PDA

View Full Version : He Always liked Guns?



Ken Bora
12-02-2012, 07:53 PM
He Always liked Guns?

So this morning a player in the National Football League killed his girlfriend. Then drove to his stadium and in front of others shot and killed himself. It is a terrible thing. An innocent life taken and a child orphaned. Yet selfish dung heap that I am. Only thing that jumped out at me in the espn news story with the alleged quote from a friend saying he always liked guns. What The Flock? Had he murdered by garrote and then hung himself, would the news organizations have said “He always liked rope”?

And is it me or does it seem like an abnormally high number of pro football players kill themselves.

Your thoughts for discussion please.

Dustin D
12-02-2012, 08:00 PM
On-going Ken. Media Talking heads always taking their shots where they can constantly attacking the freedoms of others.

They call it the Liberalism.

If a Conservative doesn't like guns he doesn't buy any.
If a Liberal doesn't like guns he doesn't buy any either but also thinks no one else should have any.

I thought it was odd that some were talking about Honoring him etc. Honoring him? He shot the mother of his only child to death and then shot himself in the head. What exactly do you honor there?

Ken Bora
12-02-2012, 08:04 PM
I thought it was odd that some were talking about Honoring him etc. Honoring him? He shot the mother of his only child to death and then shot himself in the head. What exactly do you honor there?

I thought that was a head scratcher as well.
Note I didn't even type his name.
I hear the nfl players make do something for the child.

Dustin D
12-02-2012, 08:13 PM
I thought that was a head scratcher as well.
Note I didn't even type his name.
I hear the nfl players make do something for the child.

Yea according toe NFL spokespersons they've started a fund for her to ensure she is not forgotten about in this event and is taken care of. Thankfully she is that young(3 months old) and not 7 or 10 yrs old or something like that.

BonMallari
12-02-2012, 08:16 PM
Junior Seau was my friend, met him before his rookie season in San Diego...really disturbed me that he took his own life...even though the tests proved inconclusive, I have to think the years of #55 banging heads since his USC days had to have taken its toll...makes me wonder what will become of my heroes like Roger Staubach and Troy Aikman after their many concussions...look at Muhammed Ali, even though no one laid a glove on him till later in his career,look at him now

Have no idea about the situation in in KC, can't/wont excuse the fact that the FB player killed someone, it was a real chicken s*** way out

huntinman
12-02-2012, 08:34 PM
But yet the college student that killed his dad and dads girlfriend with bow and arrow... They barely mention the bow. Then the kid kills himself with a knife, wonder if "he always liked knives?"

JDogger
12-02-2012, 09:11 PM
He Always liked Guns?

So this morning a player in the National Football League killed his girlfriend. Then drove to his stadium and in front of others shot and killed himself. It is a terrible thing. An innocent life taken and a child orphaned. Yet selfish dung heap that I am. Only thing that jumped out at me in the espn news story with the alleged quote from a friend saying he always liked guns. What The Flock? Had he murdered by garrote and then hung himself, would the news organizations have said “He always liked rope”?

And is it me or does it seem like an abnormally high number of pro football players kill themselves.

Your thoughts for discussion please.

Your comments about rope, and garrote seem a little crude my friend. An abnornally high number of veterans kill themselves on a regular basis, football not so much.
Dung between our toes regards, JD
Murder/suicide is not a conservative nor liberal exclusive....

HPL
12-02-2012, 09:52 PM
Your comments about rope, and garrote seem a little crude my friend. An abnornally high number of veterans kill themselves on a regular basis, football not so much.
Dung between our toes regards, JD
Murder/suicide is not a conservative nor liberal exclusive....

If you got the point of Ken's post, I think the rope reference was smack on target, personally.

zeus3925
12-02-2012, 09:59 PM
On-going Ken. Media Talking heads always taking their shots where they can constantly attacking the freedoms of others.

They call it the Liberalism.

If a Conservative doesn't like guns he doesn't buy any.
If a Liberal doesn't like guns he doesn't buy any either but also thinks no one else should have any.

I thought it was odd that some were talking about Honoring him etc. Honoring him? He shot the mother of his only child to death and then shot himself in the head. What exactly do you honor there?
I don't think the media response is Liberalism. It is Urbanism. They don't see that people own guns for purposes other than killing people. They see rural America as a dangerous place filled with Jed Clampets and guns.

MooseGooser
12-02-2012, 10:06 PM
Sunday Night footballs Bob Costas made an editorial Opinion at halftime,,, on our "Gun Culture society"

Ending with something to the effect that If the Gun wasnt available,, both the two parties would be alive..

The day is comming........


Gooser

Ken Bora
12-02-2012, 10:06 PM
Your comments about rope, and garrote seem a little crude my friend....
And domestic violence is so elegant!

Ken Bora
12-02-2012, 10:07 PM
And just now, a moment ago on the Sunday night game halftime show. Cowgirls vs. Beagles. They just said if he had not had a gun he and the Mother of his child would still be alive.
It’s the guns fault.

huntinman
12-02-2012, 10:12 PM
Your comments about rope, and garrote seem a little crude my friend. An abnornally high number of veterans kill themselves on a regular basis, football not so much.
Dung between our toes regards, JD
Murder/suicide is not a conservative nor liberal exclusive....

Speaking of dung...

HPL
12-02-2012, 11:02 PM
And just now, a moment ago on the Sunday night game halftime show. Cowgirls vs. Beagles. They just said if he had not had a gun he and the Mother of his child would still be alive.
It’s the guns fault.


Well, without a gun, there are still lots of choices for a big, strong, football player against a woman. If he could get close enough to put his hands on her, he could kill her. Of course there is always defenestration. There are also lots of choices for suicide. Hanging, jumping, poison, asphyxiation, etc., etc.

MooseGooser
12-02-2012, 11:16 PM
Bob Costas's comment didnt blame the GUN... He blamed the "Gun Culture society"

He figgures,,its the ones in society that believe in the second ammendment.
Again,, an attack on our Culture as Americans.

I think SNF,, and NBC,,, and COSTAS should leave their commentary to the topics they understand most... and that would be jock straps,,, and their contents,,,,,,,


Gooser



Gooser

MooseGooser
12-02-2012, 11:18 PM
We need to, as a society,, do more to "Fix" sick people,, and quit tryin to regulate healthy ones.

Gooser

BonMallari
12-02-2012, 11:29 PM
I don't think the media response is Liberalism. It is Urbanism. They don't see that people own guns for purposes other than killing people. They see rural America as a dangerous place filled with Jed Clampets and guns.


don't forget that we are clinging to our Bibles too.....

road kill
12-03-2012, 06:01 AM
Bob Costas used this tragedy and his bully pulpit/megaphone to spew his secular progressive message.

The gun is not at fault here.

OJ regards.............

zeus3925
12-03-2012, 08:23 AM
We need to, as a society,, do more to "Fix" sick people,, and quit tryin to regulate healthy ones.

Gooser
There you go, Gooser. Here is a CNN commentary in the same vein that did not blame guns.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/opinion/powell-football-manhood-suicide/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

coachmo
12-03-2012, 08:34 AM
I wonder why not much has been said about the Cleveland Browns employee that committed suicide by hanging himself at their practice facility? I realize he did not use a "weapon" but still a tragedy none the less. So to echo Ken Bora's post if rope was not so readily available this individual would still be alive.

jonathon27
12-03-2012, 08:38 AM
Taking guns away from the general public, will only leave a defenseless public, against a well armed criminal element. Criminals are not law abiding citizens!

mjh345
12-03-2012, 08:58 AM
I don't think the media response is Liberalism. It is Urbanism. They don't see that people own guns for purposes other than killing people. They see rural America as a dangerous place filled with Jed Clampets and guns.

I dont care what you call it.
Im sick of supposed 2nd amendment supporters claiming that the 2nd amendment was intended to gaurantee our right to keep guns for deer or quail hunting purposes. To mme that is "politically correct Bullsh*t"
Our 2nd amend rights are guaranteed to us by the founding fathers to ensure that a well armed public could defend themselves from people Overreaching government actors, foreign invaders, violent criminals etc.....not deer or quail.
Lets quit pussyfooting around it. That implicitly would involve using ouir gun rights to kill people

road kill
12-03-2012, 09:10 AM
I dont care what you call it.
Im sick of supposed 2nd amendment supporters claiming that the 2nd amendment was intended to gaurantee our right to keep guns for deer or quail hunting purposes. To mme that is "politically correct Bullsh*t"
Our 2nd amend rights are guaranteed to us by the founding fathers to ensure that a well armed public could defend themselves from people Overreaching government actors, foreign invaders, violent criminals etc.....not deer or quail.
Lets quit pussyfooting around it. That implicitly would involve using ouir gun rights to kill people in defense of person or country.

