM
:huh: wth?

Where did this come from? You know, even though I don't always agree with you, you at least usually have an intelligent viewpoint. But this is way out there.

the only reason I say that is because a few here have said that arming teachers or maybe putting armed guards in schools would solve part
of the problems with school shootings...hence the more guns to solve your problems theory...

BradW
01-15-2013, 02:13 AM
i understand why you think guns are the problem, i just don't agree
i don't think it is a fair assessment to say that we think guns are the solution to our problems, we don't believe that at all, we just so adamantly believe that guns are not the problem that we are incredibly protective of our guns, we are so sure that they are not the problem that we refuse to give them up

i think the problem is the lack of morals to do such a thing, and the lack of God's protection on us to prevent such things

i think God's hand of protection is gone because we are so sinful, yet we actually claim to be christians,

i think that is something that we would strongly disagree on brad

brad, at least you are an atheist, you stand up for what you believe, but millions of americans are enjoying the ambiance of being a christian but they don't suffer the hardships of actually living that life, thusly we don't enjoy God's protection

while I may not believe what you do when it comes to God I actually do believe in God....you think God protects people that live a life of worship
and I believe God influences nothing of our day to day lives at all...
and that's no matter who you are,good or evil.

I really believe God lets the chips fall where they may and our journey through
life is just a test and that test of our humanity is the reason we are all here.

so put down the guns and pass the test damn it !


just jk....but only about part of that.:wink:

flo
01-15-2013, 02:43 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Both of those are great!

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Bonnie
01-15-2013, 02:58 AM
yeah. . . flo . . . I . . . don't . . . get it . . . either . . .

tee....hee...

:ninja:

:laugh:

huan
01-15-2013, 04:24 AM
gun appreciation day is january 19, 2013. here we come state capitols: 2nd Amendment March (http://youtu.be/8yMcH60xX1o)

County Mike
01-15-2013, 11:14 AM
yeah. . . flo . . . I . . . don't . . . get it . . . either . . .

Tomatoe Tomato.

NateR
01-15-2013, 10:02 PM
Maybe this will help some:

are those cherry tomatoes? or are you saying i am cherry picking? http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/ellipsis_zps3d16e3c7.jpg sorry, i am slow flo http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/ellipsis_zps3d16e3c7.jpg don't get it http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/ellipsis_zps3d16e3c7.jpg

:laugh:

Neezar
01-16-2013, 12:52 PM
New York passed new gun laws.

*sigh*

I just don't get it. The boy didn't legally have these guns to start with so how is a new law going to prevent this in the future?

Someone said this boy had tried to purchase a gun himself prior to this incident and couldn't legally get one. Well, there you go! These gun laws DO work, don't they?!

What would any law mean to someone who is about to kill other human beings?

County Mike
01-16-2013, 02:42 PM
America is done. Obama will likely strip more rights with his speech today surrounded by Children. The same way Hitler did it.

NateR
01-16-2013, 06:08 PM
America is done. Obama will likely strip more rights with his speech today surrounded by Children. The same way Hitler did it.

It's the beginning of the end of freedom in America. I always knew that if the American people were stupid enough to elect Obama to a second term, then he'd go after gun rights almost immediately.

flo
01-16-2013, 09:28 PM
Maybe this will help some:

:laugh:

Perfect, lol! :laugh:

I needed a laugh after watching the staged presentation this morning. I think County Mike is right. There is already a response (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZhHyA9z_vI&feature=youtu.be) out on the internet by "anonymous" (of course, youtube stopped the viewcount). This whole thing is getting really creepy.

BradW
01-17-2013, 02:25 AM
New York passed new gun laws.

*sigh*

I just don't get it. The boy didn't legally have these guns to start with so how is a new law going to prevent this in the future?

Someone said this boy had tried to purchase a gun himself prior to this incident and couldn't legally get one. Well, there you go! These gun laws DO work, don't they?!

What would any law mean to someone who is about to kill other human beings?

if his mother hadn't been able to buy those guns legally then he wouldn't have
had those weapons.

just answering your question.

flo
01-17-2013, 03:41 AM
if his mother hadn't been able to buy those guns legally then he wouldn't have
had those weapons.

just answering your question.

He wouldn't have had those particular weapons but that sure wouldn't have stopped him. Guns laws will make not one whit of difference in stopping evil people from committing crimes. Do you doubt that he would have found guns elsewhere or if not that, other weapons?

BradW
01-17-2013, 10:41 AM
He wouldn't have had those particular weapons but that sure wouldn't have stopped him. Guns laws will make not one whit of difference in stopping evil people from committing crimes. Do you doubt that he would have found guns elsewhere or if not that, other weapons?

I have never said he wouldn't have tried to obtain guns some where else...I just think he would have
had a much harder time and why make it easy for him and people like him.

in Canada we have very little of this sort of thing happening compared to the US....no matter how you do your stats you guys are way out in front on this one.
and the only real difference between us and you guys is assault rifles and hand guns are
restrict to the point of it being very rare to find one in some ones hands legally.

Neezar
01-17-2013, 01:21 PM
if his mother hadn't been able to buy those guns legally then he wouldn't have
had those weapons.

just answering your question.

I have to agree with you there. It still baffles me as to why his mother decided to keep a gun like this around when her child was so troubled. Or any gun for that matter if he had access to them.

rearnakedchoke
01-17-2013, 01:54 PM
Perfect, lol! :laugh:

I needed a laugh after watching the staged presentation this morning. I think County Mike is right. There is already a response (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZhHyA9z_vI&feature=youtu.be) out on the internet by "anonymous" (of course, youtube stopped the viewcount). This whole thing is getting really creepy.

jeez .. now i get it ... but i had to cheat ... LOL ... good one flo!!!!!!


and i think what obama has done is great ... anytime someone says gun control, people immediately go and say they are trying to take my guns away ... that isn't the case ... it just makes the pro-gun people look like lunatics with that talk ... and it also would help if someone from the pro-gun side who wasn't a moron would stand up and speak ... right now you have draft-dodging, pedophiles like ted nugent and a complete moron like alex jones doing all the talking ... really ... doesn't do the pro-gun side any justice!!!

adamt
01-17-2013, 02:24 PM
maybe it is all fake.....there are some very convincing arguments that it is just an elaborate hoax http://youtu.be/sIoPjfLnEFY

maybe the canadians decided they don't want to lie to their citizens and that is why they don't have these "mass shootings"

what do you know other than what you see on tv?

the same tv that can and does depict things so realistically it looks like they filmed it live

heck jurassic park could make the case that dinosaurs are real, who are we to say they aren't

rearnakedchoke
01-17-2013, 02:33 PM
maybe it is all fake.....there are some very convincing arguments that it is just an elaborate hoax http://youtu.be/sIoPjfLnEFY

maybe the canadians decided they don't want to lie to their citizens and that is why they don't have these "mass shootings"

what do you know other than what you see on tv?

the same tv that can and does depict things so realistically it looks like they filmed it live

heck jurassic park could make the case that dinosaurs are real, who are we to say they aren't
i said the same thing in another thread .... all of a sudden, this is an inside job so the gov't can take the guns away .... but the same people who say 9/11 was an inside job are morons right? i mean people said bush wanted to get iraqs oil or whatever .... seriously ... and man never landed on the moon ... what about those guys? seriously ... you can peel apart any situation and make it look like it never really happened ...

NateR
01-17-2013, 03:05 PM
and i think what obama has done is great ...

Of course you do. :rolleyes: Obama could take a crap on the sidewalk and you'd be raving about how amazing it was.

rearnakedchoke
01-17-2013, 03:08 PM
Of course you do. :rolleyes: Obama could take a crap on the sidewalk and you'd be raving about how amazing it was.

it would probably have great balance, texture and that je ne sais quoi .. until the ss came along to scoop it up !!!!

NateR
01-17-2013, 03:14 PM
it would probably have great balance, texture and that je ne sais quoi .. until the ss came along to scoop it up !!!!

And I'm sure the consistency would be without equal. :laugh:

BTW, thanks for giving me the proper spelling of the term "je ne sais quoi." I wouldn't have even known where to start if I wanted to spell that phrase otherwise. :)

NateR
01-17-2013, 07:10 PM
maybe it is all fake.....there are some very convincing arguments that it is just an elaborate hoax http://youtu.be/sIoPjfLnEFY

maybe the canadians decided they don't want to lie to their citizens and that is why they don't have these "mass shootings"

what do you know other than what you see on tv?

the same tv that can and does depict things so realistically it looks like they filmed it live

heck jurassic park could make the case that dinosaurs are real, who are we to say they aren't

I've been starting to wonder about this myself. We just take for granted that everything we see on the news is legitimate, so it would be extremely easy to stage an event like the one in Connecticut. In fact, I expected that there would be another shooting incident within a few days after the concealed carry ban was struck down in Illinois (Obama's home state). Plus, we know that the Obama Administration has been lying through its teeth about the whole "fast and furious" gun-running scandal.

If it's making people so willing to just hand over the freedoms that Americans have fought for over the last 236 years, then I think we really do need to question whether this event actually happened or not.

