Good for the Sandy Hook families!

Vlad wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I want to know the chances of both so that I know how to respond to your question.

What are the chances of a hot wife killing 20 elementary school children and then what are the chances an AR-15 will kill 20 elementary school children?

I already said you won dude! There is no way in hell that rapidfire weapons could be used to kill innocent people in crowded places. Not in this country. Not in this day and age. Nope.

You've made your point already.

Death Roe wrote:That's honestly why most people buy it. I have sold a few hundred of them over the years.

xsanguine wrote:

Vlad wrote:

I already said you won dude!  There is no way in hell that rapidfire weapons could be used to kill innocent people in crowded places.  Not in this country. Not in this day and age. Nope.

You've made your point already.

That's not what you asked me nor is it what I asked you.

What are the chances of both happening?

I know why you refuse to answer... you were game to go back and forth up until this point. But I'd love for you to humor me and answer the question you asked me and then the question I posed to you.

Vlad wrote:

Death Roe wrote:That's honestly why most people buy it. I have sold a few hundred of them over the years.

So you make money off sad little people who buy fancy weapons to shoot them in a shooting range. Good for you. There are plenty of suckers with money out there, and you're profiting off of them. Good for you man! Seriously.

Vlad wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

That's not what you asked me nor is it what I asked you.

What are the chances of both happening?

I know why you refuse to answer... you were game to go back and forth up until this point. But I'd love for you to humor me and answer the question you asked me and then the question I posed to you.

I don't even know where you're going with this, but I admit defeat. Your intellect is no match for me.

BTW, are you one of those sad little people who buys rapidfire weapons only to use them in a shooting range and nowhere else?

xsanguine wrote:

Vlad wrote:

I don't even know where you're going with this, but I admit defeat. Your intellect is no match for me.

BTW, are you one of those sad little people who buys rapidfire weapons only to use them in a shooting range and nowhere else?

Nah, I've never owned a firearm. :(

I've considered it. Wouldn't be a bad thing to have in your home should even a local incident occur where you're on your own. But they're a little expensive so I'm thinking something a little more along the lines of a handgun or rifle.

After speaking with some more experienced gun owners in my family (uncles) I'm probably going to take their advice and join the local gun/shooting club that's near my house and wait to buy one until I know exactly what I want in a firearm after shooting several different kinds. If that's how it works, I dunno... maybe you have to buy one before going, I haven't actually gotten to apply yet but that seems to be the consensus.

Were you actually interested or were you just trying to find a way to insult me (which fell flat)?

xsanguine wrote:

Vlad wrote:

That's it?? That's the reason they want to buy such weapons, so they can "mess around" at a shooting range? That's lamer than even I imagined. That's actually pretty pathetic.

So there isn't going to be any big bang-bang, pow-wow stuff with Obama? This is all about blowing off steam at your local shooting range? What a waste of a perfectly good killing machine!

They also come in handy should the government ever decide to commit tyranny against the citizenry. Which is the original intent of the 2nd amendment and also a plausible possibility if you've taken even a casual interest in the history of governments.

I'm not a big Constitutionalist, I'm against the initiation of violence through and through. But it's important to point out.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

They also come in handy should the government ever decide to commit tyranny against the citizenry. Which is the original intent of the 2nd amendment and also a plausible possibility if you've taken even a casual interest in the history of governments.

I'm not a big Constitutionalist, I'm against the initiation of violence through and through. But it's important to point out.

Issue 1)

We need guns to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government

Issue 2)

Let's spend billions upon billions more dollars than the already astronomical amounts we spend building up the military even further.

Sorry, trying to reconcile those two points together. Though, I'm smart enough to know that anyone that adheres to either parties platforms strictly is going to be someone that is dripping of hypocrisy so badly that anyone within 20 feet needs a shower.

xsanguine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Issue 1)

We need guns to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government

Issue 2)

Let's spend billions upon billions more dollars than the already astronomical amounts we spend building up the military even further.