What he said^^^^^fixed.........the Govt ain't concerned about criminals having guns, they are concerned about people like most of us, who may fight back.:cool:

zeus3925
12-03-2012, 09:24 AM
I dont care what you call it.
Im sick of supposed 2nd amendment supporters claiming that the 2nd amendment was intended to gaurantee our right to keep guns for deer or quail hunting purposes. To mme that is "politically correct Bullsh*t"
Our 2nd amend rights are guaranteed to us by the founding fathers to ensure that a well armed public could defend themselves from people Overreaching government actors, foreign invaders, violent criminals etc.....not deer or quail.
Lets quit pussyfooting around it. That implicitly would involve using our gun rights to kill people

The viewpoint of the Second is a bit more complicated than that. Hunting was a part of that. In the era of the founding of the republic, there was already a century of hostilities between settlers and native people. The founders did not trust a standing army as it might turn into a tool of an oppressive government. But a population without arms would be defenseless without a standing army. After all, there was still a threat of a British invasion, particularly via Canada.

I own several firearms. I use them to hunt, plink and train dogs. While they could be used to defend my domicile, I have no interest in killing people. People that own firearms for the sole purpose of wanting to kill somebody, when the opportunity arises, need help in my estimation. It just fuels the gun phobic people who want to take your and my firearms away.

M&K's Retrievers
12-03-2012, 09:41 AM
Bob Costas's comment didnt blame the GUN... He blamed the "Gun Culture society"

He figgures,,its the ones in society that believe in the second ammendment.
Again,, an attack on our Culture as Americans.

I think SNF,, and NBC,,, and COSTAS should leave their commentary to the topics they understand most... and that would be jock straps,,, and their contents,,,,,,,


Gooser



Gooser

Wonder what Costas is going to say when they find out the cause like maybe steroids or other drugs?

road kill
12-03-2012, 09:47 AM
Wonder what Costas is going to say when they find out the cause like maybe steroids or other drugs?


Chiefs linebacker Belcher struggled with head injuries, alcohol and painkillers before he snapped and killed girlfriend:

By TARA PALMERI and BART HUBBUCH in KANSAS CITY, MO., and LEONARD GREENE in NY
Last Updated: 7:07 AM, December 3, 2012
Posted: 5:32 PM, December 2, 2012
Kansas City Chiefs linebacker and former Long Island high-school star Jovan Belcher was allegedly battling football-related head injuries and booze, painkiller and domestic problems when he snapped and murdered his girlfriend before killing himself in front of two coaches Saturday.

A pal of Belcher’s told the Web site Deadspin.com that Kasandra Perkins, the mother of Belcher’s 3-month-old daughter, had threatened to leave him for good amid fighting between the pair.

The couple had only recently reconciled after Perkins left their rented house in Kansas City with the baby at one point to stay with friends. Perkins had returned, but friends said the relationship was still volatile.

Kansas City Chiefs running back Jovan Belcher (right) battled head injuries, drugs and alcohol before he snapped and killed his girlfriend Michele Perkins (left), friends said.BELCHER'S MOM WILL RAISE ORPHANED BABY ON LI FOLLOWING TRAGEDY

It didn’t help that he was drinking every day and taking painkillers while dealing with the effects of debilitating head injuries, the friend said.

Chiefs chairman Clark Hunt said today that Belcher was "a player who had not had a long concussion history.’’

Belcher, 25, and Perkins, 22, had argued for the last time when she returned home late from a concert Saturday morning. But the Belcher friend said the concert was only a “tipping point.”

“This was the result of a long-term conflict,” the pal said. “She made it clear that she was leaving and would contact a lawyer’’ to fight for custody and child support.

Cops today revealed that Belcher shot Perkins nine times before committing suicide with a different gun. His mother witnessed the slaying; she had been in town to help Perkins with the new baby, sources have said.

Belcher’s mother, Cheryl Shepherd, will now take custody of the couple’s infant daughter and plans to return with the child to the family’s West Babylon home, where her troubled son grew up, his relatives said.

The kin said the baby was in another room when Belcher snapped and unloaded on Perkins.

“[Shepherd’s] taking it as anyone else would've taken it,” said Belcher’s cousin, Eric Oakes, 20, who lives in the mom’s renovated house where Belcher grew up. “She just lost a son. We're all coming together.”

Oakes, wearing a game-warn Chief’s jersey with Belcher’s number 59 on it, said his cousin was his role model.

"[He's] always trying to steer me right. That's the only person I wanted to be like. A role model, basically my father. He's the person who made me play football,” said Oakes, who played running back for West Babylon HS.

In Kansas City, relatives trickled in an out of the home that had become a murder scene.

“I think she was home alone a lot,” said Kristen Van Meter, 31, a neighbor who went to community college with the victim. “He was kind of quiet. he would come and go.”

When he was there, she said, there were lots of parties.



There is always MORE........he is some more.........

HPL
12-03-2012, 11:38 AM
The viewpoint of the Second is a bit more complicated than that. Hunting was a part of that. In the era of the founding of the republic, there was already a century of hostilities between settlers and native people. The founders did not trust a standing army as it might turn into a tool of an oppressive government. But a population without arms would be defenseless without a standing army. After all, there was still a threat of a British invasion, particularly via Canada.



I started a thread the day after the nat elections that dealt in more detail with the question of the 2nd amendment. Here is the link to a pivotal Supreme Court decision (I really recommend reading the whole opinion as it has some great historical references that deal specifically with the defense against govt idea) and some excerpts from that decision.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm....ZO.html#26ref (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html#26ref).

It is a transcript of Justice Scalia's majority opinion in "District of Columbia vs. Heller". It is a long read, and there are many very interesting passages. I would recommend that anyone interested in the thinking behind the primary arguments for the individual right to keep and bear arms take an hour or so to read it. I am sure that I will read it several times to be sure that I understand it, but I have included three short passages that I find quite salient.
HPL

"It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself..........................


...........St. George Tucker’s version of Blackstone’s Commentaries, as we explained above, conceived of the Blackstonian arms right as necessary for self-defense...........................Tucker elaborated on theSecond Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) : “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty … . The right to self-defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine the right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” (emphasis mine, HPL).

In addition, in a shorter 1840 work Story wrote: “One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms,.........................."

HPL
12-03-2012, 11:44 AM
I am sure that many football players are just big pussycats, but the fact is that it is a VIOLENT sport that attracts people that enjoy violent physical contact, can tolerate pain, and don't especially mind inflicting it. Add potential brain damaging effects of that type of contact, and to some degree, it only seems logical that violence may rear up in their lives off the field too.

2tall
12-03-2012, 11:57 AM
Instead of blaming the "gun culture" I think it would be fair to take a hard, hard look at the "professional sports celebrity" culture. In addition to the concerns voiced by HPL, you also have the fan worship, extreme wealth at an early age, and constant public and media exposure. Maybe one time all this stress shows in a Michael Vick fighting dogs and the next time an attack on family and self. Our worship of celebrities, be they athletes or talk show hosts, seems to me to be a bigger danger to our society than inanimate guns. I have yet to see a loaded gun lift itself up out of a safe and seek out and shoot itself at anything.

(got ya wonderin' now, right? 2talls a lib according to POTUS. But she believes it is more than a right, but a solemn duty to maintain weapons in order to protect her own household and family, not to mention all the duck and deer meat that the other half brings home!)

MooseGooser
12-03-2012, 12:33 PM
I believe people should be OUTRAGED that NBC, and SNF, allowed Costas to sprew his political bias at the foot of such a tradgedy.

There is ALWAYS more to these stories. It most often times is a troubled young person not being able to cope with lifes pressures.

We need to help these folk out. Seriously help these people....

Gooser

MooseGooser
12-03-2012, 12:54 PM
Here is the quote of what Costas's rant said:

Costas said:

Writer Jason Whitlock, with whom I do not always agree but today said it so well that we may as well just quote or paraphrase from the end of his article.
Our current gun culture, Whitlock wrote, ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.’
Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it.
In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions and their possible connection to football will be analyzed. Who knows? But here, wrote Jason Whitlock, is what I believe: If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.


If you look at what Stan posted,, I wonder why there wasnt a direct lambasting towards the leauge dealing with injury, and the effects from them.
Clearly the kid was troubled, had drinking problem,, taking way to many pain killers..... But Costas wants to USE THE TRDGEDY,, to drive his political views towards a National audience.. NBC,, And SNF should be ashamed of themselves.... The NFL should be really embarrassed from thes Guys rant during one of their games.... Those games are for entertainment puposes.. I dont give a Flip about Costas's political views..

I am more concerned for the grieving families, and the little one who lost both parents....