Bonnie
01-17-2013, 10:31 PM
New York passed new gun laws.

*sigh*

What would any law mean to someone who is about to kill other human beings?

Exactly!

America is done. Obama will likely strip more rights with his speech today surrounded by Children. The same way Hitler did it.

Obama is a master manipulator. I can see the similarities between the two men, their ability to sway the masses and turn people against each other to divide and conquer; their greed for total power; their arrogance.

It's a scary thing to watch.

Neezar
01-20-2013, 03:05 PM
I think they are going about the solution to this the wrong way.

Most of the people who own these type guns would be the first to step up and defend this nation if we were invaded. And they are now creating thousands of criminals out of these people.


I can see where they argue that the kid may not have been able to do as much damage if he hadn't had that assault rifle. It is capable of shooting more bullets in less time. However if I understand correctly, that rifle shoots bullets that are about like that of a .22 caliber. The pistols he had are much more powerful. Probaly would have only took one shot from the handguns to do as much damage as 3 or 4 shots from the rifle. Am I right? Like I said, I'm not sure about this.

Neezar
01-20-2013, 03:13 PM
I've been starting to wonder about this myself. We just take for granted that everything we see on the news is legitimate, so it would be extremely easy to stage an event like the one in Connecticut. In fact, I expected that there would be another shooting incident within a few days after the concealed carry ban was struck down in Illinois (Obama's home state). Plus, we know that the Obama Administration has been lying through its teeth about the whole "fast and furious" gun-running scandal.

If it's making people so willing to just hand over the freedoms that Americans have fought for over the last 236 years, then I think we really do need to question whether this event actually happened or not.

I am definitely not one who usually gets into conspiracy theorys. But I DO have a huge problem with the lack of medical personnel that was present at that school. And the local ER physician who said not one child was brought to the ER. When were the medical personnel allowed in to assess the live or dead, to see if there were any chance of saving any of those children? That isn't something that law enforcement should be doing.

I also have a problem with the parents not being allowed to view their children. AS hard as it might be, THAT is something that I would have to do. I don't see how they can legally refuse that. They can't here in our state.

Tyburn
01-20-2013, 06:50 PM
Do you honnestly think that the Federal Government could be behind a massicre at a school simply to use it as an excuse to put a few more restrictions on firearms??

Do you believe the Federal Government was behind the attack on The World Trade Centre aswell??

I dont pretend that Governments dont do naughty things...but usually its smaller naughty things. I know of at least Two people that I believe our Government assassinated for matters of National Security (i.e to protect a lie that was in their interest in making the general public believe)

But I dont think they would be behind something, like, for example the terrorist attack on the London Tubes..

I have of course heard conspiracy tales that they did that...but it pushes the boundaries of my sence that Governments wouldnt take the risk of looosing power over it.

I personally believe that the shooting at that school, and the shooting at that cinema, were simply the result of a nutter with a gun...I wouldnt even blame Gun Law...since in all cases, these guns were legal in their ownership.

I personally believe that Islamists were behind the Terrorist attacks on New York City, Whilst I concure that maybe the Federal Government were warned, I dont think the looking over of the threat was a deliberate ploy to allow it to happen. You cant take every threat as an apokalypse

If the World Trade Centre collapsed wrongly, as some people claim, IMHO its coz they were not built right, not because its proof that in some way the Federal Government blew them up in plain sight to cause their collapse in a certain way

Whilst I do believe that both The American Government and the British Government are behind state sponcered assasinations on both their own soil and foreign territory...I do not believe the attack on the London Underground was designed by the British Government for any ulternative agenda

I dont believe in those conspiracies any more then I do in the Ananakie :laugh::ninja::laugh:

As for the rest of you. Your Federal Government has been taking away your Consitutional Rights since the Civil War...Thats what Big Government/Federations/Empires are all about. Complaining is something a lot of you do...Action...I've seen none...and I dont even mean taking your guns and rioting...I mean ive seen no actual constructive measures from any of you, whatsoever...Its enough to make me think that actually you might LIKE being in bondage because if you were consitutionally free you would have no Big Government to complain about :laugh:

The Key is to Empower your State Governments, (or simply return to them what they should never have given up) Enough States Can bring majorities in the Congress...well...that would be if you all werent so blinded by Bi-Partisan Nonsence...

Who cares about Democrats and Republicans...Shouldnt you be fighting for your STATE rather then a party...Dont you see that until you have a unified State, your State cant act as a singularity in Congress properly....Thats how the Federation are stopping a rebellion on a State Level

Perhaps if You could see how your Federation formed you would understand what I am talking about. Its always been "this way" with you, because none of you are old enough to have known a Different America. Well...In England, we are about to witness, and have been witnessing over the last thirty years, the formation of a Federal Europe...Whose manifesto is more akin to your present American Federal Government...then the pre-civil war Federal Government.

The only way to solve your problems is to rewind to a Pre-Civil War Federation. You act like this is the first time your Government has stamped on you...but its NOT.

Soooo my constructive question to you all...how politically can you turn the clocks back Two Hundred odd years....Where have all the patriots gone... Bursts into song "Oh for the wings, for the wings, of a dove...." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCIKdjVooQ0

Tyburn
01-20-2013, 07:11 PM
are you serious? more like a teacher goes postal cuz their wife left them (or husband), they are sick of their crappy pay and obnoxious kids ... and the principal just pissed them off one too many times ... they are more likely to use the guns on staff and kids than intruders ... LOL ...

Are you really Canadian :huh:

Thats sounds so totally British in its thinking :laugh:

Sorry if that offends :ashamed:

I'm always so suprised to find that in all my dealings with Canadians...in terms of mindset, they are just like Britons...except with an American accent :laugh:

I dont find them half as exciting though...because of their similarity :unsure-1:

Tyburn
01-20-2013, 07:17 PM
the USA for the most part is a culture of violence...
and that is what separate's you guys from the rest of the free world.

but its not your fault...its what you have been taught and until you decide to teach your children something different it will always be that way.

:scared0015: Bit harsh :scared0015:

The American people are less gungho then their politicians...remember, their politicians can always be gungho coz they never actually do the physical fighting....the Males in the North might like to watch violence...but I suspect its more bravado then anything else.

Even those who argue passionately online...in person may be less intimidating...even with a gun :laugh:

I cant speak about the South...Never met anyone from down there, and...have trouble understanding the accents to be honnest. Not so much with women...but with Males they just speak way to fast. I remember meeting Preach in the US...couldnt understand a word he said :ashamed::laugh:

Tyburn
01-20-2013, 07:30 PM
separates us from the middle east which regularly hangs people for not following islam you mean, right?

:laugh:

You know...I'd love to know about the gun restrictions in middle eastern countries...coz I think thats pretty lacking.

Not to be rude...but your an armed nation...and that hasnt stopped your Federal Government denuding you of your consitutional rights since the Civil War has it.

Think from your Governments perspective...its not actually in their interest for you to be disarmed. Why would they need you disarmed...when they have you by the balls financially...

I spoke to some American who said their taxes would have gone up over 300 if the fiscal cliff had not been averted, overnight, per month

WTF?????

Your Federation could bleed you all dry of cash in months...thats far easier and safer in their minds then taking your guns...after all...youve all made it clear you dont want to give them up.

I'm not Anti-American...I'm Possibly Anti-Federal Government :laugh:

To be honnest...I dont know where I stand on Gun laws...except, I personally dont want to see them lying around the place, nor would I feel safe knowing other people would have them. I certainly wouldnt want one myself...my GOD, a gun in the hands of a depressive will end up in a damn sight more then tears :unsure-1:

If I was the Federal Government, supposing I wanted to disarm you, I would do it without asking for anyones guns period. What I would do is limit the amunition...and put up the prices...Thats how I'd work myself out of the fiscal cliff...forget an increase in tax, or a badly disguised health reform

Start thinking massive price hikes on Guns, ammunition, Alcohol and Smokes...and then actively encourage the buying of guns...that way the worst case scenario is that you get a shed load of money and nothing changes with the guns and population...best case scenario...you get a shed load of money until the population cant afford those items anymore

Then you can really start to oppress them with tyrany :mischievous:

Sorry...I got carried away then :ashamed:

Tyburn
01-20-2013, 07:33 PM
violence is a good thing


have you had a burger lately? that cow died....because of violence



or Horse :laugh:

Tyburn
01-20-2013, 07:38 PM
Yep, GOD used violence many times throughout the Bible to accomplish His will. Even Jesus overturning tables in the Temple and whipping the money-changers would have been seen as a violent act.

If you really study history, guns have acted as a great equalizer across the world. In other words, guns have actually made the world a less violent place that it has been in the past.

Look at it like this, before the invention of gunpowder, people's primary form of self-defense was swords. However, swords require physical strength, size and the full use of both arms and legs. On top of all that, they also require training and conditioning to learn how to use them effectively.

So if you take a 30-year-old, 6-foot tall, 200-pound man, who's been trained in swordplay for years, and put him up against a 13-year-old, 5'2", 90-pound girl who has never touched a sword in her life. What's going to happen if you give them both a sword and have them fight to the death? The answer is easy, she's going to get cut to pieces fairly quickly and without much effort.

