Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 01-12-2011, 12:18 PM   #91
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I disagree with you on the ownership of assault rifles and extended magazines, and you portray me as an anti-gun extremist who wants to ban all guns.
Welcome to the Political Forum.......thats pretty standard fair here

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 12:37 PM   #92
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"Banning guns will not prevent thugs and nut cases from killing others."

Very few things bother me as much as what you just did. I disagree with you on the ownership of assault rifles and extended magazines, and you portray me as an anti-gun extremist who wants to ban all guns. That may make it easier for you to refute me, but it has zero intellectual honesty, because that's not even close to what I said. See if you can respond to what I actually say, OK? I said explicitly that I have no problem with pistols and hunting rifles.

"Innocent people are not killed by law abiding people"


Wow, that's deep. EARTH TO BUCKMAN. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing who is law abiding and who is sociopathic. Therefore, do we make the tools of mass murder readily available to everyone, including the secretly deranged, so that some would-be tough guys can live out their fantasies by dressing up like Rambo in front of the mirror?

I agree, if we ban extended magazines and assault rifles, shooting sprees will still occur. But they will be harder to carry out, and the body counts will be less. That's irrefutable. You can't kill as many people with a revolver as you can with an automatic weapon, you just can't. There is a reason why this kook did not bring a muzzle loader to that supermarket. So how many beautiful 9 year old gilrs are you willing to sacrifice, so that a bunch of guys with small wee-wees can get their jollies by owning an Uzi?
I did not portray you as an anti-gun extremist . Try to relax a bit.

Banning the number of bullets a gun can hold, pick a number, won't stop this sort of killing. Your rantings, although appealing to emotional liberals, which you don't like, don't belong in a well thought out debate in solving the problem.

FYI alot of people new this guy was a sociopath.
buckman is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 12:49 PM   #93
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
I did not portray you as an anti-gun extremist . Try to relax a bit.

Banning the number of bullets a gun can hold, pick a number, won't stop this sort of killing. Your rantings, although appealing to emotional liberals, which you don't like, don't belong in a well thought out debate in solving the problem.

FYI alot of people new this guy was a sociopath.
"I did not portray you as an anti-gun extremist ."

I said I was in favor of handguns and hunting rifles. You responded directky to my post by saying that banning all guns doesn't end gun violence. What other way can we take your reply, other than to infer that you think that my position is that all guns should be banned? To me, that's a radical position, and it's not even close to what I said.

"Banning the number of bullets a gun can hold, pick a number, won't stop this sort of killing"

Again, it seems like you are putting words in my mouth. I specifically said that banning these weapons would not eliminate these killing sprees. I did say this, see if you can respond to what I'm ACTUALLY SAYING...

Banning assault rifles and extended magazines will not put an end to these killing sprees. They will make them less deadly, however. Because the more frequently a would-be mass murderer has to stop and re-load, the better the opportunity for potential victims to get away or subdue the attacker.

If banning extended magazines meant one less person in AZ would have been hurt or killed, to me it would be worth it. I can only assume you disagree (please say if I'm wrong).

Cars kill people, but I wouldn't say ban cars, because cars add so much utility and value to our lives. I don't see how you can say the same thing about assault rifles and extended magazines. I have never, not once, heard of a person successfully defending themselves with these tools, in a situation where a normal firearm would not have sufficed. From what I can see, the only benefit is that some people get a kick out of owning them. And I have to say I can see why, they are fun to shoot. But I don't think that thrill is worth a single human life.

Last edited by Jim in CT; 01-12-2011 at 01:06 PM..
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 01:29 PM   #94
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Jim, you pointed out that guys with small "weewee's" may contibute to the death of more 9 year olds. Now I know your trying to be funny, but that's the sort of extreme BS that hurts your cause.

Every gun I own is used for hunting so banning assault type weapons won't hurt me. It does however lead down a slippery slope. The problem wasn't the gun.

Cars are a bad example unless you want to say fast cars. That would be a proper analogy. How many HP would Jim allow. How about beer? Kills more 9 year olds then assault weapons. We have tough drunk driving laws to hep prevent more deaths. How about tougher gun crime laws? Not tougher gun laws.
buckman is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 01:35 PM   #95
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"If banning extended magazines meant one less person in AZ would have been hurt or killed, to me it would be worth it. I can only assume you disagree (please say if I'm wrong).

