Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 37
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,955
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by D Roses Bulls View Post
    I know some people don't like history or facts when it's not in their favor, but as one man said, if we don't learn history, we are doom to repeat it.

    A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

    In 1929, the Soviet Union
    established gun control.
    From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend
    themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
    Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated.

    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
    of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
    rounded up and exterminated.

    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
    political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated.

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
    Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated.

    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
    Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated.

    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
    educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated.

    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
    because of gun control: 56 million.

    You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
    disseminating this information.

    Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
    gun-control laws ONLY adversely affect the law-abiding citizens.
    With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

    During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they
    knew most Americans were ARMED
    Tojo told Yamamoto that he intended to dictate surrender terms to Roosevelt in Washington DC. Yamamoto told him to forget about it. Tojo asked him why, to which Yamamoto replied, "because in America you will find a gun behind every blade of grass".

    Now I know some of you will say this won't happen in America because America would never do such travesties, tell that to the Japanese during WW2, it happen once, it could happen again, besides technology, the human race hasn't evolved that much and the right to bare arms will make sure it definitely won't or a lot harder to do those things.
    Thank you very much.

    Also,

    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    CA has an assualt weapons ban,
    Ca has registration of Forearms,
    CA, has certification requirements,
    you must take and complete gun safety classes,
    CA. has a 10 day waiting period,
    Ca denies the purchase of Hand Guns to not only Felons, But certain MISDEMEANORS AS WELL.
    Ca has a 10 rround magazine limit.

    were are those FACTS in your assestment? see they dont fit the crap you believe so you make up your own set of facts.

    Harvard PHDs, have produced studys linking guns to increased injury risks. here is their study. these are freaking HARVARD SCIENTISTS.

    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/stor...ns-in-newtown/

    there are literally dozens of long term scientific studies showing that the Inference you are trying to make is WRONG.

    but you just keep on making it as if shouting something louder ans louder makes it anymore true....

    BTW, rote memorization is considered the lowest level of determining intelligence, spelling, grammer, it is a regurgitation of repetitive instruction, I ignore it because it doesnt matter, unless ofcourse your feelings got hurt.
    http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...xnbMtDGDGGvRGg
    the above link was an interview, here is a link to the study.
    The filter on the right allows for a breakdown by topic but its all the same
    GUNS=Violence
    Just one question and I'll be done discussing this with you. Please, try to make the reply short and sweet.

    Do you support the idea of taking away guns from law-abiding citizens who own them?

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,195
    vCash
    1500
    @ D rose, none of those incident mean anything bro... you are using events to support
    an opinion.
    The confederates had guns, did they not? so what are you saying that well at least they got to kill a whole bunch of those damn Yankees as well.
    Your reliance on the imagery of the phrase "unable to defend themselves" is pathetic.I know you didnt write that, or at least I hope you didnt becasue it is pure propaganda.


    In every situation you cited the end result would have been the same except with more casualty.
    Right now in Syria, its not the presence of firearms that is effecting change, it is the support of the western powers, Assad would have gassed them all already if we didnt tell hin that would be a mistake.
    You got a rifle for that?
    and once again, please explain how our government differs from a major corporation Like Johnson and johnson?Your concerned about being subjegated right, The federal Government must be limited, made small to limit their power and Influence, well why not Corporations too?
    why is it ok for THEM to become as wealthy and powerful as they possibly can?


    @Tongue.
    Why do you never directly address any of the links Ive provided?
    Tell me how a group of scientists dont know what they are talking about but, Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck does(lol).

    I support Gun control.
    what does that mean?
    it can mean a lot of things.someone in here suggested fingerprint ID on safety mechanisms...that would be cool.
    magazine limits, semi auto restrictions, licensing requirements, back ground checks,annual certification,seller/buyer restrictions, volume limits,illegality of resale without licensing, and then my own personal favorite is the DECRIMINALIZATION OF POSSESSION OF A FIREARM.(or drugs).