However, take the same two people and place a loaded gun in each of their hands. Now you've leveled the playing field and changed the entire game. It's no longer about physical size or training level, it's about who can pull that trigger the fastest. The girl who has never touched a weapon in her life is suddenly just as dangerous as the highly-trained, physically-powerful man.

Before the invention of guns, all of humanity lived in a 'might makes right' world. Guns have actually helped humanity tame a wild planet and made modern civilization possible.

Of course, many will try to claim that humanity has "evolved" past the need for guns, because we are becoming more intelligent and more civilized through the process of Evolution. Well that just one more lie of this world. Humanity is just as evil and corrupt as we've always been.
We still live in a Might Makes Right Universe...confused with The Myth of Redemptive Violence...all Guns do is up the stakes and make it quicker

I spoke to an Incan the other day....oh...wait...no I didnt...they all died as a result of guns that "leveled the playing field"

...and you talk about knowing History :rolleyes:

Tyburn
01-20-2013, 07:41 PM
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/ellipsis_zps3d16e3c7.jpg

:)

:blink:

I dont get it...is it because there is three...or one of them is unripe? :huh:

Tyburn
01-20-2013, 07:45 PM
while I may not believe what you do when it comes to God I actually do believe in God....you think God protects people that live a life of worship
and I believe God influences nothing of our day to day lives at all...
and that's no matter who you are,good or evil.

I really believe God lets the chips fall where they may and our journey through
life is just a test and that test of our humanity is the reason we are all here.

so put down the guns and pass the test damn it !


just jk....but only about part of that.:wink:

AHHHH an Enlightenment Thinker :laugh: YES...Emanuel Kant...GOD as Watchmaker...winds it all up...walks away, watches from afar

Do you believe in Rationale and Reason also? Scientific Logic and Modernity? are those the litmus test for your faith and belief in everything :huh:

NateR
01-20-2013, 08:49 PM
Do you honnestly think that the Federal Government could be behind a massicre at a school simply to use it as an excuse to put a few more restrictions on firearms??

Absolutely.

Tyburn
01-20-2013, 08:54 PM
Absolutely.

Okay...do you honnestly think the Federal Goverment IS behind THIS particular massicre in a school :unsure-1:

Please say no :mellow:

Neezar
01-20-2013, 09:15 PM
Okay...do you honnestly think the Federal Goverment IS behind THIS particular massicre in a school :unsure-1:

Please say no :mellow:

I don't believe that the govt is behind it. But there is some weird things about this.

Did you watch the video Adam posted?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIoPjfLnEFY&feature=youtu.be

NateR
01-20-2013, 09:18 PM
Okay...do you honnestly think the Federal Goverment IS behind THIS particular massicre in a school :unsure-1:

Please say no :mellow:

I don't have enough information to say, but I'm not going to rule it out.

I just think that if we are expected to simply hand over our freedoms on a silver platter, then it's not unreasonable for us to question the legitimacy of the event itself.

NateR
01-20-2013, 09:38 PM
We still live in a Might Makes Right Universe...confused with The Myth of Redemptive Violence...all Guns do is up the stakes and make it quicker

I spoke to an Incan the other day....oh...wait...no I didnt...they all died as a result of guns that "leveled the playing field"

...and you talk about knowing History :rolleyes:

If the Incans had guns, then they might still be around. Thanks for proving my point. :laugh:

Tyburn
01-20-2013, 11:42 PM
If the Incans had guns, then they might still be around. Thanks for proving my point. :laugh:

But they didnt...thats my point about Might Makes Right...its about those who have guns...and where everyone has guns, its just those who have bigger guns, or more guns, or faster guns...Guns dont level the playing field, as you suggested, at best, they raise the Might to a whole new level...at worst they just swing the ballence away from those with only traditional weaponry

Why do you think the US dont want Iran to have a nuclear programme?

Its because without one...they are pretty much the Spanish, in my Incan parody. In theory, America could wipe the Irainians out. To give Iran a Nuke would "level the playing field" and then suddenly America would be forced to have to treat them as an equal rather then a subordinate.

Try reading Frederich Nietzsche thoughts on The Will to Power, and The Will to Knowledge...He talks about what he calls "power discourse" which is exactly what you like to watch whenever you switch on to the UFC...Its why things like Professional Wrestling are so entertaining to men as old as fifty odd....These things are displays of Dominance and submission...of the flow of power...and sometimes, its reversal

Magnified to a much greate extent is the philosophy that everyone is held in a network of power between one and another. You are subordinate to your boss, You are dominant over your Children...obvious ones...and then there are less obvious ones.

Having met you in person, I know you arent half as brash in real life as you come across in person. The internet is strange because it can allow people to reverse the power discourses of normal everyday life. People can have an aura about them online, which implies status and dominance, that they do not have in person....What they effectively do sometimes, is be alot more free online then they are in person, it enables an expression which is sometimes false, just simply because there is no human contact. I cant see your expression when you type...I only have your words on the screen...they make you out to be a real black and white brash American...I know in person that you are not, if anything I kinda remember you as quiet, maybe not shy, but certainly not forthright like you appear online.

I remember distinctly you said a similar thing about believing that online I was far more emotional, or emotive, or sensative, or something like that, and when you met me you discovered actually I wasnt.

Do you even own a firearm? and if you do...have you ever fired a gun...even for target practise or something....? (and this excludes your time in the military Nathan)



Most people, like you and I dont really do it deliberately...its impossible to convey yourself properly online, and of course your reaction is to other peoples thoughts of you online, not the real you. But there are people who do it deliberatley...those are extreme trolls...and you see them bragging about what they could do, or could not do, because the internet shields them....sure they could take on Matt Hughes in a fight and win...they might sound convincing...but they are some pasty underaged nerd from the back of beyond who gets beaten up every day at school coz he's Skeered.

This is what Nietzsche meant...and it exists between everyone...and also at many different levels...on a big scale...its what makes the world of international politics work, It is the profound nuances in Barack Obamas weekly address, as much as it is in the awe inspiring launch of the most recent north Korean missile. Its the power of the press to shame the Government into a U-Tern - as much as it is the illicit authority of the European Supreme Court in this land.

Power is never Equal Nathan....not ever...even in a marriage, a Christian, loving, satisfying, long marriage...one person is dominant, one is submissive.

...and whilst the reversal of a discourse can be self satisfying briefly...like Saddam and his silly beggers with the weapons inspectors...sooner or later, the Submissive will be knocked back by the Dominant.

Might Makes Right...and it always will. Guns or no Guns.

Tyburn
01-20-2013, 11:59 PM
I don't believe that the govt is behind it. But there is some weird things about this.

Did you watch the video Adam posted?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIoPjfLnEFY&feature=youtu.be

I did not watch it.

For very good reasons.

Can you guess what those reasons might be.

Neezar
01-21-2013, 03:00 AM
I did not watch it.

For very good reasons.

Can you guess what those reasons might be.

No. Enlighten me.

NateR
01-21-2013, 07:37 AM
But they didnt...thats my point about Might Makes Right...its about those who have guns...and where everyone has guns, its just those who have bigger guns, or more guns, or faster guns...Guns dont level the playing field, as you suggested, at best, they raise the Might to a whole new level...at worst they just swing the ballence away from those with only traditional weaponry

Why do you think the US dont want Iran to have a nuclear programme?

Its because without one...they are pretty much the Spanish, in my Incan parody. In theory, America could wipe the Irainians out. To give Iran a Nuke would "level the playing field" and then suddenly America would be forced to have to treat them as an equal rather then a subordinate.

Try reading Frederich Nietzsche thoughts on The Will to Power, and The Will to Knowledge...He talks about what he calls "power discourse" which is exactly what you like to watch whenever you switch on to the UFC...Its why things like Professional Wrestling are so entertaining to men as old as fifty odd....These things are displays of Dominance and submission...of the flow of power...and sometimes, its reversal

Magnified to a much greate extent is the philosophy that everyone is held in a network of power between one and another. You are subordinate to your boss, You are dominant over your Children...obvious ones...and then there are less obvious ones.

Having met you in person, I know you arent half as brash in real life as you come across in person. The internet is strange because it can allow people to reverse the power discourses of normal everyday life. People can have an aura about them online, which implies status and dominance, that they do not have in person....What they effectively do sometimes, is be alot more free online then they are in person, it enables an expression which is sometimes false, just simply because there is no human contact. I cant see your expression when you type...I only have your words on the screen...they make you out to be a real black and white brash American...I know in person that you are not, if anything I kinda remember you as quiet, maybe not shy, but certainly not forthright like you appear online.

I remember distinctly you said a similar thing about believing that online I was far more emotional, or emotive, or sensative, or something like that, and when you met me you discovered actually I wasnt.

Do you even own a firearm? and if you do...have you ever fired a gun...even for target practise or something....? (and this excludes your time in the military Nathan)



Most people, like you and I dont really do it deliberately...its impossible to convey yourself properly online, and of course your reaction is to other peoples thoughts of you online, not the real you. But there are people who do it deliberatley...those are extreme trolls...and you see them bragging about what they could do, or could not do, because the internet shields them....sure they could take on Matt Hughes in a fight and win...they might sound convincing...but they are some pasty underaged nerd from the back of beyond who gets beaten up every day at school coz he's Skeered.