We can make all sorts of thing illegal and save many lifes. Make a list for me.
buckman is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 02:39 PM   #96
fishpoopoo
Wipe My Bottom
iTrader: (0)
 
fishpoopoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,911
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
I have ZERO issue w/ gun ownership for law-abiding citizens.
Want some pistols for target/personal protection, fine.
Want hunting rifles? fine Shotguns? Fine.

Seriously, a 33round mag for a pistol? Fully automatic weapons.
Not needed for the average citizen IMHO.
It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

fishpoopoo is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 02:57 PM   #97
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
We can make all sorts of thing illegal and save many lifes. Make a list for me.
Buckman, I keep answering your questions directly, and you keep dodging mine. It's not fair, and it's really tiresome.

As to your beer reference. My favorite meal in the world is beer and wings, I love it. That being the case, I feel that alcohol does way more harm than good for our society, and if there was a vote, I would support banning alcohol. Since I never abuse alcohol (no time for that), I would miss the occasional ice cold beer, but that's a small price to pay for saving many innocent lives.

Did I answer your question? Will you show me the same courtesy for once? I have a 2-part question.

(1) do you agree that extended magazines and assault rifles make it easier to kill large numbers of people in a shooting spree, compared to a pistol with a standfard magazine?

(2) if your answer to #1 is "no", forget it, we have nothing to discuss. However, if you answer "yes" to #1, here is #2. If the families of all the victims of the Arizona massacre asked you why we shouldn't ban extended magazines, what would you say to them?
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 03:03 PM   #98
RIROCKHOUND
Also known as OAK
iTrader: (0)
 
RIROCKHOUND's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 10,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishpoopoo View Post
It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.
Ben:
We should have the right to bear arms, 100%. There should be a limit though, IMHO

Bryan

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
RIROCKHOUND is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 03:23 PM   #99
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
(1) do you agree that extended magazines and assault rifles make it easier to kill large numbers of people in a shooting spree, compared to a pistol with a standfard magazine?

(2) if your answer to #1 is "no", forget it, we have nothing to discuss. However, if you answer "yes" to #1, here is #2. If the families of all the victims of the Arizona massacre asked you why we shouldn't ban extended magazines, what would you say to them?
(1) Do you agree that a pistol with a standard magazine would have made it easier to kill three or four people in the Arizona shooting than using a knife?

(2) If your answer to #1 is "no", forget it, we have nothing to discuss. However, if you answer "yes" to #1, here is #2. If a pistol with a standard magazine had been used, and if the families of victims in such an Arizona shooting asked you why we shouldn't ban pistols with standard magazines, what would you say to them?

Last edited by detbuch; 01-12-2011 at 03:29 PM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 03:57 PM   #100
fishpoopoo
Wipe My Bottom
iTrader: (0)
 
fishpoopoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,911
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
No one can sway anyone on these boards. It's a complete waste of energy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
whut?




fishpoopoo is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 04:03 PM   #101
fishpoopoo
Wipe My Bottom
iTrader: (0)
 
fishpoopoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,911
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
Ben:
We should have the right to bear arms, 100%. There should be a limit though, IMHO
2A is not about duck hunting or any other "sporting purpose."

It is first and foremost an individual right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to enable citizens to rebel against a tyrannical government.

If the occasion calls for it ... I'd rather be rebelling with 30 round (standard capacity mags) rather than 10 rounders.

The Kentucky rifle, instrumental in helping colonialists prevail over those nasty Brits, was the assault weapon of its day.

The founding fathers today wouldn't blink at the private ownership of polymer frame striker-fired semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines or repeating rifles with detachable magazines.

fishpoopoo is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 04:25 PM   #102
Piscator
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Piscator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marshfield, Ma
Posts: 2,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
My favorite meal in the world is beer and wings, I love it. That being the case, I feel that alcohol does way more harm than good for our society, and if there was a vote, I would support banning alcohol. Since I never abuse alcohol (no time for that), I would miss the occasional ice cold beer, but that's a small price to pay for saving many innocent lives.
Wings aren't healthy either, maybe you should vote to ban those too.
Do you honest think banning alcohol would make things better? Didn't seem to work during prohibition........

It's not the gun, its the idiot who is killing people.