Sorry, trying to reconcile those two points together. Though, I'm smart enough to know that anyone that adheres to either parties platforms strictly is going to be someone that is dripping of hypocrisy so badly that anyone within 20 feet needs a shower.

Issue 2 rests strictly with the government. I've talked about that issue ad nauseam.

Unless you're suggesting I support issue 2?

I guess I should ask for clarification before making my usual mistake of trying to answer beforehand.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Issue 2 rests strictly with the government. I've talked about that issue ad nauseam.

Unless you're suggesting I support issue 2?

I guess I should ask for clarification before making my usual mistake of trying to answer beforehand.

I'm not talking about you. You're a special thing. I'm just talking about the general republican platform and it's hypocrisy. Not that that's that much different from the democrats.

I guess what I mean is that most of the people who claim that they need a gun in case the government goes all whacko on them isn't actually that concerned about the government going whacko on them. It's just a convenient excuse.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Issue 2 rests strictly with the government. I've talked about that issue ad nauseam.

Unless you're suggesting I support issue 2?

I guess I should ask for clarification before making my usual mistake of trying to answer beforehand.

I'm not talking about you. You're a special thing. I'm just talking about the general republican platform and it's hypocrisy. Not that that's that much different from the democrats.

I guess what I mean is that most of the people who claim that they need a gun in case the government goes all whacko on them isn't actually that concerned about the government going whacko on them. It's just a convenient excuse.

Edit- since they actively campaign on a platform to spend more money on the military, thereby making it easier for the government to go all whacko on them. Just in case that point wasn't clear.

xsanguine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I'm not talking about you. You're a special thing. I'm just talking about the general republican platform and it's hypocrisy. Not that that's that much different from the democrats.

I guess what I mean is that most of the people who claim that they need a gun in case the government goes all whacko on them isn't actually that concerned about the government going whacko on them. It's just a convenient excuse.

Edit- since they actively campaign on a platform to spend more money on the military, thereby making it easier for the government to go all whacko on them. Just in case that point wasn't clear.

Just say the edit. Yeah, I understand better. I agree. Military spending should be slashed at a rate I'm not informed enough to speculate on but I just from the little I know (specifically with regards to offensive wars) I would venture to guess we could decrease our military spending by a considerable amount and still be nearly as secure. Maybe more so.

xsanguine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I'm not talking about you. You're a special thing. I'm just talking about the general republican platform and it's hypocrisy. Not that that's that much different from the democrats.

I guess what I mean is that most of the people who claim that they need a gun in case the government goes all whacko on them isn't actually that concerned about the government going whacko on them. It's just a convenient excuse.

Edit- since they actively campaign on a platform to spend more money on the military, thereby making it easier for the government to go all whacko on them. Just in case that point wasn't clear.

Just say the edit. Yeah, I understand better. I agree. Military spending should be slashed at a rate I'm not informed enough to speculate on but I just from the little I know (specifically with regards to offensive wars) I would venture to guess we could decrease our military spending by a considerable amount and still be nearly as secure. Maybe more so.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Just say the edit. Yeah, I understand better. I agree. Military spending should be slashed at a rate I'm not informed enough to speculate on but I just from the little I know (specifically with regards to offensive wars) I would venture to guess we could decrease our military spending by a considerable amount and still be nearly as secure. Maybe more so.

Yeah, I guess it just doesn't make sense to me for someone to say o one hand that they neeeeeed guns to protect themselves from the government the on the other hand say that they need to shovel billions of dollars at the military. End of the day is that the truth is that the tyrannical government excuse is total bullshit. For most. Not all. Most though. These are the people that would probably support the military taking over their streets over some paranoid fear that doesn't really exist.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Just say the edit. Yeah, I understand better. I agree. Military spending should be slashed at a rate I'm not informed enough to speculate on but I just from the little I know (specifically with regards to offensive wars) I would venture to guess we could decrease our military spending by a considerable amount and still be nearly as secure. Maybe more so.

Yeah, I guess it just doesn't make sense to me for someone to say o one hand that they neeeeeed guns to protect themselves from the government the on the other hand say that they need to shovel billions of dollars at the military. End of the day is that the truth is that the tyrannical government excuse is total bullshit. For most. Not all. Most though. These are the people that would probably support the military taking over their streets over some paranoid fear that doesn't really exist.

CORNER BLITZ wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Just say the edit. Yeah, I understand better. I agree. Military spending should be slashed at a rate I'm not informed enough to speculate on but I just from the little I know (specifically with regards to offensive wars) I would venture to guess we could decrease our military spending by a considerable amount and still be nearly as secure. Maybe more so.

Vlad wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Yeah, I guess it just doesn't make sense to me for someone to say o one hand that they neeeeeed guns to protect themselves from the government the on the other hand say that they need to shovel billions of dollars at the military. End of the day is that the truth is that the tyrannical government excuse is total bullshit. For most. Not all. Most though. These are the people that would probably support the military taking over their streets over some paranoid fear that doesn't really exist.

Agree. Trusting your government with military spending, fight all foreign threats etc., but then not trusting them when it comes to invading your own homes… Those two thoughts just don't reconcile. Which means the government tyranny line is bullshit.

And that leaves tough little men in shooting ranges. Pretty sad.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Just say the edit. Yeah, I understand better. I agree. Military spending should be slashed at a rate I'm not informed enough to speculate on but I just from the little I know (specifically with regards to offensive wars) I would venture to guess we could decrease our military spending by a considerable amount and still be nearly as secure. Maybe more so.

Yeah, I guess it just doesn't make sense to me for someone to say o one hand that they neeeeeed guns to protect themselves from the government the on the other hand say that they need to shovel billions of dollars at the military. End of the day is that the truth is that the tyrannical government excuse is total bullshit. For most. Not all. Most though. These are the people that would probably support the military taking over their streets over some paranoid fear that doesn't really exist.

xsanguine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Yeah, I guess it just doesn't make sense to me for someone to say o one hand that they neeeeeed guns to protect themselves from the government the on the other hand say that they need to shovel billions of dollars at the military. End of the day is that the truth is that the tyrannical government excuse is total bullshit. For most. Not all. Most though. These are the people that would probably support the military taking over their streets over some paranoid fear that doesn't really exist.

I got curious thinking this over... if the government tyranny claim is just an excuse to hide their true desires... what are those desires?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I got curious thinking this over... if the government tyranny claim is just an excuse to hide their true desires... what are those desires?

To have guns.

Edit- note. I don't feel like we're talking about super geniuses here.

xsanguine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

To have guns.

Edit- note. I don't feel like we're talking about super geniuses here.

Is that wrong, though? I mean, there has to be some reason they want to have guns. If it's not to have guns out of a fear of government tyranny like some state but it is to have guns... what is the other reason they want to have guns?

I see it kind of like with the medical marijuana thing. There's a lot of people pushing the medicinal benefits of marijuana simply so they can smoke marijuana. There are certainly people who benefit, medically, from the gift of cannabis... but I'd venture to guess most people just want to smoke weed. And that's fine, they should be allowed to do that it's just that was the only way they could get people to listen and get them on their side in order to get there. I'm fine with that.

Vlad wrote:So far, these have been mentioned as possible reasons to own rapid-fire guns:
1. Obama is comin' to get 'em.
2. Family gun-fun day at the local shooting range.
3. Because rapid-fire guns pose no greater danger than having a hot wife or a nice job.
4. Just because. See 2nd Amendment.

All solid reasons.

Vlad wrote:So far, these have been mentioned as possible reasons to own rapid-fire guns:

2. Family gun-fun day at the local shooting range.

DWags wrote:

Vlad wrote:So far, these have been mentioned as possible reasons to own rapid-fire guns:

2. Family gun-fun day at the local shooting range.

This was a nice family outing. I bet they still talk about it at the dinner table.

Vlad wrote:

Death Roe wrote:

It's not about having guns. I own a .410 and a 9mm pistol, but hardly use them, just for home defense/standard shooting at the range.

Your post was very ignorant. The gun itself didn't make the decision to shoot the children, which is still horrible. The person who shot them is the one that pulled the trigger, and that's what matters. I understand suing the company out of frustration, but this case will not go anywhere. It's not like the manual said to kill people.

I did background checks for people who wanted those Bushmasters post-Sandy Hook, people were just scared that Obama would make a rash decision and get them banned. He tried, but it didn't work, not surprisingly.

So guns don't kill people but people kill people? Is that what you're telling me? Interesting, I've never heard that before.

So boil it all down for me. Why does a common citizen need an AR15 type of weapon? A short, simple answer please, addressing need, not want, not your Constitutional rights...Just tell me why a common citizen needs this type of weapon?

We both know why, don't we? Yes, we do.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Just say the edit. Yeah, I understand better. I agree. Military spending should be slashed at a rate I'm not informed enough to speculate on but I just from the little I know (specifically with regards to offensive wars) I would venture to guess we could decrease our military spending by a considerable amount and still be nearly as secure. Maybe more so.

Yeah, I guess it just doesn't make sense to me for someone to say o one hand that they neeeeeed guns to protect themselves from the government the on the other hand say that they need to shovel billions of dollars at the military. End of the day is that the truth is that the tyrannical government excuse is total bullshit. For most. Not all. Most though. These are the people that would probably support the military taking over their streets over some paranoid fear that doesn't really exist.

The_Dude wrote:

Vlad wrote:

So guns don't kill people but people kill people? Is that what you're telling me? Interesting, I've never heard that before.

So boil it all down for me. Why does a common citizen need an AR15 type of weapon? A short, simple answer please, addressing need, not want, not your Constitutional rights...Just tell me why a common citizen needs this type of weapon?

We both know why, don't we? Yes, we do.

You've fallen for the mythical boogeyman.

Guns are here forever and your limp wristed crying won't change that.

DWags wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Yeah, I guess it just doesn't make sense to me for someone to say o one hand that they neeeeeed guns to protect themselves from the government the on the other hand say that they need to shovel billions of dollars at the military. End of the day is that the truth is that the tyrannical government excuse is total bullshit. For most. Not all. Most though. These are the people that would probably support the military taking over their streets over some paranoid fear that doesn't really exist.

the fuck is wrong with you "n" key?

But I do think it's not that easy to cut defense spending. I wish we could just shift money to roads or schools, but to just cut and shift, would definitely cause a problem with private sector jobs in our country. It's not as simple as just saying this is enough, we're going to cut it.

There could be massive disruptions to employment in a lot of states. I'm not saying I'm not for it, but I"d like to see the plan and how it can effect the private sector. We tend to think that, heck it's the gubmet money, just stop spending it. We don't think about the snowball effect on an economy it could have.

DWags wrote:

The_Dude wrote:

You've fallen for the mythical boogeyman.

Guns are here forever and your limp wristed crying won't change that.

A billion percent agree with this, and I really have always thought you were a fucking moron. Still do, but there is no way you can just pass a law and think guns stop reaching the hands of those who will do harm. I't not possible. We have laws against the making selling ingesting of cocaine, heroin and weed. You guys have any problems getting those? That horse has left the barn and it's not gonna be corralled.

We need to stop privatizing mental health. It's become a public problem in a huge way. We need to somehow shift money, reopen mental health clinics that have been shut down for hears now, somehow make meds cheap enough for people to stay on them and not complain about paying our share of taxes to help people so maybe we won't be harmed.

More public mental health will not end the shooting, but it could stop one or two that have taken place.

The_Dude wrote:

DWags wrote:

A billion percent agree with this, and I really have always thought you were a fucking moron. Still do, but there is no way you can just pass a law and think guns stop reaching the hands of those who will do harm. I't not possible. We have laws against the making selling ingesting of cocaine, heroin and weed. You guys have any problems getting those? That horse has left the barn and it's not gonna be corralled.

We need to stop privatizing mental health. It's become a public problem in a huge way. We need to somehow shift money, reopen mental health clinics that have been shut down for hears now, somehow make meds cheap enough for people to stay on them and not complain about paying our share of taxes to help people so maybe we won't be harmed.

More public mental health will not end the shooting, but it could stop one or two that have taken place.

Good job Dwags...you realize the root of the cause which are people being fucked up.

And...people like Vlad would want to disarm everyone so that ONLY the bad guys have guns...yeah, right.

Im all for mandatory background checks and more investment in mental health. However, once again...none of that would have prevented this guy from getting a gun. He already passed multiple background checks for his jobs he had.

We have too many people that feel stuck and like they can't ever get ahead in this country. Ferguson, Baltimore...not about race or the police. Its about large portions of our population that feel they have no future and nothing to lose...like they are utterly hopeless so they lash out.

The_Dude wrote:

DWags wrote:

A billion percent agree with this, and I really have always thought you were a fucking moron. Still do, but there is no way you can just pass a law and think guns stop reaching the hands of those who will do harm. I't not possible. We have laws against the making selling ingesting of cocaine, heroin and weed. You guys have any problems getting those? That horse has left the barn and it's not gonna be corralled.

We need to stop privatizing mental health. It's become a public problem in a huge way. We need to somehow shift money, reopen mental health clinics that have been shut down for hears now, somehow make meds cheap enough for people to stay on them and not complain about paying our share of taxes to help people so maybe we won't be harmed.

More public mental health will not end the shooting, but it could stop one or two that have taken place.

Good job Dwags...you realize the root of the cause which are people being fucked up.

And...people like Vlad would want to disarm everyone so that ONLY the bad guys have guns...yeah, right.

Im all for mandatory background checks and more investment in mental health. However, once again...none of that would have prevented this guy from getting a gun. He already passed multiple background checks for his jobs he had.

We have too many people that feel stuck and like they can't ever get ahead in this country. Ferguson, Baltimore...not about race or the police. Its about large portions of our population that feel they have no future and nothing to lose...like they are utterly hopeless so they lash out.

DWags wrote:

The_Dude wrote:

Good job Dwags...you realize the root of the cause which are people being fucked up.

And...people like Vlad would want to disarm everyone so that ONLY the bad guys have guns...yeah, right.

Im all for mandatory background checks and more investment in mental health. However, once again...none of that would have prevented this guy from getting a gun. He already passed multiple background checks for his jobs he had.

We have too many people that feel stuck and like they can't ever get ahead in this country. Ferguson, Baltimore...not about race or the police. Its about large portions of our population that feel they have no future and nothing to lose...like they are utterly hopeless so they lash out.

It's just such a bull shit cop out statement when we hear "none of that would have prevented this guy from ..........."

No flue shot will prevent everybody from getting the flue. No knee brace prevents offensive linemen from ripping out their knee. Nothing does, nothing ever will.

It's not a magic panacea we seek, it's enough help that we can perhaps stop one of these. and here is the bottom line that we will never be able to prove. How many people have been able to get the mental help they need so we didn't have a mass shooting? We will never know that, so we can't point to it and say "look, it helped in this circumstance". However, I'm willing to bet there has been some private sector psychologists who were able to prevent a horrible act from occuring because the potential perp was able to afford and get mental health or meds.

The more times we use the line, "None of that would have helped in this case" the more people just say, fuck it, we can't fix it.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

The_Dude wrote:

Good job Dwags...you realize the root of the cause which are people being fucked up.

And...people like Vlad would want to disarm everyone so that ONLY the bad guys have guns...yeah, right.

Im all for mandatory background checks and more investment in mental health. However, once again...none of that would have prevented this guy from getting a gun. He already passed multiple background checks for his jobs he had.

We have too many people that feel stuck and like they can't ever get ahead in this country. Ferguson, Baltimore...not about race or the police. Its about large portions of our population that feel they have no future and nothing to lose...like they are utterly hopeless so they lash out.

I agree that black people are the problem.

The_Dude wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I agree that black people are the problem.

I'll agree to disagree with you...I don't think blacks are the problem.

Now, we can start another thread about how the Democratic party has eroded the black family structure that has lead to the decay of black culture..