This is what Nietzsche meant...and it exists between everyone...and also at many different levels...on a big scale...its what makes the world of international politics work, It is the profound nuances in Barack Obamas weekly address, as much as it is in the awe inspiring launch of the most recent north Korean missile. Its the power of the press to shame the Government into a U-Tern - as much as it is the illicit authority of the European Supreme Court in this land.

Power is never Equal Nathan....not ever...even in a marriage, a Christian, loving, satisfying, long marriage...one person is dominant, one is submissive.

...and whilst the reversal of a discourse can be self satisfying briefly...like Saddam and his silly beggers with the weapons inspectors...sooner or later, the Submissive will be knocked back by the Dominant.

Might Makes Right...and it always will. Guns or no Guns.

I did not read your entire post.

For very good reasons.

Can you guess what those reasons might be?

:tongue0011:

Anyways, I was referring mainly to individuals not societies when I described guns as leveling the playing field. A technologically superior society is always going to have an advantage over a primitive society. That didn't suddenly start when guns were invented. So, try not to muddy the waters with irrelevance.

Tyburn
01-21-2013, 09:49 AM
No. Enlighten me.

I dont like watching Videos about conspiracy theories...you never know how grounded they are do you? :ninja:

Tyburn
01-21-2013, 09:50 AM
I did not read your entire post.



I dont believe you :mellow:

Neezar
01-21-2013, 01:13 PM
I dont like watching Videos about conspiracy theories...you never know how grounded they are do you? :ninja:

I don't normally watch them either. And I never believe any of it unless I research something myself. But I trust that I can usually discern BS from a legitimate claim. And some of the video was easily explained away, but there were some things on there that are just .....well, bizarre.

Like I said, I don't buy that the gov't perpertrated this hoax. However, there are some very good questions out there that need to be answered. Like who was the person the police chased into the woods and handcuffed? Who was the third person in the parking lot that a kid said he saw face down and handcuffed?

I have questions that I haven't even seen mentioned on the conspiracy video. A teenage boy was interviewed during the ordeal that day. He said he saw a 'trooper' bring out a child that was all bloody. He said he saw them bring two more kids out. Why were these children not taken to the hospital? Why were only three brought out? And he said he and his mom live down the street. They were some of the first ones there. His little sister had been in that school. They were still there HOURS later. When asked where his mom was, he said 'over there somewhere' and pointed to a crowd of people off to the left. Really? My child is involved in something like that, I just can't see myself hanging around the scene for HOURS with my child still there!

And what about the little girl who hid under her friends and played dead. Reports said she came out covered in blood. And she wasn't taken to the hospital? Just for the trauma witnessed alone I would have thought she would be taken to the hospital.

I don't know. Just weird.

adamt
01-21-2013, 02:15 PM
just so we're clear tyburn, it's not a conspiracy theory that says the government committed this massacre, it's a theory that says the massacre never actually occurred

after all you only believe what you see on tv, and tv can do literally anything nowadays with the technology we have

the only difference between iron man the movie(which is as lifelike as can be) and the sandy hook hoax (which is also very believable) is that the media tells us iron man is fake and sandy hook is real, but if sandy hook is real there are some major gaps in the story line

rearnakedchoke
01-21-2013, 02:16 PM
just so we're clear tyburn, it's not a conspiracy theory that says the government committed this massacre, it's a theory that says the massacre never actually occurred

after all you only believe what you see on tv, and tv can do literally anything nowadays with the technology we have

the only difference between iron man the movie(which is as lifelike as can be) and the sandy hook hoax (which is also very believable) is that the media tells us iron man is fake and sandy hook is real, but if sandy hook is real there are some major gaps in the story line

so do you think it happened?

Neezar
01-21-2013, 04:04 PM
so do you think it happened?

Do you? :mellow:

:laugh:


Do you not at least find some of it kinda strange? I think it happened but I think there are things they are definitely not telling us. And maybe there is a good reason for that. I don't know.

Did you watch the press release of the coroner? That man scares me. He is just weird on so many levels.

rearnakedchoke
01-21-2013, 04:48 PM
Do you? :mellow:

:laugh:


Do you not at least find some of it kinda strange? I think it happened but I think there are things they are definitely not telling us. And maybe there is a good reason for that. I don't know.

Did you watch the press release of the coroner? That man scares me. He is just weird on so many levels.

i don't think it was a set up ... you can watch many conspiracy theory videos of man landing on the moon, 9/11 etc ... they all seem pretty compelling .. doesn't mean that it was a set-up ... do i think any govt has the power to pull something like this off? sure i do ... i just don't think this, or what i mentioned above were set-ups ..

Tyburn
01-21-2013, 05:31 PM
I don't normally watch them either. And I never believe any of it unless I research something myself. But I trust that I can usually discern BS from a legitimate claim. And some of the video was easily explained away, but there were some things on there that are just .....well, bizarre.

Like I said, I don't buy that the gov't perpertrated this hoax. However, there are some very good questions out there that need to be answered. Like who was the person the police chased into the woods and handcuffed? Who was the third person in the parking lot that a kid said he saw face down and handcuffed?

I have questions that I haven't even seen mentioned on the conspiracy video. A teenage boy was interviewed during the ordeal that day. He said he saw a 'trooper' bring out a child that was all bloody. He said he saw them bring two more kids out. Why were these children not taken to the hospital? Why were only three brought out? And he said he and his mom live down the street. They were some of the first ones there. His little sister had been in that school. They were still there HOURS later. When asked where his mom was, he said 'over there somewhere' and pointed to a crowd of people off to the left. Really? My child is involved in something like that, I just can't see myself hanging around the scene for HOURS with my child still there!

And what about the little girl who hid under her friends and played dead. Reports said she came out covered in blood. And she wasn't taken to the hospital? Just for the trauma witnessed alone I would have thought she would be taken to the hospital.

I don't know. Just weird.

I dont like watching conspiracy stuff, you never know who is monitoring what you are watching...I know...that sounds like a conspiracy in itself :laugh:

Tyburn
01-21-2013, 05:37 PM
just so we're clear tyburn, it's not a conspiracy theory that says the government committed this massacre, it's a theory that says the massacre never actually occurred

after all you only believe what you see on tv, and tv can do literally anything nowadays with the technology we have

the only difference between iron man the movie(which is as lifelike as can be) and the sandy hook hoax (which is also very believable) is that the media tells us iron man is fake and sandy hook is real, but if sandy hook is real there are some major gaps in the story line

Which begs the question...where did the Children named as those who died go to?

I dont know whats worse...that the Federal Government do the massicre...or go to such extents to hoax a massicre

IF you are correct, then whose kidknapped the Children, and where are they now...and how did they fool those on the ground like the parents??

I get that media can twist things...but that is a hell of a stunt...I would expect that the only justification for doing a stunt like that would be to outright ban every single firearm in the country.

Thats not whats being proposed by anyone.

So much work, so much risk...for a long term restriction that only a few states will feel, wont solve the issue...there is no way its worth the time or money from the Federal point of view.

Now IF Obama in the next month, issues outright banning of firearms akin to England...THEN I would say you have a working theory...until then, there is as much chance of it being hoaxed...as there of it being a UFO cover up...perhaps the little green men stole the children and this was the best cover story the Federation could come up with...

Sorry...that Ananakie conspiracy theory just gets everywhere...look what watching one of those horrible videos did to me Denise...it pickled my Brain hahaha

NateR
01-21-2013, 06:42 PM
just so we're clear tyburn, it's not a conspiracy theory that says the government committed this massacre, it's a theory that says the massacre never actually occurred

after all you only believe what you see on tv, and tv can do literally anything nowadays with the technology we have

the only difference between iron man the movie(which is as lifelike as can be) and the sandy hook hoax (which is also very believable) is that the media tells us iron man is fake and sandy hook is real, but if sandy hook is real there are some major gaps in the story line

Some of the connections that video makes are a bit tenuous; but it does raise a few legitimate questions.

It's mainly the fact that the Administration wants to capitalize on the event and use it to advance gun control and push that through as fast as they possibly can. That has me questioning the legitimacy of the event.

Tyburn
01-21-2013, 07:20 PM
Some of the connections that video makes are a bit tenuous; but it does raise a few legitimate questions.

It's mainly the fact that the Administration wants to capitalize on the event and use it to advance gun control and push that through as fast as they possibly can. That has me questioning the legitimacy of the event.

Its just opportunistic.

I grant you that they may use the Event for their own agenda...dont we all Nathan?? :laugh::ninja::laugh:

That doesnt mean there wasnt an event in the first place...or that the event was staged to give a motive.

It means that something happened, and it can be used to the advantage of a specific administration. All Administrations are opportunistic. They are obviously going to look for excuses to push their agenda, thats not limited to the Democrats...neither is it limited to the Federal Government

It doesnt mean the event never happened, or the event was planned...it just means they capitalized on any excuse to do what they wanted.