Bob Costas insulted everyone involved...A simple request for prayer would have done a lot more good...

The more I watch Football... Its getting to the point where I enjoy it more,,, if I just turn the sound compleatly off,,, and watch the game..


Gooser

zeus3925
12-03-2012, 01:06 PM
The viewpoint of the Second is a bit more complicated than that. Hunting was a part of that. In the era of the founding of the republic, there was already a century of hostilities between settlers and native people. The founders did not trust a standing army, as it might turn into a tool of an oppressive government. But a population without arms would be defenseless without the existence of a standing army. After all, there was still a threat of a British invasion, particularly via Canada.

I own several firearms. I use them to hunt, plink and train dogs. While they could be used to defend my domicile, I have no interest in killing people. People that own firearms for the sole purpose of wanting to kill somebody, when the opportunity arises, need help in my estimation. It just fuels the gun phobic people who want to take your and my firearms away.

Change in language in bold.

shawninthesticks
12-03-2012, 01:22 PM
The cold hard truth is this -If you take the fame out of the equation he's just another thug that shot his babies momma ,then was to scared to go to jail so he wanted his coach to see him shoot himself for some sympathy.

Sick of the media blaming folks who respect, exercise and honor the 2nd amendment. As far as I'm concerned there are to many people in the world anyways. If they want to kill themselves then go right ahead,but dont hold others responsible for having a week mind. The ones that dont understand survival of the fittest are the first to go. Grumpy Monday regards.

Franco
12-03-2012, 01:25 PM
From our on-line Cajun Christmas photos...http://973thedawg.com/galleries/

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/973thedawg.com/files/2012/12/awkward-family-photos-26.jpg

dixidawg
12-03-2012, 01:27 PM
Yikes! Not very good trigger discipline!!

BonMallari
12-03-2012, 02:15 PM
Instead of blaming the "gun culture" I think it would be fair to take a hard, hard look at the "professional sports celebrity" culture. In addition to the concerns voiced by HPL, you also have the fan worship, extreme wealth at an early age, and constant public and media exposure. Maybe one time all this stress shows in a Michael Vick fighting dogs and the next time an attack on family and self. Our worship of celebrities, be they athletes or talk show hosts, seems to me to be a bigger danger to our society than inanimate guns. I have yet to see a loaded gun lift itself up out of a safe and seek out and shoot itself at anything.

(got ya wonderin' now, right? 2talls a lib according to POTUS. But she believes it is more than a right, but a solemn duty to maintain weapons in order to protect her own household and family, not to mention all the duck and deer meat that the other half brings home!)


Good Point....

road kill
12-03-2012, 02:22 PM
Here is the quote of what Costas's rant said:

Costas said:

Writer Jason Whitlock, with whom I do not always agree but today said it so well that we may as well just quote or paraphrase from the end of his article.
Our current gun culture, Whitlock wrote, ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.’
Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it.
In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions and their possible connection to football will be analyzed. Who knows? But here, wrote Jason Whitlock, is what I believe: If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.


If you look at what Stan posted,, I wonder why there wasnt a direct lambasting towards the leauge dealing with injury, and the effects from them.
Clearly the kid was troubled, had drinking problem,, taking way to many pain killers..... But Costas wants to USE THE TRDGEDY,, to drive his political views towards a National audience.. NBC,, And SNF should be ashamed of themselves.... The NFL should be really embarrassed from thes Guys rant during one of their games.... Those games are for entertainment puposes.. I dont give a Flip about Costas's political views..

I am more concerned for the grieving families, and the little one who lost both parents....

Bob Costas insulted everyone involved...A simple request for prayer would have done a lot more good...

The more I watch Football... Its getting to the point where I enjoy it more,,, if I just turn the sound compleatly off,,, and watch the game..


Gooser


Quite frankly, Bob Costas is a TOOL!!!!:cool:

HPL
12-03-2012, 02:44 PM
...... a population without arms would be defenseless without the existence of a standing army. Change in language in bold.

You really need to read Scalia's opinion in the link that I posted above. Part of the reason for bearing arms is to defend against that standing army. Seriously, read Scalia's opinion in its ENTIRETY. Very informative.

HPL

Ken Bora
12-03-2012, 03:00 PM
I believe people should be OUTRAGED that NBC, and SNF, allowed Costas to sprew his political bias at the foot of such a tradgedy.....

Gooser

I was miffed enough to start a potus thread hours afore Costas even wadded in. Just from the espn morning football countdown. he, as I saw the heap a growing and he chose to pile on! He could have spoke it another way. I wonder what if any feedback the league and the network are getting? Even Vermont public radio did a story about the Costas commentary and if liberal ol' them are talking about fox must. I have not had the TV on for a few, have you?

road kill
12-03-2012, 03:58 PM
Like I have previously stated, blaming the gun is like blaming Rosie's fork!!!!:cool:

Brad Turner
12-03-2012, 04:54 PM
I was miffed enough to start a potus thread hours afore Costas even wadded in. Just from the espn morning football countdown. he, as I saw the heap a growing and he chose to pile on! He could have spoke it another way. I wonder what if any feedback the league and the network are getting? Even Vermont public radio did a story about the Costas commentary and if liberal ol' them are talking about fox must. I have not had the TV on for a few, have you?

There was an article today on Foxnews.com about the Costas commentary.

Daniel J Simoens
12-03-2012, 05:42 PM
9 times, he shot her 9 freaking times!

Sue Kiefer
12-03-2012, 05:57 PM
Yes shooting someone 9x is rage.
He was pissed at her .
Then "Holy Crap did I do that?"
Looking for sympathy from his coaches he goes to them and shoots himself. Killing oneself "IS" a selfish act. Did he ever consider his daughter? Or what impression he left on his poor coaches? Good grief!!!!!!!!!
Tradegy all around.
Very sad!!!!!!!!!
Sue

murral stark
12-03-2012, 06:14 PM
I saw a bumper sticker once that said, "If guns kill people; then spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat" that pretty much sums up people trying to blame an inanimate object for someone's actions.

Gerry Clinchy
12-03-2012, 07:40 PM
Has everything come full circle finally?

The city of San Bernardino is broke & can't afford to make its pension payments and has had to lay off police officers. So ... they had to tell their citizens to "lock your doors and load your guns." This must be really painful for liberal California to resort to telling its citizens to protect themselves!




The city attorney of San Bernardino is under scrutiny for telling residents to "lock their doors and load their guns" during a city council meeting, CBS Los Angeles reports (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/11/30/city-attorney-tells-san-bernardino-residents-to-lock-their-doors-load-their-guns-because-of-police-downsizing/).
The official explained that because the city just outside of Los Angeles is bankrupt and slashing public safety budgets, people will need to start protecting themselves.

City Attorney Jim Penman said he doesn't regret what he said.
"You should say what you mean and mean what you say," Penman said.


The city attorney said approximately 150 residents came to a council meeting to voice their concerns about recent crimes in the area, including the murder of an elderly woman last week.

"You could tell the swell of frustration was coming over a lot of folks. They did not feel like they could get an officer out as quickly to some of the quality-of-life issues that they were dealing with as they would have preferred," said Councilwoman Wendy McCommack, who organized the meeting and was present that night.

"Well, if I remember right, I told them to 'lock their doors and load their guns,'" Penman said.

Penman said the city is dealing with bankruptcy, which has forced officials to cut its police force by about 80 officers. Consequently, there's been growing criticism about the police department's response time.

"Let's be honest, we don't have enough police officers. We have too many criminals living in this city. We have had 45 murders this year ... that's far too high for a city of this size," Penman said.

The city attorney said it's important for people to be smart about protecting themselves and their family.

HPL
12-03-2012, 07:45 PM
9 times, he shot her 9 freaking times!

You have to think that if he was THAT mad, she was dead, gun or not.

JDogger
12-03-2012, 08:07 PM
From our on-line Cajun Christmas photos...http://973thedawg.com/galleries/

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/973thedawg.com/files/2012/12/awkward-family-photos-26.jpg

Me and the kids we got some guns our ownselves... JD

jeff evans
12-03-2012, 08:45 PM
Costas is a tool box!!!! He was sighting someone else's words, doesn't even have the balls to say it himself, he hides behind someone else. What happens when a water truck hits a vinegar truck......doooooooouch......

menmon
12-04-2012, 04:48 PM
I will be the first to agree guns don't kill without a person involved. So you have two options, get rid of the person or get rid of the gun. Both options are very difficult, so what do you do then? It's complicated but I'm a firm believer that if the postion of Zero Tolarance for guns is taken we will lose in the end, mainly because too many folks think the way the ESPN announcer does. Maybe not today but in time the votes will win the battle.