    See by criminalizing those issues we make them more dangerous.
    If the consequence is simply confiscation and accounting of incidence, there is no need for people to Complain about illegal search, You werent supposed to have it, now you dont.eventually the confiscations would outnumber illegal sales and possesions.

    why on earth would you take guns away from responsible people?
    But you dont get to be considered responsible simplyt by not committing crime(lol).
    You have to demonstrate your reponsibility by following guidlines, if you fail, then maybe you have restrictions placed on your ownership for a time...IDK ,theres a lot that can be doen, Including the RT wing darlings of armed guards,and mental health screening...see, its all about compromising...you dont need an AK, or an AR, you just dont.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,955
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    @Tongue.
    Why do you never directly address any of the links Ive provided?
    Tell me how a group of scientists dont know what they are talking about but, Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck does(lol).

    I support Gun control.
    what does that mean?
    it can mean a lot of things.someone in here suggested fingerprint ID on safety mechanisms...that would be cool.
    magazine limits, semi auto restrictions, licensing requirements, back ground checks,annual certification,seller/buyer restrictions, volume limits,illegality of resale without licensing, and then my own personal favorite is the DECRIMINALIZATION OF POSSESSION OF A FIREARM.(or drugs).

    See by criminalizing those issues we make them more dangerous.
    If the consequence is simply confiscation and accounting of incidence, there is no need for people to Complain about illegal search, You werent supposed to have it, now you dont.eventually the confiscations would outnumber illegal sales and possesions.

    why on earth would you take guns away from responsible people?
    But you dont get to be considered responsible simplyt by not committing crime(lol).
    You have to demonstrate your reponsibility by following guidlines, if you fail, then maybe you have restrictions placed on your ownership for a time...IDK ,theres a lot that can be doen, Including the RT wing darlings of armed guards,and mental health screening...see, its all about compromising...you dont need an AK, or an AR, you just dont.
    I don't read any of the links because I'm stubborn. How's that for a straight answer?

    As to your points which did not answer my very straightforward question, well, I have no problem with the security measures you suggested.

    However, if you give a mouse a cookie it will ask for a glass of milk. And if you start down that road, it will not stop and guns will be taken away from law abiding citizens just as in the scenarios D Rose suggested. At that point, America is no longer free from the threat of tyranny.

    I am not Republican nor am I a Democrat. I am neither ultra-conservative nor am I ultra-liberal. I have reasons to hate each party just as I have reasons to support some decisions of each party. I am neither pro-gun nor anti-gun. I don't own a gun, and I have only shot several different types of guns in my life. My family is not pro-guns, I was not raised in a pro-gun environment. In fact, I might have come from the only family in North Dakota that did not have a hunting rifle or some other gun in the house. I do not support improper use of guns and I do not see the need for automatic weapons (other than to prevent tyranny). At the same time, I support individuals who want to own guns for hunting, for collecting (most people like to collect things, and I happen to collect blu-rays, so why should I say anything to somebody that collects something else), and I support those who want a gun because they feel it is the best option to protect their home, property and family. And to wrap up my entire stance on gun control, I do not like the direction our country is going in, and I will be damned if I watch this government continue in this direction without fearing the people who they are governing. And I feel like this anti-gun agenda being promoted and pushed by politicians and celebrities is leading to a country that will not be protected from tyranny.

    So you really don't have to argue with me or provide links. If you are not opposed to law abiding citizens being able to have guns, we are not arguing anything. Actually, let me correct that. We are not arguing anything other than what this current agenda will lead to.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,195
    vCash
    1500
    history does suggest tyranny is rewarded by the lack of vigilance, Im just not so sure we havent come to the point where technology hasnt advanced us past the point where it could happen here.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,313
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    history does suggest tyranny is rewarded by the lack of vigilance, Im just not so sure we havent come to the point where technology hasnt advanced us past the point where it could happen here.
    I can't get passed the notion of how ridiculous is it to think that our government fears us. They don't fear us in the slightest, whether people have their guns or not. The government has guns that only a few outside of the government has and it has those guns in mass production quantities. It has many other technologies that no one in the private side has like spy and tactical drones. If the government fears the people, then why is it that the entirety of the country wants the government to change but it isn't changing at all and is in fact trenching in more than ever?
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,195
    vCash
    1500
    have you ever seen a rail gun?

    standard fire arms projectiles travel around 1000 miles per hour.
    a Rail gun produces velocity up to 5600 MPH.
    at this speed the impact will produce temporary liquification of metal and result in plasma energy emmissions.

    The military refers to these programs as hypervelocity weapons systems.
    there are already into phase two of maritme deployment.