We've all done it ourselves. Used something as an excuse, to justify our own wants. It makes them, and us, guilty of exploitation...but not of causing the issue. :)

NateR
01-21-2013, 09:54 PM
Its just opportunistic.

I grant you that they may use the Event for their own agenda...dont we all Nathan?? :laugh::ninja::laugh:

That doesnt mean there wasnt an event in the first place...or that the event was staged to give a motive.

It means that something happened, and it can be used to the advantage of a specific administration. All Administrations are opportunistic. They are obviously going to look for excuses to push their agenda, thats not limited to the Democrats...neither is it limited to the Federal Government

It doesnt mean the event never happened, or the event was planned...it just means they capitalized on any excuse to do what they wanted.

We've all done it ourselves. Used something as an excuse, to justify our own wants. It makes them, and us, guilty of exploitation...but not of causing the issue. :)

I'm not going to say that the government definitely did stage it or that it's 100% a hoax. I'm just saying that if we are expected to hand over our Constitutional rights based on this shooting, then there are some unanswered questions surrounding the event itself that must be addressed. Otherwise, it's just paranoia and mass hysteria (which are the two primary weapons in the arsenal of the anti-gun crowd).

Tyburn
01-21-2013, 10:35 PM
I'm not going to say that the government definitely did stage it or that it's 100% a hoax. I'm just saying that if we are expected to hand over our Constitutional rights based on this shooting, then there are some unanswered questions surrounding the event itself that must be addressed. Otherwise, it's just paranoia and mass hysteria (which are the two primary weapons in the arsenal of the anti-gun crowd).

Too True, What are Constitutional Rights after all, if they are not Constantly exercised :)

How do you intend on making sure those "Unanswered Questions surrounding the event itself" are addressed? :huh:

Does your Law have any writ over the subject of Treason..? Does such a Concept even exist without a Soverign to comit Treason against. How can one commit Treason against a group of individuals who are not unfied on their belief in the first place...

How are you to act righteously in the face of the possibility that your worry prooves to be valid and their is something to this conspiracy theory? What would it take to move you from words on a page, to actually doing something about your complaints?

Lots to ponder Mr Rosario

Tyburn
01-23-2013, 06:26 PM
Soooo...Until Nathan gets round to answering my questions...which I'm sure he will do in the fullness of time...

perhaps people can like post photographs of their guns...as Stated before, I havent made up my mind where I stand on restrictions...and a large part of that is because I actually dont know much about firearms at all.

I dont know what the current laws in your country actually are specifically
I dont know much about how firearms work
I dont know much about the registration process, except that it takes ages apparently
I dont know what types there are, what distinguishes one from another, what their different statistics are.

Noone has seen fit to actually educate me on the basics, when they should know, we dont have them here. Perhaps if I actually understood them better, I might be better informed.

You might laugh at that...but it worked with the ideal of hunting. I used to be against Hunting..but when it was explained to me that hunting certain things were done at certain times only, and it was all recorded, and most of it not just for fun or sport, but for food...and when I visited your country and discovered that if you banned all hunting, you would be so over-ridden with wildlife, it would be impossible to live in a safe environment, I changed my mind.

So rather then write me off, as I think a number of you have done...how about you actually engage with me instead. I'm verrra interactive you know :laugh:

I want to see photographs, video...and the answers to the above. That should keep you all going :)

County Mike
01-23-2013, 07:26 PM
http://blog.silive.com/latest_news/2009/03/large_guns.jpg

Just for starters.

rev
01-23-2013, 07:40 PM
Well Dave, I wont post pics of my guns because I dont want people to know what i have but i will try and help you understand whatever I can about guns.
What do you want to know. I imagine there are a lot of people on here who would answer.

County Mike
01-23-2013, 07:44 PM
Smart man Rev. That's why I won't post my entire arsenal. ;)

Tyburn
01-23-2013, 07:48 PM
http://blog.silive.com/latest_news/2009/03/large_guns.jpg

Just for starters.

Are they all yours??? :blink:

Which is your favourite and why?

Did they all cost a lot?

Do you just need one liscene and then can have as many as you want...or do you have to liscence every time?

How long did it take for you to collect them all?

So many questions...sorry. :laugh:

Tyburn
01-23-2013, 07:55 PM
1)Well Dave, I wont post pics of my guns because I dont want people to know what i have but i will try and help you understand whatever I can about guns.
2)What do you want to know. I imagine there are a lot of people on here who would answer.

1) is that because you are worried if you said you had X...then someone who thought they could...I dont know steal from you or something...might be able to know what gun to get that would beat yours?

I mean...is it out of safety/fear that you dont want to clarify...or is it...like considered a bit rude to ask? I mean the friend I have on youtube seems to test guns...I dont think he actually owns them, he's just able, somehow to use them for target practising, and he doesnt mind saying "oh this is blah, blah, blah...and lists all the pros and cons...and I dont really understand a lot of it...no use telling me what point it carries or something, when I dont know if thats good or bad...I mean...I suppose it depends what your using it for...no?

But it may be a little like asking a woman her age...I mean...perhaps you just dont ask what type of gun someone has...I dont know the cultural ettiquete :laugh:

2) Everything...I figure, the more you know, the better based your opinions are..but start with whatever list I had in the post I did earlier today

County Mike
01-23-2013, 07:58 PM
Are they all yours??? :blink:
Not really. Just goofing with you. Got this image from google.

Which is your favourite and why?
I like the tactical shotgun. Great for stopping home invasions.

Did they all cost a lot?
I'm sure they do. From recent looking around, a basic hand gun would run in the $500 range.

Do you just need one liscene and then can have as many as you want...or do you have to liscence every time?
Different for every state. In NJ, with my Firearm ID card I can buy long guns (shotguns, rifles) but require additional permits each time I want to buy a handgun.

How long did it take for you to collect them all?
About 5 seconds to steal the image from google. :)

So many questions...sorry. :laugh:

County Mike
01-23-2013, 08:00 PM
One reason to not let people know what you have is so that the government can't try to take them away. That's why a lot of people are against having to register their firearms. It gives the government a handy list to use when they decide to confiscate (ie: Nazi Germany)

NateR
01-24-2013, 12:42 AM
How do you intend on making sure those "Unanswered Questions surrounding the event itself" are addressed? :huh:

By not bowing to popular pressure and allowing the questions to be ignored or swept under the carpet.

Does your Law have any writ over the subject of Treason..? Does such a Concept even exist without a Soverign to comit Treason against. How can one commit Treason against a group of individuals who are not unfied on their belief in the first place...

It's extremely difficult to get accused of treason in the United States unless you are a member of the military or a government employee.

How are you to act righteously in the face of the possibility that your worry prooves to be valid and their is something to this conspiracy theory? What would it take to move you from words on a page, to actually doing something about your complaints?

You say that as if words are not a powerful thing in and of themselves. Haven't you ever heard the old saying, "the pen in mightier than the sword"?

There are plenty of example of words inspiring change for the better in the world: the Bible, "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine, the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Gettysburg Address, Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech, and the list goes on.

So don't discount the power of words.

Tyburn
01-24-2013, 06:43 PM
1)Not really. Just goofing with you. Got this image from google.

2)I'm sure they do. From recent looking around, a basic hand gun would run in the $500 range.


3) Different for every state. In NJ, with my Firearm ID card I can buy long guns (shotguns, rifles) but require additional permits each time I want to buy a handgun.


1) :laugh: your such a nut :laugh:

2) :blink: so that would be about £300 :blink: thats EXTORTIONATE :blink: I am suprised that many people have that sort of money to be honnest. That Money could buy me a Moped for when I can drive :laugh:

3) Sorry...I dont understand the difference between handgun and shotgun and dont understand why you can buy loads of one on one liscence, but need a liscence for each of the other.

Also...what happens if you either move states, or travel to different states where legislation is different...do you have to re-register, or get rid of?

At least at that sort of price, they would fetch a pretty penny if you had to get rid :laugh:

Bonnie
01-24-2013, 07:01 PM
1) :laugh: your such a nut :laugh:

2) :blink: so that would be about £300 :blink: thats EXTORTIONATE :blink: I am suprised that many people have that sort of money to be honnest. That Money could buy me a Moped for when I can drive :laugh:

3) Sorry...I dont understand the difference between handgun and shotgun and dont understand why you can buy loads of one on one liscence, but need a liscence for each of the other.

Also...what happens if you either move states, or travel to different states where legislation is different...do you have to re-register, or get rid of?

At least at that sort of price, they would fetch a pretty penny if you had to get rid :laugh:

I've never thought about that. Good question, Dave, since laws in different states might vary.

Tyburn
01-24-2013, 07:12 PM
1) By not bowing to popular pressure and allowing the questions to be ignored or swept under the carpet.



2) It's extremely difficult to get accused of treason in the United States unless you are a member of the military or a government employee.



3) You say that as if words are not a powerful thing in and of themselves. Haven't you ever heard the old saying, "the pen in mightier than the sword"?

There are plenty of example of words inspiring change for the better in the world: the Bible, "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine, the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Gettysburg Address, Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech, and the list goes on.

So don't discount the power of words.