Now my position maybe selfish because I want to keep my guns to hunt, and I believe that some concession are going to have to be made to make sure us hunters do not lose that prevledge. Somehow we have to de-couple our hunting guns from guns and I think we have a chance in the end.

kip
12-04-2012, 04:53 PM
thats how the liberial media works. they work slowly but surely in tring to make you feel guilty about what you know is right, you are not selfish.

Uncle Bill
12-04-2012, 05:06 PM
I will be the first to agree guns don't kill without a person involved. So you have two options, get rid of the person or get rid of the gun. Both options are very difficult, so what do you do then? It's complicated but I'm a firm believer that if the postion of Zero Tolarance for guns is taken we will lose in the end, mainly because too many folks think the way the ESPN announcer does. Maybe not today but in time the votes will win the battle.

Now my position maybe selfish because I want to keep my guns to hunt, and I believe that some concession are going to have to be made to make sure us hunters do not lose that prevledge. Somehow we have to de-couple our hunting guns from guns and I think we have a chance in the end.

I would expect no less from a lefty. Why are you people so quick to have our freedoms legislated away?

UB

HPL
12-04-2012, 05:11 PM
I will be the first to agree guns don't kill without a person involved. So you have two options, get rid of the person or get rid of the gun. Both options are very difficult, so what do you do then? It's complicated but I'm a firm believer that if the postion of Zero Tolarance for guns is taken we will lose in the end, mainly because too many folks think the way the ESPN announcer does. Maybe not today but in time the votes will win the battle.

Now my position maybe selfish because I want to keep my guns to hunt, and I believe that some concession are going to have to be made to make sure us hunters do not lose that prevledge. Somehow we have to de-couple our hunting guns from guns and I think we have a chance in the end.


Owning guns is NOT about the right to hunt (hunting is a privilege). Owning guns is about the natural right of self defense (read Scalia's opinion that I linked earlier.) Owning guns is not about helping protect the nation against foreign invaders, it's about the right of the individual to resist the tyranny of the state (again, read Scalia's opinion). These are two CRUCIAL points in any discussion about the right to keep and bear arms.

menmon
12-04-2012, 05:24 PM
Maybe..but my only purpose for a gun is to hunt. If the government turns on me, my guns will lose against theirs so maybe I'm selfish to want to keep my hunting guns at the expense of your protection guns, but the end game is we all lose if we hold our guns....no pun intended

HPL
12-04-2012, 05:59 PM
Everyone seems to say that an armed populace has no power against a standing army, but look at what is going on all across the world where armed rebels are fighting abusive regimes. In many cases, some or even many of the military members realize the corruption in the regime and join with the rebels. On the other hand, Hitler disarmed the populace and then just marched people in to the death camps. If those who hold my position lose, so will those who hold yours.

Ken Bora
12-04-2012, 10:31 PM
......Now my position maybe selfish because I want to keep my guns to hunt, and I believe that some concession are going to have to be made to make sure us hunters do not lose that prevledge. Somehow we have to de-couple our hunting guns from guns and I think we have a chance in the end.





Martin Niemöller (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/article.php?ModuleId=10007391) (1892-1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.
Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

BonMallari
12-04-2012, 10:46 PM
IMO you can't start picking and choosing what guns we can and cant have, with one caveat....the general public does not need a .50cal SMG or something similar...there may come a day when my "hunting" weapon is put on a banned list, just because of the action of the bolt (semi automatic shotgun)...Hope I never see that day

mjh345
12-05-2012, 12:19 AM
I will be the first to agree guns don't kill without a person involved. So you have two options, get rid of the person or get rid of the gun. Both options are very difficult, so what do you do then? It's complicated but I'm a firm believer that if the postion of Zero Tolarance for guns is taken we will lose in the end, mainly because too many folks think the way the ESPN announcer does. Maybe not today but in time the votes will win the battle.

Now my position maybe selfish because I want to keep my guns to hunt, and I believe that some concession are going to have to be made to make sure us hunters do not lose that prevledge. Somehow we have to de-couple our hunting guns from guns and I think we have a chance in the end.

No votes wont win the battle. This isn't a popularity contest. It is a right guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights. As such it cannot be repealed

I really don't care what you or others want their guns for, and it really shouldn't have any effect on my RIGHT to keep guns for reasons in addition to hunting and recreation. You give in to the anti gun lobby with your stance and what is your argument if they say you can keep your hunting weapons at a govt depository and check them in & out for your hunt. That might suit your hunting needs, but it sure doesnt work for those of us who prefer to meet aggressors with decisive deadly force 24/7/365.

The founders intention was clear that we have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of defending ourselves from our own government as well as other aggressors

charly_t
12-05-2012, 01:39 AM
No votes wont win the battle. This isn't a popularity contest. It is a right guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights. As such it cannot be repealed

I really don't care what you or others want their guns for, and it really shouldn't have any effect on my RIGHT to keep guns for reasons in addition to hunting and recreation. You give in to the anti gun lobby with your stance and what is your argument if they say you can keep your hunting weapons at a govt depository and check them in & out for your hunt. That might suit your hunting needs, but it sure doesnt work for those of us who prefer to meet aggressors with decisive deadly force 24/7/365.

The founders intention was clear that we have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of defending ourselves from our own government as well as other aggressors

Good post !

road kill
12-05-2012, 06:16 AM
No votes wont win the battle. This isn't a popularity contest. It is a right guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights. As such it cannot be repealed

I really don't care what you or others want their guns for, and it really shouldn't have any effect on my RIGHT to keep guns for reasons in addition to hunting and recreation. You give in to the anti gun lobby with your stance and what is your argument if they say you can keep your hunting weapons at a govt depository and check them in & out for your hunt. That might suit your hunting needs, but it sure doesnt work for those of us who prefer to meet aggressors with decisive deadly force 24/7/365.

The founders intention was clear that we have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of defending ourselves from our own government as well as other aggressors

It's called "incremental progressivism."

And they win by increments.

BonMallari
12-05-2012, 02:03 PM
Now Costas tries to backtrack his statements and ends up saying that "no on should own a semi automatic weapon"...just goes to show how misinformed the anti gun rhetoric has gotten...they latch onto a catch phrase like semi automatic, assault style, self defense style....my Remington 1100 is semi automatic, my Sig Sauer is designed for self defense, my ex's S&W revolver is potentially as deadly as either one of my guns

menmon
12-05-2012, 02:33 PM
The constitution is always up for interpertation...and it depends on who is interperting it...keep that in mine. My point is I don't want to lose my guns and I want to keep that right. However, I believe that if we hold true to the 2nd amendment guarantees us that right, one day in our lifetime, it will fail us, because we are out numbered by the folks that don't want to have guns.

So if we could de-couple hunting guns from guns in general...I think we have a better chance of keeping those guns in the long run.

Just like you thought Mickey Moose could beat Obama, you saw that he couldn't because the country has moved more to the center.

I'm not a lefty when it comes to guns, what I am is a realist and me personally would give up a gun right to have full right to my hunting rifles.

No need to argue with me...I understand your postion and know that you believe if any rights get taken away you lose the battle. That is one way to look at it, but all I'm saying is that I think that position will lose it for all of us in time.

road kill
12-05-2012, 02:45 PM
The constitution is always up for interpertation...and it depends on who is interperting it...keep that in mine. My point is I don't want to lose my guns and I want to keep that right. However, I believe that if we hold true to the 2nd amendment guarantees us that right, one day in our lifetime, it will fail us, because we are out numbered by the folks that don't want to have guns.

So if we could de-couple hunting guns from guns in general...I think we have a better chance of keeping those guns in the long run.

Just like you thought Mickey Moose could beat Obama, you saw that he couldn't because the country has moved more to the center.

I'm not a lefty when it comes to guns, what I am is a realist and me personally would give up a gun right to have full right to my hunting rifles.

No need to argue with me...I understand your postion and know that you believe if any rights get taken away you lose the battle. That is one way to look at it, but all I'm saying is that I think that position will lose it for all of us in time.
Have you ever read that "pesky document?"

menmon
12-05-2012, 02:52 PM
Yep...kind of like the bible that I've read a few time too. Can be interpreted countless ways and people tend to interpreted both in ways that suit their agendas.

I'm not saying that it did not provide us the right....I'm saying that the people and the world have changed and at some point it will get interpreted they way they want it to be.

shawninthesticks
12-05-2012, 03:02 PM
The constitution is always up for interpertation...and it depends on who is interperting it...keep that in mine. My point is I don't want to lose my guns and I want to keep that right. However, I believe that if we hold true to the 2nd amendment guarantees us that right, one day in our lifetime, it will fail us, because we are out numbered by the folks that don't want to have guns.

So if we could de-couple hunting guns from guns in general...I think we have a better chance of keeping those guns in the long run.

Just like you thought Mickey Moose could beat Obama, you saw that he couldn't because the country has moved more to the center.

I'm not a lefty when it comes to guns, what I am is a realist and me personally would give up a gun right to have full right to my hunting rifles.

No need to argue with me...I understand your postion and know that you believe if any rights get taken away you lose the battle. That is one way to look at it, but all I'm saying is that I think that position will lose it for all of us in time.

The same gun you use to hunt will kill people to. I don't think it is completely about the object of the gun its about the principle. Give an inch and they will take a mile.

I know a few people that aren't hunters/gun owners but that doesn't mean they think I shouldn't have mine.

An AR is a great hunting gun highly accurate,and tuff under extreme hunting conditions (223 or 308 caliber),and it doesn't care who/what you point it at it will kill whenever you pull the trigger,the same as a Remington BDL.

So if I say my deer rifle happens to be an AR ,does that mean it falls under the "hunting gun category" and its fine to own?

Or if my REM BDL is an assault rife I should not be able to posses it?

A semi auto Marlin 22 call is just a couple strokes of a file in the right spot away from becoming a fully auto machine gun,so now we need to turn them in to?

I'll never be convinced that if you give them a couple of your guns they will say "that's all we wanted was a couple of them ,thanks for your help"

It's not a fine line in the gun case -its a big fat line drawn in the sand, I am not a criminal and I have the right to own any firearm I see fit as long as I show responsible actions with it.

road kill
12-05-2012, 03:08 PM
The same gun you use to hunt will kill people to. I don't think it is completely about the object of the gun its about the principle. Give an inch and they will take a mile.

I know a few people that aren't hunters/gun owners but that doesn't mean they think I shouldn't have mine.

An AR is a great hunting gun highly accurate,and tuff under extreme hunting conditions (223 or 308 caliber),and it doesn't care who/what you point it at it will kill whenever you pull the trigger,the same as a Remington BDL.

So if I say my deer rifle happens to be an AR ,does that mean it falls under the "hunting gun category" and its fine to own?

Or if my REM BDL is an assault rife I should not be able to posses it?

A semi auto Marlin 22 call is just a couple strokes of a file in the right spot away from becoming a fully auto machine gun,so now we need to turn them in to?

I'll never be convinced that if you give them a couple of your guns they will say "that's all we wanted was a couple of them ,thanks for your help" They won't, they will get them all!!!

It's not a fine line in the gun case -its a big fat line drawn in the sand, I am not a criminal and I have the right to own any firearm I see fit as long as I show responsible actions with it.

It's called "incremental secular progressivism.":D

menmon
12-05-2012, 03:19 PM
The same gun you use to hunt will kill people to. I don't think it is completely about the object of the gun its about the principle. Give an inch and they will take a mile.

I know a few people that aren't hunters/gun owners but that doesn't mean they think I shouldn't have mine.

An AR is a great hunting gun highly accurate,and tuff under extreme hunting conditions (223 or 308 caliber),and it doesn't care who/what you point it at it will kill whenever you pull the trigger,the same as a Remington BDL.

So if I say my deer rifle happens to be an AR ,does that mean it falls under the "hunting gun category" and its fine to own?

Or if my REM BDL is an assault rife I should not be able to posses it?

A semi auto Marlin 22 call is just a couple strokes of a file in the right spot away from becoming a fully auto machine gun,so now we need to turn them in to?

I'll never be convinced that if you give them a couple of your guns they will say "that's all we wanted was a couple of them ,thanks for your help"

It's not a fine line in the gun case -its a big fat line drawn in the sand, I am not a criminal and I have the right to own any firearm I see fit as long as I show responsible actions with it.

You are looking at it from in the box. Think about if you made the right to have a firearm to hunt very responsible through background checks and education and were percieved as responsible, and wrote it from a high authority...it would be hard for them to unset our guns.

Instead of being cute and having Christmas cards made with children holding assault rifles. So who is the problem the responsible gun owning hunter or the not so bright person letting children handle assault rifles.

Got to de-couple responsible from stupid to keep our guns

coachmo
12-05-2012, 04:19 PM
Menmon, there you go again calling people stupid! Man that is loaded with irony!

Gun_Dog2002
12-05-2012, 04:41 PM
Now folks, its not bob costas fault you heard him rant and rave about gun culture. Its the microphones fault. We should ban microphones...

/Paul

thebigcat
12-05-2012, 04:45 PM
You are looking at it from in the box. Think about if you made the right to have a firearm to hunt very responsible through background checks and education and were percieved as responsible, and wrote it from a high authority...it would be hard for them to unset our guns.

Instead of being cute and having Christmas cards made with children holding assault rifles. So who is the problem the responsible gun owning hunter or the not so bright person letting children handle assault rifles.

Got to de-couple responsible from stupid to keep our guns

Your comment was unncessary and clearly uninformed. For all you know those children may have already passed hunter's safety, are responsible gun handlers and can shoot better than you can. Just because an adolescent is holding a gun in a picture doesn't mean their parents are not-so-bright. Futhermore, including the "assault rifle" terminology in that statement is the same as Costas saying no one should own a "semi-automatic weapon".

thebigcat
12-05-2012, 04:48 PM
Now folks, its not bob costas fault you heard him rant and rave about gun culture. Its the microphones fault. We should ban microphones...

/Paul

I see what you did there... I just read a quote online a little while ago that fits this thread "since every one keeps blaming guns I have been watching my kimber laying on my bed since I cleaned it about 30 mins ago and I think its defective as it has not shot me yet...."

menmon
12-05-2012, 04:52 PM
Your comment was unncessary and clearly uninformed. For all you know those children may have already passed hunter's safety, are responsible gun handlers and can shoot better than you can. Just because an adolescent is holding a gun in a picture doesn't mean their parents are not-so-bright. Futhermore, including the "assault rifle" terminology in that statement is the same as Costas saying no one should own a "semi-automatic weapon".

It doesn't matter if they are or not. Children holding assualt rifles to most americans does not look responsible. Want our guns taken from us...keep thumbing your nose at them with crap like this and we lose.

I'm sorry...stupid is stupid

shawninthesticks
12-05-2012, 04:57 PM
You are looking at it from in the box. Think about if you made the right to have a firearm to hunt very responsible through background checks and education and were percieved as responsible, and wrote it from a high authority...it would be hard for them to unset our guns.

Instead of being cute and having Christmas cards made with children holding assault rifles. So who is the problem the responsible gun owning hunter or the not so bright person letting children handle assault rifles.

Got to de-couple responsible from stupid to keep our guns

Yes I am looking at it from in the box ...box of ammo that is.

I dont know about your states gun laws but all of that is needed now to own a gun in my state and my higher authority is the second amendment.

Yet my brother in law got a DWI several years back and had to use a public defense attorney and ended up with a fellony charge for that and now he can not own a gun or hunt because of a irresponsible driving decision...he was not in a wreck and was on an ATV on a county gravel road.

You'd really hate the pic of my 9 year old shooting my AR "deer rifle" then, but I guess if it was a wooden stock 223 with bolt action it wouldnt be a problem.

Sooo if the Christmas cards where with a kids first deer and they had their bolt action ,would that be acceptable to you?

I see your type as the ones that say if you cant beet em join em. Go ahead give them 2 of your guns and tell them one is mine !

shawninthesticks
12-05-2012, 05:03 PM
It doesn't matter if they are or not. Children holding assualt rifles to most americans does not look responsible. Want our guns taken from us...keep thumbing your nose at them with crap like this and we lose.

I'm sorry...stupid is stupid

Look at the American society you are talking about ,Jersey shore ,16 and pregnant,Rosie O'fatto , Rosanne Candybarr,etc.

Example ... Ted Nuggent ,very extreme yes I agree ,but he has a much needed role in this fight because they have their extremest's and we need them on our side also to trump the Rosanne Barr's for equal balance.

HPL
12-05-2012, 05:06 PM
Now folks, its not bob costas fault you heard him rant and rave about gun culture. Its the microphones fault. We should ban microphones...

/Paul


Now I might actually be able to get behind that!! ;-)

menmon
12-05-2012, 05:08 PM
Ok...keep looking at it through rose colored glasses. But tell me, wouldn't it be smarter just to enjoy our guns and use them as the tool they were designed for without making mockery with them? Oh no...I used a $5 word. Just think about it....enjoy your guns and keep it to yourself....I'm sure their is a mom at the your children's school that would be very alarmed to hear that your young children or handling firearms especially assault rifles.

When I lived in NJ....I found out that one my sons friends could not come to my house because we had guns in the house, albeit they were in a safe. So encouraging the bragging of shouting assault rifles with children gets parents nervous.

Kind of like our dog trials...we don't push them on the folks that view the useless killing of ducks. So out of sight out of mind and no one complains. But if we did, it would just be a matter of time and we would be using the rubber ducks like in Canada

thebigcat
12-05-2012, 05:10 PM
It doesn't matter if they are or not. Children holding assualt rifles to most americans does not look responsible. Want our guns taken from us...keep thumbing your nose at them with crap like this and we lose.

I'm sorry...stupid is stupid

I think you meant to say ignorance is bliss. You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

HPL
12-05-2012, 05:26 PM
You are looking at it from in the box. Think about if you made the right to have a firearm to hunt very responsible through background checks and education and were percieved as responsible, and wrote it from a high authority...it would be hard for them to unset our guns.

Instead of being cute and having Christmas cards made with children holding assault rifles. So who is the problem the responsible gun owning hunter or the not so bright person letting children handle assault rifles.

Got to de-couple responsible from stupid to keep our guns

Man, I have a REAL problem with that idea. First and foremost, it means that owning a firearm is no longer a "right" tied to every human's creator endowed right to self defense, but rather, a "privilege" granted to individual citizens by the government. This is no small point and if responsible gun owners, such as we would like to believe that you are don't get that, we really are in trouble (For Christ's Sake, read Scalia's opinion at the link I provided earlier!!). It also means that the Gov't would need to know exactly what firearms were in my possession, and that's none of their business. It would also necessitate the creation and staffing of ANOTHER regulatory agency (and regulatory agency have a tendency to get bigger, more powerful, and more intrusive pretty quickly). I think that your point in the first paragraph is really wrong headed and very dangerous.

That being said, I completely agree with the second point. That photo, which is perfectly OK (except I don't like the fact that it appears that all have fingers inside the trigger guards) within some sections of the sporting population, could easily be used pretty convincingly against gun owners by the shrill elements of the anti gun faction. Once on the web, everybody can see it and use it for their own purposes. I hesitate to use words like stupid (you see I didn't use any in my first paragraph), but this photo seems ill advised and perhaps a bit naive to me.

shawninthesticks
12-05-2012, 05:29 PM
But its not out of sight out of mind ,when a NFL thug makes national news for killing his babies momma,then the heat is put right back on responsible gun owners.


By no means am I the type to parade my guns around ,but I will also not look the other way as extremists try to take them.

The only thing that gun assaulted was a piece of paper,it inflicked the same damage as your so-called hunting rifle.

If the NJ parents where not so mis-informed about you as a gun owner maybe the kid could have came over ,but instead people like you choose to keep quite about how guns and responsibility go hand and hand.

Canada uses rubber ducks because they gave into goverment ruling long before the duck issue...see how this cycle works ...give an inch and they will take a mile.

Franco
12-05-2012, 05:31 PM
Should we ban banjos?;-)

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/s480x480/261536_10200128464801124_944261713_n.jpg

Brad Turner
12-05-2012, 05:39 PM
Should we ban banjos?;-)

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/s480x480/261536_10200128464801124_944261713_n.jpg

You don't ban banjos, you just have to check in with the government every time you pick one up to play it:cool:

BTW, I read the Salia opinion. Quite informative.

BonMallari
12-05-2012, 05:47 PM
Should we ban banjos?;-)

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/s480x480/261536_10200128464801124_944261713_n.jpg


You don't ban banjos, you just have to check in with the government every time you pick one up to play it:cool:


If you are in Southern Georgia and you hear them you better paddle faster

huntinman
12-05-2012, 06:29 PM
It doesn't matter if they are or not. Children holding assualt rifles to most americans does not look responsible. Want our guns taken from us...keep thumbing your nose at them with crap like this and we lose.

I'm sorry...stupid is stupid


Do tell:rolleyes:

huntinman
12-05-2012, 06:34 PM
Ok...keep looking at it through rose colored glasses. But tell me, wouldn't it be smarter just to enjoy our guns and use them as the tool they were designed for without making mockery with them? Oh no...I used a $5 word.

No... That's just a $2 word. Good try though.

coachmo
12-05-2012, 06:54 PM
I have read menmom's post several times and I can't seem to find any $5.00 words maybe $1.50 words at best. What am I missing?

JDogger
12-05-2012, 06:56 PM
No... That's just a $2 word. Good try though.

Sorry Mike. However Bill, mockery is part of the lexicon of PP and as such, is not a $2 word as well. It's just what we do here.
Will America and the internet be the death of the English language?

Sorry for the lousy grammar...JD

PS Maybe a writing student can hold our toes to the flame?

Banjo's?

Death by piccolo?

I'll have to re-consider my list of alternative murder weapons. Didn't someone write about piccolo's? Where did they come from? A giant wok in southern Italy where flutes are boiled in oil to produce piccolo's, half-sized flutes.
A Mediterranean flute fry....?

JD

Franco
12-05-2012, 08:06 PM
The same people that want to take away your guns rights is the same crowd that wants to take away your right to hunt! They are one and the same and shouldn't be appeased.

As HPL mentioned, the main reason is in defending ourselves from a treasonist government. That is becoming more of a reality everyday. The government class has become the privliged class as we now work for them and they not for us.

WE are only free when the government fears the people. Give up our arms and we are slaves!

HPL
12-05-2012, 08:33 PM
The same people that want to take away your guns rights is the same crowd that wants to take away your right to hunt! They are one and the same and shouldn't be appeased.

As HPL mentioned, the main reason is in defending ourselves from a treasonist government. That is becoming more of a reality everyday. The government class has become the privliged class as we now work for them and they not for us.

WE are only free when the government fears the people. Give up our arms and we are slaves!

A reasonable paraphrase of Justice Scalia'a point.

JDogger
12-05-2012, 08:50 PM
Just a question. We want to maintain our rights to resist an oppressive government. What good will our AR'S do when you can be targeted by your IP address provided by your post on PP by a predator drone?

Just askin...JD

M&K's Retrievers
12-05-2012, 08:52 PM
Just a question. We want to maintain our rights to resist an oppressive government. What good will our AR'S do when you can be targeted by your IP address provided by your post on PP by a predator drone?

Just askin...JD

There you go, Hugh. Spoiling the fun.

JDogger
12-05-2012, 09:05 PM
There you go, Hugh. Spoiling the fun.

I killed a goose last year with a bolt action Montgomery-Ward 20 GA. with a bent barrel. Just took a little more lead, ya know....JD

M&K's Retrievers
12-05-2012, 09:45 PM
I killed a goose last year with a bolt action Montgomery-Ward 20 GA. with a bent barrel. Just took a little more lead, ya know....JD

That would depend on if they were flying right to left or left to right. :p

HPL
12-05-2012, 10:21 PM
Just a question. We want to maintain our rights to resist an oppressive government. What good will our AR'S do when you can be targeted by your IP address provided by your post on PP by a predator drone?

Just askin...JD

My point here has been from the beginning that after reading justice Scalia's majority opinion, I think that I have a better historical perspective on the origins of the second amendment and why the founders believed it necessary. After reading that opinion in its entirety, it became pretty clear that the founders feared the power of government and felt that free men should have the ability to defend themselves even against a tyrannical government. I don't personally think that our current government is tyrannical, nor would I ever want to be in the position of taking up arms in that way, but the point is that Scalia feels that the right of self defense is a "human" right, not something that a legitimate government can take away. The problem with not making the argument is that one then is basically saying that self defense is NOT a right, and it is reasonable for the citizenry to allow the government to remove one's means of self defense. It seems to me that the argument that Justice Scalia was making was that a defenseless citizenry invites a tyrannical government.

dixidawg
12-05-2012, 10:44 PM
The constitution is always up for interpertation...and it depends on who is interperting it...keep that in mine. My point is I don't want to lose my guns and I want to keep that right. However, I believe that if we hold true to the 2nd amendment guarantees us that right, one day in our lifetime, it will fail us, because we are out numbered by the folks that don't want to have guns.

So if we could de-couple hunting guns from guns in general...I think we have a better chance of keeping those guns in the long run.

Just like you thought Mickey Moose could beat Obama, you saw that he couldn't because the country has moved more to the center.

I'm not a lefty when it comes to guns, what I am is a realist and me personally would give up a gun right to have full right to my hunting rifles.

No need to argue with me...I understand your postion and know that you believe if any rights get taken away you lose the battle. That is one way to look at it, but all I'm saying is that I think that position will lose it for all of us in time.

Good God man, you have NO clue what the second amendment stands for. Thinking like this is precisely what will lead to it's demise. PLEASE read Scalia's opinion. Then read it again. And again until you start to understand it.

charly_t
12-05-2012, 10:57 PM
Now folks, its not bob costas fault you heard him rant and rave about gun culture. Its the microphones fault. We should ban microphones...