"I know a taxidermy man back home. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!"
Piscator is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 05:44 PM   #103
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishpoopoo View Post
whut?



THANK YOU!!!
scottw is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 05:49 PM   #104
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piscator View Post
Wings aren't healthy either, maybe you should vote to ban those too.
Do you honest think banning alcohol would make things better? Didn't seem to work during prohibition........

It's not the gun, its the idiot who is killing people.
"Wings aren't healthy either, maybe you should vote to ban those too."

Apples and oranges. If I die from eating wings, I'm not taking out a room full of kids.

"Do you honest think banning alcohol would make things better? Didn't seem to work during prohibition........"

Again, apples and oranges. Before prohibition, not every family owned 2 cars, so there weren't nearly as many deaths from drunk driving. Instead of asking these meaningless "gotcha" questions, how about answering one of my own? Do you really think, if we banned alcohol, that more people would be killed from illegal booze trade, then are saved by lack of drunk drivers? Do you really believe that?

"It's not the gun, its the idiot who is killing people"

Once again, you regurgitate the NRA line without answering the question I'm asking. You are right, guns are an inanimate object, and can't hurt people on their own. However, don't extended magazines and assault rifles make it EASIER to kill MORE people? Can one of you please answer that simple question? Am I going too fast for you?

If automatic weapons and extended magazines don't make it easier to kill more people, I wonder why this guy didn't bring a muzzle loader to trhe Safeway.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 06:26 PM   #105
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Buckman, I keep answering your questions directly, and you keep dodging mine. It's not fair, and it's really tiresome.

As to your beer reference. My favorite meal in the world is beer and wings, I love it. That being the case, I feel that alcohol does way more harm than good for our society, and if there was a vote, I would support banning alcohol. Since I never abuse alcohol (no time for that), I would miss the occasional ice cold beer, but that's a small price to pay for saving many innocent lives.

Did I answer your question? Will you show me the same courtesy for once? I have a 2-part question.

(1) do you agree that extended magazines and assault rifles make it easier to kill large numbers of people in a shooting spree, compared to a pistol with a standfard magazine?

(2) if your answer to #1 is "no", forget it, we have nothing to discuss. However, if you answer "yes" to #1, here is #2. If the families of all the victims of the Arizona massacre asked you why we shouldn't ban extended magazines, what would you say to them?
We are both tired so here ya go.
1) Hypothetical, but yes it could. 2 "standard" guns could kill as many. 2 shooters x 2 guns even more etc. etc. get my point????

2) TTYL. Stupid question
buckman is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 06:28 PM   #106
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishpoopoo View Post
whut?



What the hell were we talking about????
buckman is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 07:21 PM   #107
stcroixman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Warwick
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
We could start by removing terms like Moonbat, Wingnut, Obamorons, Nazi, Tea-Baggers, and other derogatory names from the conversation.

Pretty sure that name calling doesn't lead to the free expression of ideas and open dialogue between people.
I'll second this. These guys on both sides calling each other names is childish. I guess there is no respect either? these are our leaders?

Like I always say - what the heck are voting for? they all get in office
and do what they want, not what we want.
stcroixman is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 07:35 PM   #108
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishpoopoo View Post
2A is not about duck hunting or any other "sporting purpose."

It is first and foremost an individual right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to enable citizens to rebel against a tyrannical government.

If the occasion calls for it ... I'd rather be rebelling with 30 round (standard capacity mags) rather than 10 rounders.

The Kentucky rifle, instrumental in helping colonialists prevail over those nasty Brits, was the assault weapon of its day.

The founding fathers today wouldn't blink at the private ownership of polymer frame striker-fired semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines or repeating rifles with detachable magazines.
I think you're spot on. The arguments about "legitimate" uses and "needs" for private citizens owning a gun rarely discuss this point (except by those who are referred to as "anti-government"), and these arguments are diversions from the true intentions of the Second Ammendment. The greatest fear of those that rebelled against British rule and created a free society with a Constitution to guarantee that freedom--their greatest fear was a tyrannical government that would take away that freedom. The creation of this country was precisely so that its individual citizens would have that freedom. And the Constitution which took over a dozen years to evolve from the First Continental Congress to ratification, and was hotly debated, wasn't about wasting precious words over hunting and sport issues. The Second Amendment stands out, like the other Amendments, and the brief enumerations of power, as as one of the rights that protected the people from tyranny, not some minor right to personal pleasure.