1) Here I was thinking you were all for sweeping things under the carpet to make them LOOK right, even if they are not right. I thought from experience, that your attitude was pretty much out of sight, out of mind. I have never believed that "Silence" over an issue makes it go away.

Glad to hear you dont either :)

BUT asking the questions on a Forum like this hasnt changed anything has it? You are no closer to finding out the truth, youve only proved that your able to think outside the box over it...which is commendable...why should you trust what you see, simply coz you see it through a bias media....but what do you get out of questioning it here...that wont aid your knowledge...surely to find out, you'd need to get in contact with the people who made the video, or the authorities....are you allowed to enquire of a criminal procedure? I am not sure that we really are...privacy laws and data protection mean the police cant just tell the truth, or even speak, to just anybody.

2) I suppose they would also be classed differently...for example, deserting your post could be counted as treason...but they wouldnt call it treason but dereliction of duty, or desertion. I imagine that for a government employee it would be Breach of Confidence

It all depends on your definition of Treason. Look at the British Government...Members have to take an oath, in that oath it states that the Queen is the Highest Court in the Land...so do we say all Parliamentarians are Traitors because they have all allowed the European Supreme Court to work within this land?

Is that Treason against the Queen? Is that, in theory, a hangable offense by the strictest interpretation of the Law....certainly anything over 200 years ago, it most definately would have been...and thats AFTER the Civil War, and AFTER the Glorious Revolution, and AFTER a permanent Government sat.

3)
You didnt answer my Question. What would it take to create a response that was MORE then Words. You also have no Faith in your pen...this thread is the epitome of your central view...which is thus...without your Sword you can be Oppressed.

If you believe it the power of the pen...give up your Sword.

You cant have it both ways. First we see you argue that in order to defend yourself and your rights, you must keep your guns at all cost. The Federal Government is out to get you, and without your guns you are oppressed.

Yet...when I ask you what, then, will it take to get you to USE your guns (if you actually have one) You suddenly play down the need for a Gun. The Pen is more mighty, you say. Can Pens Level your playing field...My Goodness, if only my Incan Friend had a Pen he would have no doubt stopped the Spanish :laugh:

We are left to believe one of two things. Either, you didnt mean what you said in the first place. OR you are afraid to admit where what you said leads to. Which is it Nathan...A Gun to level a playing field...Or a Pen to stop the Feds?

Deterents are no good if you arent fully willing to use them when push comes to shove.

Tyburn
01-24-2013, 07:21 PM
I've never thought about that. Good question, Dave, since laws in different states might vary.

Thanks Bonnie :ashamed:

I know that if you went from the US to England you wouldnt be able to take them with you. Soverign State Issues...BUT as with Europe, Soverign States can be in a Union...where they will allow you to bypass laws of Soverignty, on the grounds that you are a member of the Union

Thats why someone from France wouldnt need a Visa to enter England....and yet someone from the US would probably need something (it may not be called a visa, but they usually have visitors fill out some kinda form on the plane :laugh:)

The point is...if your in the Union, your exempt from those laws...I could see the Federal Government saying that since you bought the guns legally in one state, they are yours, they are registered, and because you are a member of the American Union, if you move to a different state, whilst you cant maybe buy more of the same type of gun...perhaps they would let you keep guns you already had...they were legal where and when you bought them.

In the same way I could see the opposite. Soverign State, Different Rules, if you want to keep your guns, fine...but dont move here, sort of thing.

County Mike
01-25-2013, 12:55 PM
1) :laugh: your such a nut :laugh:

2) :blink: so that would be about £300 :blink: thats EXTORTIONATE :blink: I am suprised that many people have that sort of money to be honnest. That Money could buy me a Moped for when I can drive :laugh:

3) Sorry...I dont understand the difference between handgun and shotgun and dont understand why you can buy loads of one on one liscence, but need a liscence for each of the other.

Also...what happens if you either move states, or travel to different states where legislation is different...do you have to re-register, or get rid of?

At least at that sort of price, they would fetch a pretty penny if you had to get rid :laugh:

A handgun is small pistol and easily concealed. Also, long guns (rifles/shotguns) can be used for hunting where I don't know many people who hunt with handguns. I'm guessing that's why the extra permit required in NJ for buying handguns.

If you move, you'll need to do whatever the new state requires to keep/carry your guns legally. If you move from a state like Texas or Arizona to NJ, good luck!

rearnakedchoke
01-25-2013, 02:55 PM
just wondering .. has anyone had legal guns confiscated? has there been any historical events in the past when the US gov't has gone around and taken people's guns??// just wondering .. i guess i could look it up ...

rev
01-25-2013, 03:04 PM
Dave
1. I don't like the idea of putting my arsenal online for the world to see for a few reasons.
A. Government knowledge.
B. Local thieves.
C. It almost seems like a bragging/pride issue. Lol

2. I'm pretty sure you could learn about most guns and the uses with google. If I get started writing about guns at random I would end up with a big long post that most would be annoyed with. Lol. But will be happy to answer specific questions.

County Mike
01-25-2013, 05:41 PM
just wondering .. has anyone had legal guns confiscated? has there been any historical events in the past when the US gov't has gone around and taken people's guns??// just wondering .. i guess i could look it up ...

Yes, it has happened. A guy was even jailed for it but eventually released. He was stopped by a policeman for a traffic infraction. The officer asked him if had any weapons in the car and he admitted to having an unloaded firearm in the trunk. Everything was legal but it was confiscated and he was jailed on a BS charge of transporting illegally. There was a big public cry for support of this guy and he was eventually released. I don't remember all the details but I'll post a link if I can find it.

County Mike
01-25-2013, 06:08 PM
Found some info. His name is Brian Aitken and here's one of the links. You can Google for more info I'm sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Aitken

I'm also positive that Brian is not the only person who wrongly had his guns confiscated. Even worse, he was convicted and served time in jail even though he clearly did NOT break any laws or pose any danger to anyone.

rearnakedchoke
01-25-2013, 08:26 PM
Found some info. His name is Brian Aitken and here's one of the links. You can Google for more info I'm sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Aitken

I'm also positive that Brian is not the only person who wrongly had his guns confiscated. Even worse, he was convicted and served time in jail even though he clearly did NOT break any laws or pose any danger to anyone.

thanks mike ... i was thinking more along the line of a country wide confiscation ... the stuff you posted i am sure happens every single day .... i was thinking more along the lines of guns or certain types of guns being banned and gov't officials go door to door and take peoples guns ...

County Mike
01-26-2013, 12:41 AM
thanks mike ... i was thinking more along the line of a country wide confiscation ... the stuff you posted i am sure happens every single day .... i was thinking more along the lines of guns or certain types of guns being banned and gov't officials go door to door and take peoples guns ...

Haven't heard of anything like that happening yet. I think the government knows trying that now will cause a rebellion. They want to make the majority of people turn them in first. Right now, the rebellion would be too big. If enough people turn them in because we're told we have to, that will make it easier for them to start confiscating by force.

Never turn in your guns. Never participate in a gun buy-back program and don't register what they don't already know about.

flo
01-28-2013, 03:44 AM
DHS wants to purchase 7000 automatic weapons (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/if-assault-weapons-are-bad-why-does-the-dhs-want-to-buy-7000-of-them-for-personal-defense/); same kind the gov,t is trying to ban for the rest of us.

Neezar
01-28-2013, 01:32 PM
I understand this was a horrible tragedy and people want to see something done to prevent this. But if you are serious about wanting to save lives via prevention why not concentrate on where you could be of the best help. More people died from prescrition drugs in 2011 than they did in motor vehicle accidents. That is something where we could really use some rethinking!

Deaths in US 2011

Drugs 40,239
(more died from prescription drugs than illegal drugs)

Alcohol 26,256

Firearms 11,101


So why concentrate of firearms? Death by firearms don't even make it in the top 10 list of causes of death. I think we could do more good with working on that drug issue first!

County Mike
01-28-2013, 01:48 PM
Besides, new laws don't prevent ANYTHING. All they do is give more leverage to punish after the fact.

adamt
01-28-2013, 03:11 PM
gun control is the equivalent of making it illegal for people to buy cars in order to reduce drunk driving



furthermore, i disagree that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to today's guns(assault weapons/ak 47s/ etc) as much as i disagree that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to todays means of free speech(twitter, facebook, blogs, national tv)

if the 2nd amendment is done away with because we have better guns than when it was enacted, then lets do away with the 1st amendment as well based on the same reasons

Bonnie
01-28-2013, 04:13 PM
DHS wants to purchase 7000 automatic weapons (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/if-assault-weapons-are-bad-why-does-the-dhs-want-to-buy-7000-of-them-for-personal-defense/); same kind the gov,t is trying to ban for the rest of us.

It's a "personal defense weapon" if the gov't wants to buy and use them, but it's an "assault weapon" if civilians want them.