/Paul

That's it exactly. If something is harmful or can be used to cause harm etc. lets get rid of it.

JDogger
12-05-2012, 11:25 PM
That would depend on if they were flying right to left or left to right. :p

As I recall he flew directly at me for a while, then he began to veer to the right. Probably what made him an easy target
for a left centered gun. Metaphorically speaking of course...He will be tasty however. JD

mjh345
12-06-2012, 12:08 AM
Ok...keep looking at it through rose colored glasses. But tell me, wouldn't it be smarter just to enjoy our guns and use them as the tool they were designed for without making mockery with them? Oh no...I used a $5 word. Just think about it....enjoy your guns and keep it to yourself....I'm sure their is a mom at the your children's school that would be very alarmed to hear that your young children or handling firearms especially assault rifles.

When I lived in NJ....I found out that one my sons friends could not come to my house because we had guns in the house, albeit they were in a safe. So encouraging the bragging of shouting assault rifles with children gets parents nervous.

Kind of like our dog trials...we don't push them on the folks that view the useless killing of ducks. So out of sight out of mind and no one complains. But if we did, it would just be a matter of time and we would be using the rubber ducks like in Canada

Mike, if your NJ friends wouldn't let their kids come to your house because you were a banker would you have quit your job?
As hpl has pointed out numerous times read Scalias opinion
Better yet read some of the writings of the founding fathers on their intent and meaning of the 2nd A

As for your analogy on FTs Id prefer that we not hide from the antis. They dont have to hide their hobbies from me so why should I hide mine from them. Hiding kind of gives off an air of your ashamed of what youre doing; or that what youre doing is inherently wrong. Additionally Canada doesnt use rubber ducks they use real ducks: they just dont have flyers.
Most importantly about your analogy is that the US Constitution guarantees me the right to keep guns so why in the hell should I hide the fact that I am exercising that right

HPL
12-06-2012, 09:25 AM
Mike, if your NJ friends wouldn't let their kids come to your house because you were a banker would you have quit your job?
As hpl has pointed out numerous times read Scalias opinion
Better yet read some of the writings of the founding fathers on their intent and meaning of the 2nd A

As for your analogy on FTs Id prefer that we not hide from the antis. They dont have to hide their hobbies from me so why should I hide mine from them. Hiding kind of gives off an air of your ashamed of what youre doing; or that what youre doing is inherently wrong. Additionally Canada doesnt use rubber ducks they use real ducks: they just dont have flyers.
Most importantly about your analogy is that the US Constitution guarantees me the right to keep guns so why in the hell should I hide the fact that I am exercising that right

I know that I keep harping on Justice Scalia's opinion, but it actually made some points that I hadn't really considered before. Foremost among these was that the government doesn't "GIVE" me the right to keep arms. That right is seen as a "human" right tied to the "God given" right of self defense. That might seem a small distinction, but, any right the government "gives" one, the government can easily take away. The Bill of Rights was instituted to a great extent to force the government to acknowledge in writing that its power over the citizenry was limited, and to affirm that certain human rights actually do exist. That seems to me to be a VERY important point.

dixidawg
12-06-2012, 09:33 AM
The McDonald ruling also has some fascinating reading:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

I particularly liked this by Scalia:

Stevens wrote a dissent, and then Scalia bitch slapped him with this as a going away present:

".....And the Court’s approach intrudes less upon the democratic process because the rights it acknowledges are those established by a constitutional history formed by democratic decisions; and the rights it fails to acknowledge are left to be democratically adopted or rejected by the people, with the assurance that their decision is not subject to judicial revision. JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach, on the other hand, deprives the people of that power, since whatever the Constitution and laws may say, the list of protected rights will be whatever courts wish it to be. After all, he notes, the people have been wrong before, post, at 55, and courts may conclude they are wrong in the future. JUSTICE STEVENS abhors a system in which “majorities or powerful interest groups always get their way,” post, at 56, but replaces it with a system in which unelected and life tenured judges always get their way. That such usurpation is effected unabashedly, see post, at 53—with “the judge’s cards . . . laid on the table,” ibid.—makes it even worse. In a vibrant democracy, usurpation should have to be accomplished in the dark. It is JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach, not the Court’s, that puts democracy in peril."...

cripes
12-06-2012, 10:59 AM
I know that I keep harping on Justice Scalia's opinion, but it actually made some points that I hadn't really considered before. Foremost among these was that the government doesn't "GIVE" me the right to keep arms. That right is seen as a "human" right tied to the "God given" right of self defense. That might seem a small distinction, but, any right the government "gives" one, the government can easily take away. The Bill of Rights was instituted to a great extent to force the government to acknowledge in writing that its power over the citizenry was limited, and to affirm that certain human rights actually do exist. That seems to me to be a VERY important point.



Could it be that this is why there's such a concerted push to get God out of our daily lives? If no God, then no God given rights. I think our guns will be taken from us by taxation. How about a safety tax of $1,000 per gun to start?

BonMallari
12-06-2012, 11:40 AM
Could it be that this is why there's such a concerted push to get God out of our daily lives? If no God, then no God given rights. I think our guns will be taken from us by taxation. How about a safety tax of $1,000 per gun to start?

First the gov't would have to prove that I have them....My guess is that they will either tax ammo out of existence or make ammo a hazardous material due to its lead content and either tax it and make it very difficult to obtain

MooseGooser
12-06-2012, 01:41 PM
First the gov't would have to prove that I have them....My guess is that they will either tax ammo out of existence or make ammo a hazardous material due to its lead content and either tax it and make it very difficult to obtain


I have posted this before.

Already in the works Mr.Mallari

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Mags/oas-treaty.htm

Remember they think Baby steps....

road kill
12-06-2012, 01:45 PM
I have posted this before.

Already in the works Mr.Mallari

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Mags/oas-treaty.htm

Remember they think Baby steps ....

Is that anything like increments????:cool:

starjack
12-06-2012, 02:50 PM
The constitution is always up for interpertation...and it depends on who is interperting it...keep that in mine. My point is I don't want to lose my guns and I want to keep that right. However, I believe that if we hold true to the 2nd amendment guarantees us that right, one day in our lifetime, it will fail us, because we are out numbered by the folks that don't want to have guns.

So if we could de-couple hunting guns from guns in general...I think we have a better chance of keeping those guns in the long run.

Just like you thought Mickey Moose could beat Obama, you saw that he couldn't because the country has moved more to the center.

I'm not a lefty when it comes to guns, what I am is a realist and me personally would give up a gun right to have full right to my hunting rifles.

No need to argue with me...I understand your postion and know that you believe if any rights get taken away you lose the battle. That is one way to look at it, but all I'm saying is that I think that position will lose it for all of us in time.Do you even read what you write. You know you just cant fix it.

Franco
12-06-2012, 03:17 PM
Could it be that this is why there's such a concerted push to get God out of our daily lives? If no God, then no God given rights. I think our guns will be taken from us by taxation. How about a safety tax of $1,000 per gun to start?

I've read it a couple of times and don't remember God being anywhere in The Constitution or Bill Of Rights. However, there is a reference to The Blessings Of Liberty in the Bill Of Rights.
.

menmon
12-06-2012, 03:35 PM
Everyone of you have stated "responsible gun owners" and I'm sure all of you are. The problem is that irresponsible gun owners will cost us our guns.

Someone said I did not educate the women with the kid, but I told her they were in a safe but maybe I needed to show her. Anyway, there are too many folks out there that don't like guns and eventually our small minority will not win the battle. Stick by our guns and lose or get smarter and extend our responsibility. I clearly get it why these folks that don't hunt dislike guns.

All through the election you guys told me there was no way Obama would win. I told you that he would and the women vote will be the reason. Had Rush, Akin, Murrdock and the rest of you defending their positions and just not spoke your mine, Romney may have pulled it off.

So don't believe me now and stick to your guns and lose for all of us, or create a more responsible gun owner class and we get to have guns for reponsible reasons.

Gun_Dog2002
12-06-2012, 03:46 PM
Everyone of you have stated "responsible gun owners" and I'm sure all of you are. The problem is that irresponsible gun owners will cost us our guns.

Someone said I did not educate the women with the kid, but I told her they were in a safe but maybe I needed to show her. Anyway, there are too many folks out there that don't like guns and eventually our small minority will not win the battle. Stick by our guns and lose or get smarter and extend our responsibility. I clearly get it why these folks that don't hunt dislike guns.

All through the election you guys told me there was no way Obama would win. I told you that he would and the women vote will be the reason. Had Rush, Akin, Murrdock and the rest of you defending their positions and just not spoke your mine, Romney may have pulled it off.

So don't believe me now and stick to your guns and lose for all of us, or create a more responsible gun owner class and we get to have guns for reponsible reasons.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/05/5033844/chicago-anti-gun-pols-arrest-shows.html

Here is a classic example of the anti-gun crowd. They want guns taken away from everyone but them. Also, perhaps you should read this...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2012/08/23/what-the-left-wont-tell-you-about-the-boom-in-u-s-gun-sales/

/Paul

menmon
12-06-2012, 03:53 PM
I know what they want...just like you want every yahoo to be able to own one. Step to the plate as the responsible one with a plan and win.

cripes
12-06-2012, 05:58 PM
I've read it a couple of times and don't remember God being anywhere in The Constitution or Bill Of Rights. However, there is a reference to The Blessings Of Liberty in the Bill Of Rights.
.

Off the top of my head........We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness.............I remember this from one of those papers. I think it was in the preamble to one of them.

HPL
12-06-2012, 06:20 PM
Off the top of my head........We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness.............I remember this from one of those papers. I think it was in the preamble to one of them.

Unfortunately that's from the Declaration of Independence, however, it does indicate that the framers believed that men have been endowed, by a creator, with certain inalienable rights.

dixidawg
12-09-2012, 10:14 PM
I missed the Sunday Night Football halftime show tonight. Is it safe to assume that Bob Costas did a rant about how a football player would be alive if not for the alcohol culture??????????

Dan Storts
12-09-2012, 10:39 PM
Nothing relating to prohibition. There were to many drinking at Lambo Field. thus, could have started a riot. This may would have stepped on his free speech rights.

Ken Bora
12-10-2012, 08:51 AM
I missed the Sunday Night Football halftime show tonight. Is it safe to assume that Bob Costas did a rant about how a football player would be alive if not for the alcohol culture??????????


he chatted with the lean, bald coach who is a common tater now. sits with the group of 3 that talks about the game. his name is on the tip of my brain. anyway just about how to more better coach those guys to not drive impaired as the league has in place a ride system for all players. all they had to do was make a phone call. nothing like the week before, but he did bring it up, starting with "in the last two weeks......"

Uncle Bill
12-12-2012, 04:58 PM
The "Nudge" always sez it better than most. UB

Nugent: Bob Costas is dead wrongBy: Ted Nugent (http://www.humanevents.com/author/ted-nugent/)



As you read this, know that by the time you finish, somewhere in America a fellow citizen will use a gun to stop a crime and save a life.

Opining on the Kansas City Chief football player who murdered his girlfriend and then blew out his own brains in front of his coach, the otherwise great sports announcer, Bob Costas, blamed the murder-suicide on easy access to guns (http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-bob-costas-jovan-belcher-20121203,0,6138532.story). He lives in a strange fairyland of ignorance and denial.

If there were a free speech penalty for blundering ignorance, a penalty flag would have been tossed at Mr. Costas.

http://www.humanevents.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/120504-ted-nugent.jpeg (http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/09/nugent-bob-costas-is-dead-wrong/120504-ted-nugent/) Ted Nugent


Just as we shouldn’t blame forks for obesity, pencils for spelling mistakes or water for drowning, trying to blame access to guns for the murder-suicide in Kansas City is chainsaw-juggling, woodchipper-diving bizzaro logic.

That’s how horribly out of touch with reality liberals like Mr. Costas are. Unless backed into a corner where there is no other choice but to admit that an individual is responsible for his or her actions, liberals will refuse to place the blame on the shoulders of the individual who actually committed the crime. In this case, Mr. Costas blamed access to guns for the deaths, not the murdering, suicidal maniac.

Therein lies one of the fundamental problems with America. We have created a culture of rot where excuse-making punks have been conditioned to blame anything and everything on something other than the perpetrator. Apparently, Mr. Costas is one of them.
The ugly reality is that in a free society, there will be those few zombies who fly off the rails of personal responsibility and murder others. But arguing to ban guns to prevent these uncontrollable ugly acts of irresponsibility when 99.9 percent of gun owners are responsible people is no way to run a free and just society. Serious-minded people grounded in reality understand this most basic truism.

What Mr. Costas didn’t say and possibly doesn’t know is that 2 million Americans use guns each year to defend themselves from punks and thugs. Access to guns saves an incalculable number of lives each year. How about that, Mr. Costas?

Just a few years ago, a drunk NFL football player ran over a guy and killed him. As I recall, the player paid off the family of the deceased and only did 30 days in the slammer. Where was Mr. Costas on this? Did he opine that easy access to alcohol and automobiles was responsible for this death? To those liberals who want to restrict or ban access to guns, do you also support banning booze because drunks kill roughly 12,000 Americans each year in drinking-and-driving slaughters?

Reality is much different than liberal fairyland pseudologic. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans who are the source of zero problems. There are also a few guns in the hands of irresponsible, often paroled gangland punks, who commit various crimes, including murder. I would much rather deal with that than further muzzle and restrict freedom.
My recommendation is to not trust any fuzzy-headed goofball who would deny another person the right to defend himself or the fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Should an individual such as Bob Costas choose to be unarmed and defenseless, that’s his choice, but we must not allow his limousine-liberal views to become center-stage.

We have more than enough gun laws in America. Another law or restriction would not have prevented the Kansas City Chief murderer from killing his girlfriend or himself. That’s the ugly reality that Mr. Costas obviously refuses to embrace.

Freedom rocks. Let’s keep it that way.

murral stark
12-13-2012, 12:30 AM
The "Nudge" always sez it better than most. UB

Nugent: Bob Costas is dead wrongBy: Ted Nugent (http://www.humanevents.com/author/ted-nugent/)



As you read this, know that by the time you finish, somewhere in America a fellow citizen will use a gun to stop a crime and save a life.

Opining on the Kansas City Chief football player who murdered his girlfriend and then blew out his own brains in front of his coach, the otherwise great sports announcer, Bob Costas, blamed the murder-suicide on easy access to guns (http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-bob-costas-jovan-belcher-20121203,0,6138532.story). He lives in a strange fairyland of ignorance and denial.

If there were a free speech penalty for blundering ignorance, a penalty flag would have been tossed at Mr. Costas.

http://www.humanevents.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/120504-ted-nugent.jpeg (http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/09/nugent-bob-costas-is-dead-wrong/120504-ted-nugent/) Ted Nugent


Just as we shouldn’t blame forks for obesity, pencils for spelling mistakes or water for drowning, trying to blame access to guns for the murder-suicide in Kansas City is chainsaw-juggling, woodchipper-diving bizzaro logic.

That’s how horribly out of touch with reality liberals like Mr. Costas are. Unless backed into a corner where there is no other choice but to admit that an individual is responsible for his or her actions, liberals will refuse to place the blame on the shoulders of the individual who actually committed the crime. In this case, Mr. Costas blamed access to guns for the deaths, not the murdering, suicidal maniac.

Therein lies one of the fundamental problems with America. We have created a culture of rot where excuse-making punks have been conditioned to blame anything and everything on something other than the perpetrator. Apparently, Mr. Costas is one of them.
The ugly reality is that in a free society, there will be those few zombies who fly off the rails of personal responsibility and murder others. But arguing to ban guns to prevent these uncontrollable ugly acts of irresponsibility when 99.9 percent of gun owners are responsible people is no way to run a free and just society. Serious-minded people grounded in reality understand this most basic truism.

What Mr. Costas didn’t say and possibly doesn’t know is that 2 million Americans use guns each year to defend themselves from punks and thugs. Access to guns saves an incalculable number of lives each year. How about that, Mr. Costas?

Just a few years ago, a drunk NFL football player ran over a guy and killed him. As I recall, the player paid off the family of the deceased and only did 30 days in the slammer. Where was Mr. Costas on this? Did he opine that easy access to alcohol and automobiles was responsible for this death? To those liberals who want to restrict or ban access to guns, do you also support banning booze because drunks kill roughly 12,000 Americans each year in drinking-and-driving slaughters?

Reality is much different than liberal fairyland pseudologic. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans who are the source of zero problems. There are also a few guns in the hands of irresponsible, often paroled gangland punks, who commit various crimes, including murder. I would much rather deal with that than further muzzle and restrict freedom.
My recommendation is to not trust any fuzzy-headed goofball who would deny another person the right to defend himself or the fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Should an individual such as Bob Costas choose to be unarmed and defenseless, that’s his choice, but we must not allow his limousine-liberal views to become center-stage.

We have more than enough gun laws in America. Another law or restriction would not have prevented the Kansas City Chief murderer from killing his girlfriend or himself. That’s the ugly reality that Mr. Costas obviously refuses to embrace.

Freedom rocks. Let’s keep it that way.

I've always been a Ted Nugent fan.