    That means that practical application has already been established.
    (it works, and they have them)

    That means I have absolutely no doubt the tech has been modified for compactability in some lab somewhere.Or something else that would just knock your sox off.(lol)

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Amsterdam/Maryland
    Posts
    654
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Tongue-Splitter View Post
    I don't read any of the links because I'm stubborn. How's that for a straight answer?

    As to your points which did not answer my very straightforward question, well, I have no problem with the security measures you suggested.

    However, if you give a mouse a cookie it will ask for a glass of milk. And if you start down that road, it will not stop and guns will be taken away from law abiding citizens just as in the scenarios D Rose suggested. At that point, America is no longer free from the threat of tyranny.

    I am not Republican nor am I a Democrat. I am neither ultra-conservative nor am I ultra-liberal. I have reasons to hate each party just as I have reasons to support some decisions of each party. I am neither pro-gun nor anti-gun. I don't own a gun, and I have only shot several different types of guns in my life. My family is not pro-guns, I was not raised in a pro-gun environment. In fact, I might have come from the only family in North Dakota that did not have a hunting rifle or some other gun in the house. I do not support improper use of guns and I do not see the need for automatic weapons (other than to prevent tyranny). At the same time, I support individuals who want to own guns for hunting, for collecting (most people like to collect things, and I happen to collect blu-rays, so why should I say anything to somebody that collects something else), and I support those who want a gun because they feel it is the best option to protect their home, property and family. And to wrap up my entire stance on gun control, I do not like the direction our country is going in, and I will be damned if I watch this government continue in this direction without fearing the people who they are governing. And I feel like this anti-gun agenda being promoted and pushed by politicians and celebrities is leading to a country that will not be protected from tyranny.

    So you really don't have to argue with me or provide links. If you are not opposed to law abiding citizens being able to have guns, we are not arguing anything. Actually, let me correct that. We are not arguing anything other than what this current agenda will lead to.
    You must be one very seriously confused individual. You claim to be neither this nor that, then trot out some standard, paranoid, wingnut cliches about governmental tyranny and those in power needing to "fear" the people, while proudly announcing that you're not prepared to even look at arguments that run counter to your own world view.

    The recent shooter's mother was, no doubt, a "law abiding" citizen, who was permitted under current laws to indulge her prepper madness. Incidentally, "law abiding" is a standard catch phrase used by right wing polemicists.

    By your own words above, you are a right-wing gun supporter espousing ultra-conservative paranoid fantasies about the relationship of citizens to government in the 21st century. No amount of guns in private ownership, not even automatics, have ever, or will ever, prevent the US government from doing whatever the **** it wants. So please, don't try to play the reasonable, middle of the road independent. Your own words prove otherwise.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,313
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    You must be one very seriously confused individual. You claim to be neither this nor that, then trot out some standard, paranoid, wingnut cliches about governmental tyranny and those in power needing to "fear" the people, while proudly announcing that you're not prepared to even look at arguments that run counter to your own world view.

    The recent shooter's mother was, no doubt, a "law abiding" citizen, who was permitted under current laws to indulge her prepper madness. Incidentally, "law abiding" is a standard catch phrase used by right wing polemicists.

    By your own words above, you are a right-wing gun supporter espousing ultra-conservative paranoid fantasies about the relationship of citizens to government in the 21st century. No amount of guns in private ownership, not even automatics, have ever, or will ever, prevent the US government from doing whatever the **** it wants. So please, don't try to play the reasonable, middle of the road independent. Your own words prove otherwise.
    Don't make posts containing comments like the bolded one. If you want to have a civil debate, that's fine. But this kind of comment is far over the line and detracts from the quality debate that is possible.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    725
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Tongue-Splitter
    I don't read any of the links because I'm stubborn. How's that for a straight answer?

    As to your points which did not answer my very straightforward question, well, I have no problem with the security measures you suggested.

    However, if you give a mouse a cookie it will ask for a glass of milk. And if you start down that road, it will not stop and guns will be taken away from law abiding citizens just as in the scenarios D Rose suggested. At that point, America is no longer free from the threat of tyranny.