And you are exactly right--the founders meant by "Arms" weapons that matched the militias and the government troops of the Revolution. How else would they be of use to defend against tyrannical enemies, foreign or domestic. And for those who think the Constitution should change with evolution of technology, that's true not in regard to the Constitutional principle but in applications--such as weaponry. As weapons of military personnel become more deadly, so too must the private citizen have a right to match them.

And gun rights people, and tea partiers, and Sarah Palins, and right wing talk radio, are not anti-government. They are portrayed that way as talking points to paint them as radical and dangerous. They are all pro-goverment, not anti-government. They are pro good, Constitutional government. And that is not radical. And it is only dangerous to those who are against the Constitution as it was written.

Last edited by detbuch; 01-12-2011 at 07:47 PM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 07:41 PM   #109
RIROCKHOUND
Also known as OAK
iTrader: (0)
 
RIROCKHOUND's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 10,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
As weapons of military personnel become more deadly, so too must the private citizen have a right to match them..
Right.
I need a tank, a rocket propelled grenade, and an AR15 or 6, plus the latest in non-lethal weapons. Oh and chemical weapons. What aisle at Walmart has Mustard Gas again?

Bryan

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
RIROCKHOUND is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 07:55 PM   #110
Chesapeake Bill
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
Right.
I need a tank, a rocket propelled grenade, and an AR15 or 6, plus the latest in non-lethal weapons. Oh and chemical weapons. What aisle at Walmart has Mustard Gas again?
The household cleaner and medicine aisles...but the directions are on another board...
Chesapeake Bill is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 08:03 PM   #111
striperman36
Old Guy
iTrader: (0)
 
striperman36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 8,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
Right.
I need a tank, a rocket propelled grenade, and an AR15 or 6, plus the latest in non-lethal weapons. Oh and chemical weapons. What aisle at Walmart has Mustard Gas again?
Aisle 6 in Newport, next to the 30/06, 367, 22 m and the 3000 boxes of 12 gauge #2 buckshot.
But behind the anti-personnel frags.
striperman36 is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 08:04 PM   #112
striperman36
Old Guy
iTrader: (0)
 
striperman36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 8,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishpoopoo View Post
whut?



Somebody say something about extended?
striperman36 is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 08:12 PM   #113
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
Right.
I need a tank, a rocket propelled grenade, and an AR15 or 6, plus the latest in non-lethal weapons. Oh and chemical weapons. What aisle at Walmart has Mustard Gas again?
To begin with, the milita and government troops of revolutionary time did not have, as individual soldiers, individual canons, howitzers, battleships, or any other outsized armor that an individual could carry. Neither do the modern day soldiers have their individual tanks, nor carry chemical weapons, nor any such other ridiculous etceteras. I suppose, if you were the incredible hulk, you might be able to keep and bear some monstrous weapon. I suppose, if you could manage to drive a tank on public roads without destroying the pavement or obstructing traffic, it might be OK. Various public ordinances against hazardous materials and property destroying vehicles might restrict your ownership to some underground bunker. As you say, availability would severly, if not completely deter you from not only finding such goodies, but very few could afford them. I don't fear law abiding citizens who believe in Constitutional goverment possessing big, bad weapons. Why do you? A criminal, a psycho, on the other hand, with a simple knife, is a terrifying prospect.
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 08:39 PM   #114
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
Right.
I need a tank, a rocket propelled grenade, and an AR15 or 6, plus the latest in non-lethal weapons. Oh and chemical weapons. What aisle at Walmart has Mustard Gas again?
but then how would you remain carbon neutral and envionmentally friendly ?
scottw is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 09:06 PM   #115
Piscator
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Piscator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marshfield, Ma
Posts: 2,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"Wings aren't healthy either, maybe you should vote to ban those too."Apples and oranges. If I die from eating wings, I'm not taking out a room full of kids."Do you honest think banning alcohol would make things better? Didn't seem to work during prohibition........"Again, apples and oranges. Before prohibition, not every family owned 2 cars, so there weren't nearly as many deaths from drunk driving. Instead of asking these meaningless "gotcha" questions, how about answering one of my own? Do you really think, if we banned alcohol, that more people would be killed from illegal booze trade, then are saved by lack of drunk drivers? Do you really believe that?"It's not the gun, its the idiot who is killing people"Once again, you regurgitate the NRA line without answering the question I'm asking. You are right, guns are an inanimate object, and can't hurt people on their own. However, don't extended magazines and assault rifles make it EASIER to kill MORE people? Can one of you please answer that simple question? Am I going too fast for you?If automatic weapons and extended magazines don't make it easier to kill more people, I wonder why this guy didn't bring a muzzle loader to trhe Safeway.
“Instead of asking these meaningless "gotcha" questions, how about answering one of my own? Do you really think, if we banned alcohol, that more people would be killed from illegal booze trade, then are saved by lack of drunk drivers? Do you really believe that?”

If we banned alcohol, Yes, I would agree that it would most likely reduce the amount of people killed from illegal booze. I’m in agreement with you but I don’t believe based off that that it should be banned. You have to look at the whole picture. In your argument, it sounds like you are saying that Alcohol is the common denominator and if it was removed from society the number of drunk driving accidents would be reduced (I agree). Distracted drivers (cell phone use/texting) is the number one cause of auto accidents in the US followed by speeding, DUI is third. So, if we make all possession and use of alcohol (even in a private home) illegal, we reduce the third leading cause of auto accident which reduces the number of deaths. Based off of that theory we should also make all possession and use of all cell phones (even in a private home) illegal. That would reduce the number one cause of auto accident since nobody would ever be in the situation of texting while driving. Again, base off that theory, the government should require all auto manufacturers to add governors to cars so they have a maximum speed limit. That would eliminate the number 2 cause of auto accidents, speeding. It’s not that I disagree with you, I just don’t think a very small number of the population’s actions should change the very large number of law abiding citizens.

“Once again, you regurgitate the NRA line without answering the question I'm asking. “

I’m not regurgitating anything. Those are my own thoughts and it’s how I personally feel. I’m not a member of the NRA and do not own a gun but feel strongly that that right shouldn’t be taken from me.

"You are right, guns are an inanimate object, and can't hurt people on their own. However, don't extended magazines and assault rifles make it EASIER to kill MORE people?"

Yea, they do. I never said they didn’t. I’m still not sure they should be banned completely. I have a friend (retired cop) that fishes Alaska every other year and gets dropped in the wilderness by a bush plane and fishes for a week before they come to pick him up. He brings an extended magazine pistol as well as a 50 caliber to protect himself from an attacking bear. Why should his right be taken away? I’d be interested to know what the percentage is of people that own these things that commit a crime with them. I honestly don’t know the answer. If it’s very high, maybe you have a point, if is very low then the law abiding citizens should not be stripped of the right to own. (again, these are my own thoughts, not “regurgitation”)

"Am I going too fast for you?"

No, not at all but thanks for your concern. That’s a kind of question that brings no value at all to your points. It’s counterproductive and comes across as elitist IMO. Why degrade your posts with that?

"If automatic weapons and extended magazines don't make it easier to kill more people, I wonder why this guy didn't bring a muzzle loader to Safeway."

I never said it doesn’t make it easier. But he could have hurt even more people if he drove a car straight through the crowd. We are normal level thinking people and can’t understand what went this lunatic’s head.

"I know a taxidermy man back home. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!"
Piscator is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 09:26 PM   #116
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piscator View Post
"Am I going too fast for you?"

No, not at all but thanks for your concern. That’s a kind of question that brings no value at all to your points. It’s counterproductive and comes across as elitist IMO. Why degrade your posts with that?
He pulled that line again? That's twice in two days.
JohnnyD is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 09:55 PM   #117
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
I don't know why anyone needs 30 cans of Budweiser in one box....

banning alcohol worked out great for the Kennedys..........
scottw is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 10:04 PM   #118
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
I don't know why anyone needs 30 cans of Budweiser in one box....

banning alcohol worked out great for the Kennedys..........
Somehow I knew this thread would hit rock bottom if I just stayed away.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
spence is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 10:51 PM   #119
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishpoopoo View Post
whut?



yes, rock bottom and big guns
scottw is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 11:03 PM   #120
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,179
That doesn't absolve you...well, perhaps just a bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
spence is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com