Our government wants to control our guns, but they "gift" Egypt with four F-16 fighter jets. :blink:

BradW
03-02-2013, 10:08 PM
gun control is the equivalent of making it illegal for people to buy cars in order to reduce drunk driving



furthermore, i disagree that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to today's guns(assault weapons/ak 47s/ etc) as much as i disagree that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to todays means of free speech(twitter, facebook, blogs, national tv)

if the 2nd amendment is done away with because we have better guns than when it was enacted, then lets do away with the 1st amendment as well based on the same reasons

the first amendment isnt killing anyone...thats the difference.

NateR
03-03-2013, 03:24 AM
the first amendment isnt killing anyone...thats the difference.

That's a stupid comment. How many millions of Americans have willingly sacrificed their lives fighting for the freedoms guaranteed by the 1st AND 2nd amendment?

Also how many Americans have lost their lives because other nations are threatened by our concepts of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc.?

adamt
03-03-2013, 04:51 AM
the first amendment isnt killing anyone...thats the difference.

there are dozens of people who have committed suicide due to cyber bullying, so much so that people have been found guilty of murder because of their facebook stalking and harassing

upon this revelation are you now in support of banning the 1st amendment as well?

but just to be clear, that example was arguing against those that want to ban modern guns just cause they are better than the muskets of 1776.... our social press is better too, doesn't mean the 1st doesn't apply to today's facebook, email, blogs, vlogs and twitter

and still, banning guns is like banning cars to prevent drunk driving, or banning cameras to prevent child porn, or banning matches to prevent forest fires

BradW
03-03-2013, 06:18 PM
That's a stupid comment. How many millions of Americans have willingly sacrificed their lives fighting for the freedoms guaranteed by the 1st AND 2nd amendment?

Also how many Americans have lost their lives because other nations are threatened by our concepts of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc.?

your not the only country in the world that believes in freedom of religion,freedom of speech,and freedom of the press.

but if it wasn't for guns there would be a lot less death.

NateR
03-04-2013, 03:12 AM
but if it wasn't for guns there would be a lot less death.

I don't believe that for a second. The world was a much, much more violent place before the invention of guns.

Play The Man
03-22-2013, 01:40 AM
For a limited time (I don't know how long) NRA lifetime memberships are only $300 (down from normal cost of $1,000). I am now a "Lifer".
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?CampaignID=ar15

County Mike
03-22-2013, 01:35 PM
Thanks for the notice about the liftetime membership discount. I'm debating, only because I just renewed. Wish I was already up for renewal, I'd jump on the lifetime deal. Now I'll feel like I'm wasting the renewal I just paid. hmmmm

VCURamFan
03-22-2013, 01:48 PM
Thanks for the notice about the liftetime membership discount. I'm debating, only because I just renewed. Wish I was already up for renewal, I'd jump on the lifetime deal. Now I'll feel like I'm wasting the renewal I just paid. hmmmm
Well how much did you pay for your renewal? If it's less than $700, then you'd still be saving money on the lifetime membership.

Just think of it as a downpayment. :laugh:

County Mike
03-22-2013, 01:55 PM
Yeah, I considered that. Even though it's a huge savings, still hard to justify to myself spending $300 right now when I have a wife and daughter to support. Dropping $25 per year is easier to do without missing the money.

VCURamFan
03-22-2013, 02:17 PM
Yeah, I considered that. Even though it's a huge savings, still hard to justify to myself spending $300 right now when I have a wife and daughter to support. Dropping $25 per year is easier to do without missing the money.
Good point. I keep forgetting most of y'all have to budget for more than just yourself.

I like being young! :tongue0011:

rev
04-03-2013, 10:03 PM
If it wans't for guns, there would be a lot less freedom.

adamt
08-27-2013, 11:47 AM
https://sphotos-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1001939_314918405320587_100671492_n.jpg

here's my new toy, custom made 50 bmg using a mcmillan action

Tyburn
08-27-2013, 05:32 PM
https://sphotos-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1001939_314918405320587_100671492_n.jpg

here's my new toy, custom made 50 bmg using a mcmillan action

that looks like an oil rig drill bit :laugh:

twinsmama
12-05-2013, 07:09 PM
does anyone carry a concealed weapon while running? i've recently gotten into running and my kids ride their bike with me. Work and life doesn't let me run during the day but I run the first 2 miles in the daylight but usually the last couple it's dark. We live in a rural area and I'm more scared of wild animals than anything. Also more thinking about protecting the kids than myself. They don't get more than 20 feet from me in daylight and stay right with me at dark. There are no street lights for at least 2 miles from my house. I don't know I'm explaining why I am wondering because my question is how do you carry so that it is concealed?

Also whats the best for animals?

I've seen some people use belts. but they don't look real comfortable.

County Mike
12-05-2013, 10:53 PM
Can't carry in NJ at all but I'm guessing a shoulder holster might be most comfortable. Seems like it would bounce around with most other set ups. Even if you have a shirt helping to hold it down, it won't be super easy to access but available if you have a couple seconds to grab it.

Chuck
12-06-2013, 09:11 PM
does anyone carry a concealed weapon while running? i've recently gotten into running and my kids ride their bike with me. Work and life doesn't let me run during the day but I run the first 2 miles in the daylight but usually the last couple it's dark. We live in a rural area and I'm more scared of wild animals than anything. Also more thinking about protecting the kids than myself. They don't get more than 20 feet from me in daylight and stay right with me at dark. There are no street lights for at least 2 miles from my house. I don't know I'm explaining why I am wondering because my question is how do you carry so that it is concealed?

Also whats the best for animals?

I've seen some people use belts. but they don't look real comfortable.

There aren't many good options for running other than a fanny pack. I think with the 3 of you being in a group you should be safe from both animals and Dbags. The noise of the 3 of you will probably scare off any animals that would be a threat and Dbags like easy targets... a mom with 2 kids isn't an easy target.

You should be fine. ;)

Neezar
12-08-2013, 04:36 PM
There aren't many good options for running other than a fanny pack. I think with the 3 of you being in a group you should be safe from both animals and Dbags. The noise of the 3 of you will probably scare off any animals that would be a threat and Dbags like easy targets... a mom with 2 kids isn't an easy target.

You should be fine. ;)

For pete's sake DO NOT wear a fanny pack! :unsure: That is worse than crocs.


:laugh:

Neezar
12-08-2013, 04:53 PM
I would carry pepper spray (not mace). They make a kind that is specifically for wild animals/dogs. Usually the regular kind will work as well. You can put it in a jacket pocket, stick it in the edge of sports bra or get necklace with a clip-on thing. Make sure you can unclip it quickly or get a pull-string clip-on so you can pull it away from you before spraying.

If a dog is attacking your child he is up close and personal. I would be afraid to fire a gun that close to my child. If pepper spray gets on your child then you can flush the eyes with water and you can apply whole milk to any skin that is irritated. Don't rub irritated skin. Flush first and when the burning stops then you can get in the shower to wash.

And on dogs you have to hit the nostrils (pretty small target) or the eyes. I would start out spraying at the eyes and move it down towards nose. It should start to work in 3-5 seconds. When he lets go of your child, kick him like your a football star. lol

Chuck
12-08-2013, 07:16 PM
I would carry pepper spray (not mace). They make a kind that is specifically for wild animals/dogs. Usually the regular kind will work as well. You can put it in a jacket pocket, stick it in the edge of sports bra or get necklace with a clip-on thing. Make sure you can unclip it quickly or get a pull-string clip-on so you can pull it away from you before spraying.

If a dog is attacking your child he is up close and personal. I would be afraid to fire a gun that close to my child. If pepper spray gets on your child then you can flush the eyes with water and you can apply whole milk to any skin that is irritated. Don't rub irritated skin. Flush first and when the burning stops then you can get in the shower to wash.

And on dogs you have to hit the nostrils (pretty small target) or the eyes. I would start out spraying at the eyes and move it down towards nose. It should start to work in 3-5 seconds. When he lets go of your child, kick him like your a football star. lol

You said bra. :ninja:

:tongue0011:

TENNESSEAN
12-08-2013, 08:04 PM
http://www.kimberamerica.com/pepperblaster

http://www.stealthgearusa.com/pages/gallery

flo
12-09-2013, 07:24 PM
http://www.kimberamerica.com/pepperblaster

http://www.stealthgearusa.com/pages/gallery
Wow, those are both great links, thanks for posting them, Tennessean. I think that pepper blaster is awesome, especially for people who aren't comfortable carrying.

County Mike
12-09-2013, 08:06 PM
I would carry pepper spray (not mace). They make a kind that is specifically for wild animals/dogs. Usually the regular kind will work as well. You can put it in a jacket pocket, stick it in the edge of sports bra or get necklace with a clip-on thing. Make sure you can unclip it quickly or get a pull-string clip-on so you can pull it away from you before spraying.

If a dog is attacking your child he is up close and personal. I would be afraid to fire a gun that close to my child. If pepper spray gets on your child then you can flush the eyes with water and you can apply whole milk to any skin that is irritated. Don't rub irritated skin. Flush first and when the burning stops then you can get in the shower to wash.