    I am not Republican nor am I a Democrat. I am neither ultra-conservative nor am I ultra-liberal. I have reasons to hate each party just as I have reasons to support some decisions of each party. I am neither pro-gun nor anti-gun. I don't own a gun, and I have only shot several different types of guns in my life. My family is not pro-guns, I was not raised in a pro-gun environment. In fact, I might have come from the only family in North Dakota that did not have a hunting rifle or some other gun in the house. I do not support improper use of guns and I do not see the need for automatic weapons (other than to prevent tyranny). At the same time, I support individuals who want to own guns for hunting, for collecting (most people like to collect things, and I happen to collect blu-rays, so why should I say anything to somebody that collects something else), and I support those who want a gun because they feel it is the best option to protect their home, property and family. And to wrap up my entire stance on gun control, I do not like the direction our country is going in, and I will be damned if I watch this government continue in this direction without fearing the people who they are governing. And I feel like this anti-gun agenda being promoted and pushed by politicians and celebrities is leading to a country that will not be protected from tyranny.

    So you really don't have to argue with me or provide links. If you are not opposed to law abiding citizens being able to have guns, we are not arguing anything. Actually, let me correct that. We are not arguing anything other than what this current agenda will lead to.
    This will never happen. America loves their guns, any politician that supports banning guns (not just assault weapons but all firearms) would get voted out before you can say "2nd Amendment". The country is in no such threat and will not be under any such threat of gun-grabbing any time in the near future.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Amsterdam/Maryland
    Posts
    654
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Don't make posts containing comments like the bolded one. If you want to have a civil debate, that's fine. But this kind of comment is far over the line and detracts from the quality debate that is possible.
    Seriously? I really hope you're somehow kidding. I note that you're a mod around here and that you've made nearly 9k posts per year since you signed up. This leads me to suspect that maybe you haven't spent much, if any, time on other forums.

    My comment was about as mild and non offensive as could be. If you think that's "far over the line", then you really have no idea about what goes on out there on the webz. I submit that any reasonable person reading the post I quoted would come to the same evident conclusion, namely that the poster was utterly confused about his own positions.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,955
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    My comment was about as mild and non offensive as could be. If you think that's "far over the line", then you really have no idea about what goes on out there on the webz. I submit that any reasonable person reading the post I quoted would come to the same evident conclusion, namely that the poster was utterly confused about his own positions.
    No it wasn't. You hurt my feelings.

    You must be one very seriously confused individual. You claim to be neither this nor that, then trot out some standard, paranoid, wingnut cliches about governmental tyranny and those in power needing to "fear" the people, while proudly announcing that you're not prepared to even look at arguments that run counter to your own world view.
    Do you really think that this Government is run of the people, by the people and for the people? If you think that, there are things I'd like to say about you, but I won't.

    The recent shooter's mother was, no doubt, a "law abiding" citizen, who was permitted under current laws to indulge her prepper madness. Incidentally, "law abiding" is a standard catch phrase used by right wing polemicists.
    Like I've said, I am perfectly comfortable with some of the suggestions, such as fingerprint ID on triggers, gun locks etc.

    By your own words above, you are a right-wing gun supporter espousing ultra-conservative paranoid fantasies about the relationship of citizens to government in the 21st century. No amount of guns in private ownership, not even automatics, have ever, or will ever, prevent the US government from doing whatever the **** it wants. So please, don't try to play the reasonable, middle of the road independent. Your own words prove otherwise.
    By your own words, you are a generalizing, stereotyping and assuming individual who is using insults and childish accusations to promote your own views by questioning my character.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,920
    vCash
    1500
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by justinnum1
    Wade will be a lot better next season now that he got knee surgery. Hate on. - 7/31/2012

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    725
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Longhornfan1234 View Post
    The gun-grabbing libbies will do anything to disarm the populace.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Arvada, Colorado
    Posts
    17,582
    vCash
    500
    Yep, we're a bunch of gun grabbing socialists
    You're talking to me all wrong... It's the wrong tone. You do it again and I'll stab you in the face with a soldering iron. Hey, tell me, does your mother sew? BOOM. Get her to sew that!

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,195
    vCash
    1500
    PJ media is a sham just like every other site longhorn uses.
    they are funded by conservative ideologues and have no scientific support or control to their statistics or their claims...he even has sited BREIETBART (LOLOLOL)!!!

    like i said, fed a line of nonsense and happy to accept it...hey, were in Texas Longhorn, if we were in Arkansas, Id habe to carry YOUR bags...get It?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •