| Author | Message | ||
     Greatlaker |
Sure Sifo we can both go. Maybe we can start a new board together some place where you can explain the difference to me about arms and guns. Because you seem to think thats a big freaking deal. Just imagine a new board Sifo. Where we can pretend to be interested in motorcycles but talk about politics and democrats all day long. Oh joy!!! | ||
| Aesquire |
I'm not neo-con. I'm an old-fashioned liberal. Also not Christian, but I respect the concept of God given rights. Sifo & I sometimes get going with each other on subjects we deeply disagree on. Don't recall any insults that hurt my feelings or threats. I may have insulted him. I don't do pm's so it was someone else. I do my apologies in public. Did so the other day on a different thread. | ||
| Greatlaker |
Listen guys. This has been a lot of fun but I have to step out of the house for a few hours with the kids. Can we please take a break on this thread until I get back. I don't won't to lose what we have going here. I will be back at a computer about six hours from now so please don't post too much stuff without me being able to reply. Thanks | ||
| Hootowl |
"Doesn't seem very Christian to me but if you say so." The US Constitution says so. You'll note that it doesn't say "the Christian God", it says "their creator". You can interpret that how you wish, but know that every word was agonized over. It says what it says because a lot of people argued about it for a long time. The idea that God, or "the creator" gave us the right to have a gun is a bit silly. What the 2nd amendment protects is the right, the God (or creator) given right, to protect ourselves and live free of tyranny. In the modern world, including the 18th century, that means having a gun, so that's what they put in the document. Witness what has historically happened when people were denied the ability to protect themselves from those in power. The Founders had just lived through a period of such tyranny, and did not want a repeat. | ||
| Sifo |
I may have insulted him. Not that I'm aware of. | ||
| Sifo |
Aesquire does force me to think though. I don't see him producing stupid arguments, just some that I disagree with. I certainly have no cause to call him a liar. | ||
| Sifo |
Sure Sifo we can both go. Like I said, if asked to leave, I'll oblige. You? | ||
| Gregtonn |
This has been an amusing distraction while I'm repacking some bulk 5.56 NATO "green tips". 25 of them fit perfectly into the little plastic Pixie boxes you can buy in the WalMart business supply section. Don't know if I'd want my kids to be alone with Greatlaker but then some people have different standards. G | ||
| Aesquire |
Obama had a mass murdering anarcho-communist for a babysitter. It's simple. The people that want to disarm the peasants are either pro-slavery, authoritarians, or fools who believe them. That's why folk with a clue on history react badly to anti-civil rights legislation. In comparable size cities the ones that violate our civil rights have more violent crime. | ||
| Sifo |
So I've been trying to figure out, if it wasn't me that the Greatloser threatened in PMs, and it wasn't Aesquire, who was it? How many has he threatened on the interwebs that he can't keep it straight? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Fat Bastard. Any sane person in Canada can own a gun. It's not like the United States bill of rights is unique in granting that freedom. As a matter of fact the second amendment to your constitution is based on english common law and the English Bill of Rights which preceded the second amendment by about 100 years. Even that jew hating SOB, Rocket, knows that. Not quite. In Canada, you can only own a gun BY PERMIT and each weapon must be registered. This makes gun ownership a privilege granted to you at government's whim. In America, gun ownership is a fundamental right codified within the Bill of Rights protected from the whims of government. See the difference? If government determines to limit the issuance of permits, make permits prohibitively expensive, or chooses to eliminate permits altogether, you can no longer purchase a firearm. If government determines that a class of weapons is prohibited, there is a record of each and every firearm to allow for easier seizures. You don't have the right to own a firearm. I do. Only a Canadian would think those similar. | ||
| Rick_a |
Oohh...burn! Where we are becoming similar to other countries is in the way our federal government works to impose it's will instead of work for its constituents. | ||
| Torquehd |
  Memes. Stupid name. Still more productive than arguing on the internet. Especially when you're the minority trying to convince a board of highly intelligent, opinionated, patriotic men with more combined life experience than the man sitting in the oval office. Several of whom have even had first hand experience with firearms in life-or-death situations, and are probably more qualified to speak on the subject than someone who gets paid to say silly things. This guy probably doesn't even believe half of what he's saying (which is why his arguments don't hold water), he's simply getting paid to make people laugh. | ||
| Sifo |
Greatloser, Perhaps this will help you understand your dilemma in the gun debate. Every now and then there is a guitar thread that develops here. It so happens that a close friend of mine is one of the best guitar tuners in the region. His happy clients is a who's who list of rock-n-roll. I've hung around his shop watching him do all kinds of repairs. I've actually got a pretty good understanding of the mechanics of how a guitar is built. Here's the thing though. I don't play guitar. I don't play any musical instrument other than the stereo. This leaves me very ignorant of what is important to a guitar player. There's that word again... "ignorant". That's the one that pissed you off enough that you threatened me with physical violence. So when these guitar threads pop up, despite what I do know about guitars, I don't jump in with what I know. This is because of my ignorance of what is being discussed. That would be the knowledge that is important to a guitar player. If I were to jump into those threads, my ignorance would be quickly recognized, and I wouldn't be welcome spreading my ignorance. Continuing to press my ignorant views on others will lead to my getting a smack down. That's why I just choose to passively read the guitar threads. I trust this all makes sense to you. Now when it comes to guns, gun rights in the US, and the US Constitution, you have shown yourself to be ignorant. Yet, for some inexplicable reason, you insist that we take your views seriously. That's just not going to happen when you've already demonstrated such a level of ignorance on these subjects. Continuing to try to force your ignorant opinions rises to stupidity. It would be equally stupid for me to be voicing my opinions on what pickups are best for a particular style of music that you want to play. There's a reason I don't do that. | ||
| Sifo |
BTW, regarding the video, I watched the first few seconds. I was just curious how long before he would have the facts wrong. He claims the Port Arthur massacre was the worst ever, that has never been "beaten". Let me mention the massacre of about 150 people on a German airliner. No guns necessary. Gun free zones do that for you. | ||
| Reindog |
Has greatloser been banned? I haven't uttered a single "d'oh!" today so I am guessing he won't be threatening "teeth polishing" around here no more. He has reached Troll status with me and I plan on ignoring him. Good replies, Sifo. I would not have been so kind with that paranoid jerk. | ||
| Pwnzor |
I think it's funny that the guy who wants to go around punching people wants to make sure that his intended targets don't have a gun. | ||
| Balloyd66 |
I read Glenn Beck's book, "Control: Exposing the Truth about Guns", a couple weeks ago. It's an easy read, written so even those with substandard reasoning abilities can understand the facts. Check it out if you get the chance. | ||
| Greatlaker |
Greatloser seems a little inappropriate don't you think Reindog. I posted a comedic video. I asked a few questions. I'm not sure why all the abuse is coming my way. No one here likes humour about American gun culture obviously. I had words with Sifo quite a while ago and I certainly put that behind me. Sifo seems to dwell on that incident. I believe the recent spate of insults and name calling is beyond what is tolerable on BadWeb is it not? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Tazer deemed not protected by Second Amendment Why is it that the ONLY provision of the Constitution to which Progressives apply Strict Constructionist/Original Intent assessments is the Second Amendment. The Internet wasn't in use during the drafting of the First Amendment, so I guess there is no such thing as protected speech that isn't produced with a quill pen or 18th century printing press. Mormonism also didn't exist when the First Amendment was enacted. I guess freedom of religion isn't protected for LDS folks. Automobiles didn't exist, so I guess they aren't protected by the Fourth Amendment. | ||
| Rick_a |
Logic does not apply to liberal "progressives." Only convenient idealist schemes. | ||
| Sifo |
Greatloser, you may (though probably not) have noticed that I didn't call you Greatloser until you started with calling Ft_bstrd "Fat Bastard". You make yourself out to be a thin skinned pussy. That may be close to the truth. Why would I put a physical threat behind me? A smart person doesn't do that unless they see sincere evidence that it was nothing more than a heat of the moment thing. In your case, you chose to double down with more threats, along with an attempt to insult me by going after my current vocation. There has never been a hint of apology. Go fock yourself. If you want to say something, address the points I addressed to you about your insinuation that our founding fathers were ignorant about the movement of technology, or the actual wording of the second amendment. These are the points I made to you in my first post that you have never made the slightest attempt to address, yet continue with your ignorant crap. Until then, go fock yourself. | ||
| Reindog |
Don't feed the thin-skinned Troll. | ||
| Sifo |
Yeah, I'm done. | ||
| Aesquire |
re: technology. The American Revolution had the first use in combat of breech loading rifles. ( I think, any earlier use? ) Battle of King's Mountain, 1780. The American Pennsylvania long rifle, ( now known as the Kentucky long rifle ) was the Barrett of it's day, slower firing than the British Brown Bess smooth bore, but much more accurate at long range. Jefferson ( the inventor ) & Washington ( the soldier ), at least, were well aware of the path of invention and the fact that the weapons of the day would be improved, perhaps beyond recognition. As noted above, it's "Arms" not "guns". Swords, slings, bows. all part of the mix, and still are to this day. I understand why the current U.S. Army doesn't train with sling staffs, but there were units that did, since you can throw a grenade much farther with one. Still can, but the M-203 takes much less training. As the Hoplophobia Propaganda machine churns on, with invented terms like "Assault Weapon" ( meaning, anything I want to call a scary name ) and the insinuation that "This Is NEW and we MUST Stop This Unholy Progress!" I repeatedly remind people that the semi-automatic weapon is over a century old, and so are all the scary name bullets and technologies. Only lasers are new. Even the black plastic grips that frightens idiots and the gullible is just an improved polymer over the ones sold by Sam Colt's company well over a century ago. Even the use of light alloy frames is at least that old. So, for a century this was the normal thing, and suddenly it's new and dangerous? No. Just some people are dishonest and ignorant, and far too many repeat lies told them as facts with no clue they are wrong. and the people telling the lies know full well they are, and don't care. Because their motives are the same as the Southern Democrat Slave owners, and the Emperors of China. An armed slave is not a slave long. It's that simple, and some of us refuse to let lies go unchallenged. | ||
| Torquehd |
So-called "Progressive" doctrine must perpetuate the assault weapons myth in order to disarm the populace. They must also perpetuate racism in order to harvest minority votes. That being said, this should trouble their doctrine:  | ||
| Gregtonn |
The double entendre is priceless. G | ||
| Rick_a |
That's why I've got this friendlier rifle. • No conspicuously protruding pistol grip (Say that five times fast. The thumbhole style stock is considered a "loophole" in some states and may be a "ban" feature) • No flash hider (that's a muzzle break. It's louder and makes flames. Obviously safer.) • Wood and laminate stocks instead of that scary black plastic • Ten round magazine (stops mass shootings at "gun free" target zones doncha know? No high capacity banana assault clip here!) • No bayonet lug (sharp and pointy things can hurt people. Ouch!) Look at how it can sit there loaded and not spontaneously start shootin' folks. Remarkable.  "Gun Control" is a sham. Say what you will, but all the legislation affecting regular folks and the millions and billions spent implementing the stuff has proven to have no measurable affect on violent crime and leaves those folks without that choice. In most states concealed carry is a growing movement and most gun owners are weary of the government trying to ban certain guns due to cosmetic features which are only used in something like 1% of crimes. I almost said responsible. The entire idea of blaming objects and not people is ludicrous. It's like singling out certain types of alcoholic beverages and blaming them for drunk driving. One of the biggest supporters of such shenanigans banned soft drinks of larger sizes. Come on, now! | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Ultimately, the last 20 yards of implementation of the Progressive utopia MUST be prosecuted by force. There is no way to obtain "equality" as long as individuals have free will. Citizen owned weapons threaten the use of force increasing the risk of failure of implementation. A frontal approach to rid the citizenry of their weapons would fail. Instead, a strategy of bottlenecking is easier to implement. Create draconian ownership restrictions in the states you can control. Impose restrictions on financial access to businesses you don't approve of (See gun shops, ammo manufacturers, arms manufacturers, etc.), eliminate the last remaining domestic production plant for lead, impose restrictions on imports of weapons under the guise of trade embargoes, attempt to make even basic ammunition illegal, and then use EVERY shooting as a referendum on guns in the court of public opinion with wall to wall coverage. The goal is to cause the citizenry to voluntarily give up their weapons. | ||
| Rick_a |
Absolutely. In many countries that's exactly what happened. That will be quite unlikely in this one. As much as they want to misrepresent history, guns have had a huge influence on America. |