And on dogs you have to hit the nostrils (pretty small target) or the eyes. I would start out spraying at the eyes and move it down towards nose. It should start to work in 3-5 seconds. When he lets go of your child, kick him like your a football star. lol


Nice pointers.

twinsmama
12-10-2013, 06:33 PM
Thanks for the website Tenn and all the tips guys and gals. I was thinking shoulder holster too for the cool weather when i can wear a light jacket. i feel like a dork taking a gun with me. if i go by myself i don't but when the kids are with me i feel like i must be able to protect them. i was raised thinking a gun means protection and it's hard to kick that thought. i do have pepper spray for animals.

I'm thinking of upgrading my pistol and getting a smith field armorny XD compact. you guys see these yet? my hubby has the regular size one and his man hands are too big for the compact but it fits my hands soooo good. it just hurts my wallet thinking about it.

Tyburn
12-10-2013, 07:34 PM
Patrick Miletich says that in New York the Government has already begun to take guns away from their owners...even guns where the people have already got permits for use.

Apparently, they've changed their mind :blink: having issued liscences for shotguns...they have now declaired that shotguns are banned :blink:

Now I can understand them having a ban on further distribution...I can understand them not allowing everyone to have lisences...but I cant understand how they can change their minds, and then conviscate legally owned property....I mean...that would be like granting planning permission to someone, and having had them built it...and then ten years later tell them that they dont allow extentions anymore, and demanding the addition be removed.

I am not totally sold on firearms...but I dont understand why they seem to be persecuting people for having them now, when they told them earlier it was alright to have them.

if you dont want them, you shouldnt have given them permission in the first place. Now it looks like they are stealing personal possessions of people :unsure-1:

County Mike
12-10-2013, 07:38 PM
NY passed a law banning anything that would hold more than 5 cartridges (bullets). That is the majority of firearms. So now, they're telling everyone in NY that if they have a firearm capable of carrying more than 5, they have to turn it in.

Total bull•••• and a severe violation of the 2nd amendment.

rearnakedchoke
12-10-2013, 07:39 PM
NY passed a law banning anything that would hold more than 5 cartridges (bullets). That is the majority of firearms. So now, they're telling everyone in NY that if they have a firearm capable of carrying more than 5, they have to turn it in.

Total bull•••• and a severe violation of the 2nd amendment.

they can still bear arms right?

Tyburn
12-10-2013, 07:49 PM
NY passed a law banning anything that would hold more than 5 cartridges (bullets). That is the majority of firearms. So now, they're telling everyone in NY that if they have a firearm capable of carrying more than 5, they have to turn it in.

Total bull•••• and a severe violation of the 2nd amendment.

But if you spent money buying something bigger then 5 cartridges, and it was legal when you bought it...then WTF are they going to do...give you a refund for all the money that you've shelled out (pardon the pun :laugh: )

I can understand them changing the law, to stop anymore being sold...but how can you pass a law that TAKES AWAY WHAT YOU GAVE OUT FROM THOSE YOU'VE ALREADY GIVEN IT OUT TO?

Thats like telling Motorists that they've decided to ban all motorbikes in the city, and you have to go "turn it in" :blink:

Never mind your view on firearms, or on the constitution...I dont know how they can even produce a law like that...and I come from a "Common Law" system where the CAN reverse a law...but it comes into effect from the time its done, onwards on 99% of cases.

I would expect the ban only to be upheld by those in the future who want to buy one...not those in the past...they are surely an exception, by the bloody law that gave them that right in the first place :huh:

Tyburn
12-10-2013, 07:50 PM
they can still bear arms right?

Cap-Gun anyone :huh:

:laugh:

Dont even revolvers have like more then five slotts on them?

For the first time I am wondering if this burrying guns thing...is actually not just a conspiracy

County Mike
12-10-2013, 07:57 PM
There are some revolvers that only hold 5 but most guns have the capacity for more. It's a stupid law that gives much more power to the criminals. They feel very empowered when they know they won't be outgunned by the civilians they're planning to rob.

NJ is already pretty bad with their gun laws, but if they passed a law like that, I would seriously make plans to move. At the very least I'd move to Pennsylvania and have a long commute to work.

Tyburn
12-10-2013, 08:17 PM
There are some revolvers that only hold 5 but most guns have the capacity for more. It's a stupid law that gives much more power to the criminals. They feel very empowered when they know they won't be outgunned by the civilians they're planning to rob.

NJ is already pretty bad with their gun laws, but if they passed a law like that, I would seriously make plans to move. At the very least I'd move to Pennsylvania and have a long commute to work.

Supposing you lived in New York...and New Jersey allowed the firearms in question. Could you not buy a lil pea shooter for yourself in New York and consign all your others to some type of safety deposit box in New Jersey?

I mean...if you have a liscence for them, but they are not allowed in a certain place...all you have to do is make sure your guns are not in that place...you dont need to get rid of them. Merely place them in a jurisdiction where they are alright...no?

Then if ever things got REALLY bad...like apokolyptic...you could simply go retrive, and ressurect your entire arsenal...?

I mean...that would be legal both ways...no? Legal storage during times of peace, and Legal use during times of war, if the Government ever outright ban all firearms, permanently, everywhere?

You know...burrying is fine if you can...but we dont all live in the Mid-West now do we :laugh:

Tyburn
12-10-2013, 08:22 PM
Got another possibility...

Could you either modify a firearm in a non permanent way, that you could convert back if you needed. Would that be allowed?

What about having one with the ability, but only putting in less then capacity? its not theoretically capable of putting out more then its loaded with at any one time

Instead...you could just put one in it...and carry all the ammunition with you...therefore, until you ever fill the gun up...isnt it, technically speaking legal?

An empty gun with the capacity to shoot more then five is surely less dangerous then one with the capacity of three...but its full??

I presume they are banning it because they say its dangerous...or do they claim something else as their reasoning?

County Mike
12-10-2013, 08:24 PM
I think they can be modified by a licensed gunsmith to be permanently restricted to 5 or less. Loading only 5 does not meet the requirements for this BS law.

Tyburn
12-10-2013, 08:27 PM
I think they can be modified by a licensed gunsmith to be permanently restricted to 5 or less. Loading only 5 does not meet the requirements for this BS law.

They really dont want you to have them huh :unsure-1:

County Mike
12-10-2013, 08:36 PM
It's their way of taking the guns away. They know they can't just instantly outlaw guns so they keep picking away with restrictions (you know, for the safety of our children), until it becomes so difficult or even pointless to own a gun.

They want to make sure we're nice and helpless when they decide to take away additional freedoms.

Tyburn
12-11-2013, 05:57 PM
They want to make sure we're nice and helpless when they decide to take away additional freedoms.

I wonder what those would be :unsure:

I dont like the idea of firearms, but I wouldnt say I feel violated without one.

HOWEVER...I have to tell you, that I DO have reservations about how come we are not allowed to carry things like Tazers or sprays to protect ourselves..you know, non-lethal defence rather then a personal attack alarm which noone cares about.

I have to say that I am not frightened particularly about the fact I dont have guns, but criminals might, in my culture, I dont honnestly think that enough criminals are armed for me to be frightened...I think they might carry knives, or bombs...but I'm not so worried about guns..

HOWEVER, my main objection is that there are some forms of authority in this country that CAN carry firearms. These are all institutionalized of course, I imagine they would be Secret Service, Metropolitan Arms Unit, British Transport Police, or Ministry of Defence Police. I dont like the thought that they are armed, because, actually I have a massive, massive distrust based on corruption in alot of institutions given any special power over citizens. This isnt helpped, when frankly, the Metropolitan Arms Units are definately unsafe in their usage. There was the infamous gunning down of an unarmed civilian on the London Underground, by ununiformed police from that unit, who made an increadible case of mistaken identity, and then lied to cover up their mistake...this same group of people was involved in the killing of a gangleader who was probably unarmed at the time, when one of the police peoples radios was hit by a stray bullet, presumed from the gangleader...only to find it came from one of his own comrades...that sparked a full week of riots up and down the country, violent riots, so bad, there was a consideration to put London under martial law at one point.

Now whilst its never been proven that this degree of idiocy with firearms extends to the others permitted to carry them, its not funny for me to see off duty Ministry of Defence police from Menwith Hill airbase, wandering aimlessly (if you pardon the pun) around the store, with firearms.

Finally...its not just firearms...police, any/all of them are now carrying, and using tazers, and often they have got the wrong person upset, or tazered people who are a little dumb so to speak, and so havent responded to their warnings adequetly.

I dont like that, and its something that I would change about this country...along with bringing back the death penalty :ninja:

J.B.
12-18-2013, 04:27 PM
It's their way of taking the guns away. They know they can't just instantly outlaw guns so they keep picking away with restrictions (you know, for the safety of our children), until it becomes so difficult or even pointless to own a gun.

They want to make sure we're nice and helpless when they decide to take away additional freedoms.

This forum needs a "like" button.

J.B.
12-18-2013, 04:35 PM
I wonder what those would be :unsure:

I dont like the idea of firearms, but I wouldnt say I feel violated without one.

HOWEVER...I have to tell you, that I DO have reservations about how come we are not allowed to carry things like Tazers or sprays to protect ourselves..you know, non-lethal defence rather then a personal attack alarm which noone cares about.

Nothing is "non lethal", and YES you are violated by not being allowed to legally own one.

God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal.