Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to patsfaninpa420's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What really saddens/frustrates me about the whole 2nd amendment issue here is actually over events that happen in China. You see, guns are banned in China and if you pay attention to the news they have been dealing with mass stabbings on a fairly regular basis. In effort to deal with this the Chinese government has decided to address this issue, not by banning all things that are pointy, but by identifying and addressing the causes of the incidents in the first place.

         The mothereffing Chinese have more logic and sense when confronting these situations than we do, what the hell does that say about the direction our society is taking? Meanwhile over here it's always the gun's fault and you have guys like Jason Whitlock spewing this utter garbage- "You know, I did not go as far as I'd like to go because my thoughts on the NRA and America's gun culture ” I believe the NRA is the new KKK. And that the arming of so many black youths, uh, and loading up our community with drugs, and then just having an open shooting gallery, is the work of people who obviously don'™t have our best interests [at heart]."  Of course it's the NRA's fault the black youths are turning their neighborhoods into shooting galleries. It certainly has nothing to do with the culture that their segment of society glorifies and perpetuates.

       

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Ooo! Oooo! I want to answer this!

    I believe the answer to the Chinese conumdrum is that they have lived for years and generations under Communist rule. The overwhelming majoirity of Chinese are poor and uneducated in anything by communist doctrine and philosophy. They were living in fear for their lives if they crossed any line that the State drew in the concrete. No idiocy like "I was raised very poor, so killing that man for his chicken wasn't my fault". Most crimes were punished by harsh sentences, served to the max. None of this "good behavior" mentallity. But, we're a more open society, and refrain from doing this, as it's one of the reasons why this country was founded.

    English law provided for circumstantial evidence to be preswented in favor of the accused to possibly mitigate the penalty if convicted. Things like self defense, there was no other way out of a situation, other people's lives were at risk. Then, the case was decided on the facts. Now, we get psycho mumbo jumbo, with "excuses" presented and litigated well beyond these reasoonable defenses. In the 1700's, no way would a farmer be let off lightly for running down and killing a fellow farmer because the kids in the back of the wagon were acting up, or if he was trying to write a letter to his best buddy while driving the team of horses or the ox. There very little, if any personal responsibility for actions out there. It's NEVER their fault.

    Sure, we could do as the Chinese do, and it COULD eventually happen. But, at the same time, we chide muslim Shuria (sp) Law for being so drastic. These systems are extreme, and the US is tucked somewhere in the middle. But, there ought to be a Happy Medium someplace in between.

    The NRA/KKK comparison is a perfect example of "it's niot their fault!" by blaming someone/something else, never mind using the race card. Look at Belcher..... raised by a single parent, bullied kids in school, had "social behavior" issues in school, and made it in the NFL. The guy had serious issues, but none of which would have precluded him from buying a gun, as he was never convicted of anything. (Sorry, libbies; the laws says you MUST be convicted of a crime, not indicted for, accused of, or rumored to have committed a crime.) We have stats and certified/verifiable/non-challenged numbers as to the rise of kids being born in minority communities to single parents, and being raised that way. Let's all agree that education, or the distinct lack thereof, perpetuates and exaserbates this problem. With no nurturing father figure around, kids turn to the streets. And folks still wonder what's wrong. No wonder the music they listen to (the story of their streets) is what it is! (BTW, before the whining starts, the birthrate of kids being born into single parent familes for whites is also going up.) Do we severely punish these kids for a whole lifetimwe? No. IF caught using or having a gun during the crime, 10 years is more than reasonable for them to reflect on their personal responsibility and the choices they made.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Military men are taught not to engage without intelligence about the enemy's weapons and whereabouts. Civilians think their gun makes such intelligence meaningless.

    [/QUOTE]

    So the military wouldn't engage in the case of an ambush where they obviously do not know anything about an enemy's disposition, since it's, you know, an ambush!!!

    That's basically what a homeowner would be facing from an intruder. An ambush.

    [/QUOTE]

    An ambush??? LOL, not many burglars break into your house and start spraying machine gun fire at the bedrooms! They're usually just looking to steal shi!t without waking up you and the whole dang neighborhood.

    But the decision tree in a combat ambush is dependent upon the situation at hand. If the aggressor is indeed firing at you, you have no choice but to fire back. Now, if your communications and escape routes are cut off, and the enemy has the clear upper hand in terms of terrain, manpower and firepower, and (with a conventional enemy, not a terrorist network) has demonstrated the discipline to hold fire and take prisoners...the decision to lay down arms may be the best choice. Nothing heroic about getting a unit killed in a demonstrably unwinnable fight.

    Of course, trying to compare the decision matrix of a professional military officer with hundreds of hours of training and experience in such situations, versus an overweight suburban slob in an Ambien/two-scotch/three-ayem fog, trying to figure out which end of the gun to stick the bullets in...is not exactly apples to apples.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Got it, the burglar population of the world consists of a bunch of highly trained military professionals who have the presence of mind to use their military training against civilians.  And all of the civilians are people with no military background so burglaries will result in a slaughter by the burglar. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Come on, Shenanigan, you're smarter than that, and I did not imply anything of the sort.

    The salient points I have sought to make are:

    1) The average homeowner is not prepared to deal with a hostile intruder in their home.

    2) Owning a gun gives the average homeowner a greater sense of security; still, the homeowner knows zero about the intruder.

    3) The intruder has the complete upper hand from the get-go. He may have acquired info on the homeowner.  He may have more firepower. He may have a couple of armed partners breaking in with him. Even if the intruder is a complete putz, he still gets to choose the time to strike, a major advantage, especially if the average homeowner had been sound asleep.

    4) Shooting a human being for the first time is (mentally) hard, even for many trained soldiers.

    5) Shooting a human being can be physically hard to do, especially if you've never done it before. Targets at the range stand still, and don't shoot back at you. People move, and do shoot back at you.

    6) Even if you are a competent, trained weapons owner, the risk of harm that can happen to other members of your family (when you are away) by keeping a gun in your home is statistically far, far greater than the risk of your suffering significant injury or death from a home intrusion.

    7) In spite of points 1-6, I'm still in favor of a citizen's right to own a gun. But I also believe that average homeowners should think twice before doing so, especially if they have children in the home.

    8) I realize others will disagree with me. It's a free country.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    1) The average homeowner is not prepared to deal with a hostile intruder in their home.

    Who is your average homeowner? Where is this average home? I profess to you that an average homeowner in a non-libbie state will know exaxctly what to do shiould some unannounced intruder make an unwelcomed or unarranged visit to said hoiuse.

    2) Owning a gun gives the average homeowner a greater sense of security; still, the homeowner knows zero about the intruder.

    This is the best one..... Oh? Should the homeowner schedule a Meet And Greet with all potential home intruders first? All most "average" homeowners need to know about said intruder, and the ONLY thing they need to know, nd the one undeniable fact that even an anti-gun libbie can't argue with, is that said target isn't supposed to be inside the home in the first place. 

    3) The intruder has the complete upper hand from the get-go. He may have acquired info on the homeowner.  He may have more firepower. He may have a couple of armed partners breaking in with him. Even if the intruder is a complete putz, he still gets to choose the time to strike, a major advantage, especially if the average homeowner had been sound asleep.

    And it gets better.... I thinkyou've been watching too many movies. If you ant to have an arguement, stick to facts. Most home inturders are looking for stuff they can immediately use or sell, like cash, drugs, jewelry, GUNS, and home electronics. Why bring a gun to a home intrusion? This is proof that the intruder intended to cause bodily harm or danger to the occupants. This "point" tells me that you condone the use of arms in hime intrusions, as long as the perp oroperly researched and cased the place beforehand. I can see it now: "But, your honor, my client can't be charged with attempted murder because the victim wasn't supposed to be home at that time!" Or, better yet, "Your honor, my client, even while entering into the domicile unannounced or uninvited, didn't think the victim owned a gun of a larger caliber that the one he possessed at teh time of the intrusion!" I'm sure that even yiu can get this point. 

    4) Shooting a human being for the first time is (mentally) hard, even for many trained soldiers.

    Just about the only reasosnable thing you've written.

    5) Shooting a human being can be physically hard to do, especially if you've never done it before. Targets at the range stand still, and don't shoot back at you. People move, and do shoot back at you.

    And your point? Does the last part of your comment also pertain to the hime intruder? Or, is he a well trained marksman, ex-SEAL or Special Forces? How come you onky give the intruder credit for possessiong and using a gun? Seems to me that the AVERAGE intruder hasn't got a clue as to what he could be potentially walking into, and I like it that way

    6) Even if you are a competent, trained weapons owner, the risk of harm that can happen to other members of your family (when you are away) by keeping a gun in your home is statistically far, far greater than the risk of your suffering significant injury or death from a home intrusion.

    Well, DUH! Did this factoid come out of some libbie college professor? Would he be the same one, by chance, that offered the factoid that your chances of dying in a vehicluar related accident increase dramatically if you own and drive your car?  

    You seem to be giving more credit to the home intruder and not to the home owner. Just the fact the mental midget brought a gun along indicates insecurity issues. I agree that there are too many unknown variables. But, as an "average" home owner, which is all I really care about, I know what the contents are in my home. Any intruder that wants to risk his life and limb by entering my home is more than welcome to check out the benefits of Obamaramadingdong Care. I get to take care of whatever my dogs start with the perp.

    Seems to me that your home intruders need to make better decision when they decide to act stupidly. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jerh5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    First I didnt post any links on here. Secondly, heroin, meth, etc. are illegal yet addicts have no problem getting them. Whitey Bulger, a lifetime felon, had 18 firearms in his apartment when apprehended in CA, a state tied with MA as having the strictest gun laws in the country . My quote about the Arab owned stores being the least robbed was actually on a National Geographic special about prison life. The remark was made by one of a group of hardcore felons, and the whole group nodded in acknowledement and a second convict replied that if they know they will face an armed owner, they will bypass the place for an easier target. Its like bank robbery - criminals go after an unarmed bank teller for a few hundred bucks as opposed to going after the armored car with its armed guards with many thousands of dollars, as they know they will not be facing a firearm. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Point taken on the link, my mistake.  It was another poster.

    To the pont of your post:  So the source of your data on the armed Arab owned convenience stores is a bunch of convicted felons.  Got it.

    [/QUOTE]

       You know what ATJ? I can put up a liberal link that backs up your stance. Guess what? It doesnt make it anymore legit. You can twist any study to help to help support any stance. So I will tell you what, you keep your sling shot and I will keep my gun. It IS my right, wether you agree or not.

    [/QUOTE]

    Egad, no wonder we can't ever have a rational discussion of this issue.  Show me any post in here (or anywhere for that matter) where I advocated taking your gun away.  Please, I'm asking you to do that.  And you know what, jerh5, you won't be able to.  You know why?  Because I never said it nor would I. 

    Of course it's your right and is constituionally guaranteed.  But it's not unconditional.  The Supreme Court (a quite conservative one by the way) has confirmed that the right is not unconditional.  So take a breath and try reading what I've posted instead of reacting what you think I've posted.

    [/QUOTE]


    The Supreme Court (a quite conservative one by the way) has confirmed that the right is not unconditional.

    Like the right for free speech, right? Are there 20,000+ laws on books to muzzle free speech? As I said before, this is an issue that just eats away and burns in the soul (??) of all libbies, as it's something they can't ever control. The real funny part is that a good portion of gun violence and crime is committed within the minority communities. Chicago and Washingtoin DC, BTW cities with some of the toughest anti-gun laws in place are turning into Tombstone and the OK Coral. No uproar there, other than the "establishment" should be doing more to prevent this violence. Think maybe that community should do a better job identifying and getting these violent folks off teh street? unlicensed possession IS a crime. Go after them for that plus tack on a FEDERAL 10 years (all time MUST be served). Let that brave 16 year old stew over that for4 12 years.   

    [/QUOTE]

    I'll try to be brief here.  I agree with you - it needs to be a federal statute and it needs to address criminal behavior.  Now, why are those 20,000 + laws (take your word for it on the number) largely ineffective at dealing with criminal possession of firearms?  Because (repeating myself here) there are states with very lax laws that permit, in essence, drive-thru gun purchases.  In my view (and I know there are those who disagree) it makes sense to address this issue with the same or companion federal statute.

    And for crying out loud, guys. Stop trying to make this a liberal/conservative issue.  It's neither - it's a societal problem that will take an open-minded comprehensive approach to address.

    [/QUOTE]


    Simply put, and you fail to comprehend or even acknowledge it, is that when a bad guy wants a gun, he'll get one. Normal law abiding people who qualify get guns. Sometimes something inside them snaps, and they do really dumb things. As long as they qualify to purchase the gun in their state, under those state laws, they are free to do so. At no time should ANYONE, including state or the federal government make restrictionms on buying guns, other than the screening process they NEED to go through, pre-sale. I as well as the NRA and the majority of it's members feel this way. I'll go further by saying I have no issue with a complete ban on owning automatic weapons, unless you are an ACTIVE military or law enforcement member. (Sorry, Uncle Charlie; you're retired. Time to give that Uzi up.) It's bad enough when a moron steals a gun, let alone one with fully automatic capability. These weapons are made with only 1 purpose in mind: mass killing or wounding. There's no place for them, even as collector pieces, in a non-war zone environment.

    There is less gun related violence, per capita, in AZ than in the "civilized" Chicago or Washington, DC. That's a fact. Yet, you can more easily and legally buy a gun there. Why's that? Can it possibly be that these 20,000+ gun laws in place do not act as a deterent? Criminals are given sentences of 10-20 years for armed robbery, yet are let out in 8 for "good behavior". Let them get their 10-20 years and then tack on an automatic/must fully serve 10 years. Turn that 8 years to 18. It's proven that most prisoners will return to prison because of future abhorant behavior. This isn't an opinion. despite knowing the risks of reoffending, and demanding 100% servitude of sentences, we opt to grant leniency. How's that working out?

    BTW, this IS a liberal/conservative issue. The Constitution grants the right to bear arms. The warm and fuzzy libbies don't like this, as they can't control it. To become an ammednment, it needs to be passed with 2/3 majority by states. To be removed, it needs the same vote (recall Prohibition?). It'll never happen, and the libbies know it. So, they continually try to legislate their desires. Sorry, but you never hear the NRA or any of it's members start out a discussion on owning guns with these words: In most civilized countries..... I have to go back to abortion to bring this point home. No one is denying that the US Supreme court ruled in favor of it in Roe v Wade. yet, when pro-lifers bring up and get state legislation passed, the libbies whine about the fact the US Supreme court OK'd it. Yet, the US Constitution grants all Americans rthe right to own/bear arms, and we've got 20,000+ laws restricting ownership. Seems to me that the anti-gun and pro-life crowds are doing the same thing: can't get rid of it, so they'll try legislating it.

    Strange bedfellows, don't you think?  

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccsjl. Show ccsjl's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    All comes down to one of the concrete differences between a conservative and a liberal - if a conservative does not like something, (a SUV, a firearm, etc.) the conservative does not aquire one; if a liberal does not like something, he wants them completely banned for everybody!

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    No disrespect, AZPAT, but I'm done with this thread.  We see the issue differently and I'm fine with that.  

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnHannahrulz. Show JohnHannahrulz's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    Costas could have saved some grief on this thread and did his stump speech on MSNBC (eg; the place where you expect to hear it) as opposed to a football game.

     

    Murders are anomolies. They don`t happên often, therefore when they do, every one is kind of in a state of shock.

     

    Me personally, I have an uncle who owns a gun primarily for hunting critters on his farm and he has never shot anyone.

    This story is just horrorfic all around (orphaned child). And its one that obviously induces some very strident opinions. Not going there.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to Mike-J-D's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm surprised so many people think the answer to so many guns is more guns.  How about we act like normal human beings and, you know, not point guns at each other?

    What do you think, if she owned a gun, that would have saved her?  You think he would have waited until she got hers to aim at her if she did?

    This is a cultural problem that we as a nation have.  That's the disease.  Guns being pulled are the symptom.

    [/QUOTE]


    I hope you feel the same way when 2 dudes on speed or crack break into your home with knives,baseball bats, whatever-good luck fending them off with your cutlery set of knives if you can get to them in your kitchen. I am proud to say I have a 12 gauge pump shotgun,(18 1/2  inch barrel), and a 38 Smith and Wesson,(3 1/2 inch barrel), locked and loaded right next to my bed with defense rounds in both,(along with my Hound/Pointer dog in the living room to sound the alarm),---I welcome the crazies that try and break into my house with bad intentions for me or the wife. Served in the Corps--1970s and am proud to be able to bear arms. I have had weopons all my life, raised 2 children and have never had to fire off at any time and I hope I don't ever have to. But I'd rather be Safe than sorry---and I aint apologizing for it!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to 49Patriots' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Cultural problems: Abortion, legalization of marijuana, violence in movies and on TV, provacative dressing of young ladies (especially HS kids), more "takers" than "givers" (and society being OK with it), acceptance/multiple "another chance" for DUI (Hey! EVERYONE does it!)

    Which ones do you want to get rid of? Or, is "culture", or what should be acceptable in society, dependent on what you determine it to be?

    Noe, be careful! Some of these have been legislated, sort of like the 2nd amendment. Ought to be interesting.

    [/QUOTE]


    When are you guys going to secede?!! God, take Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and all those other clown states with you! Funny, the most advocate pro-gun Americans are usually Right-Wingers, but you list Liberal beliefs as the cause of gun violence.

    Abortions is no one's business, if you don't think it's right, don't do it! No one is force you to have an abortion! It's a choice between a woman and her doctor, not you and your bible and Authoritarian style of government!

    Marijuana is no more lethal to your brain than Alcohol, why don't we criminalize Alcohol again while we're at it, huh? How many times have you heard that a guy was so high from Marijuana that he started a fight in a bar...or drove high and killed someone? Why is it illegal? 

    Violence in movies and TV? Yeah, like Football? Should football be illegal?

    Provacative style of dress by young ladies? Dude, we're you born in the 50s or something? It's no one's business what a woman wants to wear! Funny how you're fighting for your second ammendment rights, but you're all for taking away someone's first ammenment rights.

    More takers than givers? The 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes consists of the elderly, veterans and people who manage to take advantage of tax breaks like child tax deductions. Funny how when coperations take advantage of loopholes they're wise. When average joes do it they're takers. The very few who don't pay taxes because they're poor live mostly in the South, Red States pay less in taxes than Blue states! The North East and West Coast keep America a float! The rest of you, red states, are the takers around here!

     

    It's too easy to get a gun, there are too many guns in the United States! Guns don't kill people, people kill people, right? But they kill more people with guns!

     

    [/QUOTE]


    That's an assumption--maybe these wackos would get creative and we would be holding our sharpest kitchen knife---LOL!!!

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to 49Patriots' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 49Patriots's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Look at the gun violence in Mexico; look at the gun violence in the southside of Chicago; 70% and 90% respectively of those racists voted for Obama. It is obvious we have a culture/ values problem.

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm surprised it took one of you this long to pull the race card. Was it "culture and values" when the Colorado shooting happen? What about Columbine, Giffords shooting, Norway shooter or the Oklahoma bomber? No? Right....

     

    P.S... Mexico's crime mostly comes from the Cartel. The Cartel gets money, power, weapons and resources thanks to America's War on Drugs! In fact, the Cartel buys guns from the U.S. it's so easy!

    Typical...-_-

    [/QUOTE]


    Not to be cavalier about those massacres which were perpetrated by nuts, the "everyday" killings that I referred to are what passes for "normal" these days. We need some public hangings to " encourage"  people to behave

    [/QUOTE]


    Would you knock it off, there are Canadians on this board. They're going to think that all Americans are as silly as you.

    I'm telling you guys, I don't know why you guys hate the Taliban and other Muslim extremists so much. If you guys had your way, this would be the Christian version of Saudi Arabia.

    [/QUOTE]


    Owning a weapon doesn't make a person a Taliban type---using it for the wrong reasons does--get your head straight dude-you make NO sense!!!!!!

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Salcon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Oh by the way, I've heard every story about why people should own guns.  Other than hunting, they're all pretty weak.

    [/QUOTE]

    How about to form a militia.  The founding fathers didn't give a rip about hunting or self defense.  The 2nd amendment exists because of the history of nearly every government in the world becoming corrupt and oppressing the people. 

    When the British didn't like us not paying taxes and decided to march on down with their guns we didn't fight them off with sticks. 

    [/QUOTE]


    'well regulated' militia. It's called The National Guard.

    [/QUOTE]


    And if your Gov't who controls the Military decides to turn on it's people in the form of oppression-----we will fight them with knives and bats!!  C'mon Glen I know your educated--you have read some History books?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Salcon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Oh by the way, I've heard every story about why people should own guns.  Other than hunting, they're all pretty weak.

    [/QUOTE]

    How about to form a militia.  The founding fathers didn't give a rip about hunting or self defense.  The 2nd amendment exists because of the history of nearly every government in the world becoming corrupt and oppressing the people. 

    When the British didn't like us not paying taxes and decided to march on down with their guns we didn't fight them off with sticks. 

    [/QUOTE]


    'well regulated' militia. It's called The National Guard.

    [/QUOTE]


    According to you, but the 2nd ammendment existed before the National Guard.  It's safe to assume that if the founding fathers saw the National Guard as their idea of a well organized militia that was so critical to this country they put it in the constitution than they would have just gone ahead and created the National Guard.  They didn't.

    [/QUOTE]

    They didn't really like standing armies. The second amendment envisions a society where the military power (the weapons) are in the hands of the people, who are called to duty when war is declared, and then go back to their homes when it is over. We are so far from that vision now that talking about original intent when it comes to military policy or gun policy is absurd. The world just isn't the same as it was in the late eighteenth century. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Really--I want some of what your on? Are you serious in saying that we are so far from that---oh well you'll be easy pickings----it's ok now go back to sleep.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    You keep comparing apples and oranges.

    Japan is 98.5% Japanese. Canada is similarly white. UK is 92% white.

    The racial disharmony in the US cannot be compared to these places. Add in the fact we have half as many illegal immigrants as the entire population of Canada and you are just missing the mark regarding what might work there vs what will work here.

    [/QUOTE]

    Now it comes out . . . it's all the blacks and hispanics . . . 

    If everyone was white there'd be no gun violence . . . 

    PS: Toronto is way more racially and ethnically diverse than Boston . . . and has a lower murder rate. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    And also one of the most boring conservative cities in Canada--I prefer Montreal any day---and I've been to both and Toronto-Suks--sorry dude--not trying to hurt your feelings.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jerh5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TexasPat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TexasPat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Salcon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Oh by the way, I've heard every story about why people should own guns.  Other than hunting, they're all pretty weak.

    [/QUOTE]

         Err...you think that protecting yourself, your home, and your family from burglars is a weak argument? LOL!!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Considering that far, far, far more people are hurt by gun accidents in the home vis a vis burglars shot by homeowners; yes, it is an extremely weak argument.

    Making it even weaker is that the average gun owner in a home, unless s/he has served in the military, has never shot a human being before. Those who have served know it is a VERY different experience than shooting at a range; the target is moving while your blood and adrenaline are pumping out of control.

    Further, if you're home is invaded by a burglar, that burglar is doing it on his time, not yours, while his senses are heightened whereas yours are dull. The intruder has the clear advantage of surprise; even moreso if he had the competence to reconnoiter your house beforehand. You stagger down the stairs in your bright, white T-shirt, while the burglar is dressed head-to-toe in black. If the burglar is armed, he likely does this for a living, which means he is likely to have been in this scenario before; likely to move more skillfully in the dark; likely to be more cool under pressure; and perhaps likely to have more firepower than you.

    If you have kids in you're home, then it is most likely that your weapon is locked away and not loaded. (If this is not the case, you're a damned fool just begging for a home accident, as children, above all else, are curious beyond curious.) While you're fumbling around getting your ammo in the gun, the burglar may get the bead on you. But, let's suppose you are quiet and fast. You run down the stairs and yell, "Freeze!" but the burglar, who is already prepard for a conflict, has scounted out the best defense position from gunfire. He dives; you shoot and miss, creating a big noise. The burglar returns fire from behind the kitchen island.  Bullets are now flying, which of course is when your six-your-old, frightened by strange noise, saunters in the room and calls out, "Daddy?"

     

    Still, most gun advocates on this board--at least, those who have never shot at a human being--will continue to advocate this "protect my home" position. And that, right there, is the biggest problem with guns. Very few of us would pick a fist fight with Brandon Spikes, but a gun gives a man who is overmatched in a fight the false courage to believe he is on equal standing. The sands of Iraq are littered with such Iraqis.

    You are far better off to have a good lock system for your doors and windows; an alarm system with piercing sound; lights illuminating the perimeter of your house...and, if all that fails, a calm demeanor and the good sense to know that your family is more important than your valuables, and you are statistically much more likely to hurt yourself or your family members than to actually take out a skilled burglar.

    [/QUOTE]

         Sorry...I'm not going to risk putting the well being of my family in the hands of a "skilled" burglar. I'd much rather shoot the bum right between the eyes...

    And that is noble. But very few people can pull this off. Most end up hurting their families.

    then rely on his humanity. Besides, how many burglars are of the Alexanderl Mundy/skilled persuasion? The majority are thugs belonging to gangs, or drug users.

    Problem is, you don't know who he is. But he may know everything about you.

    With so many servicemen coming home from Iraq/Afghanistan without future prospects, both crime and suicide amongst vets is rising dramatically. If a guy who survived Iraq breaks into your house, chances are, you ain't taking him out, no matter how well intended you are.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]
     I can guarantee you my chances would be a lot better with a gun, than without.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Words spoken by many a fallen hero.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    And it's those fallen heroes that have given you the freedom to your free speech----May they ALL rest in peace and let's thank them for the Liberties we have in this Country---even if they are being taken away daily by our Greedy Gov't.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Time to leave this forum for Rimfirecentral....thats right a gun forum...

    [/QUOTE]


    Best gut laugh I've had all day--thanks ccsjl-----gotta go now me and the wife need to go to Cabelas and buy some more AMMO for the weapons! Looking at a nice 30-06 also, trying to convince the wife, 5 guns aint enough honey.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to Quagmire3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Only a liberal would automatically assume "gun fight." Just owning a gun may have been deterrent enuff for the fool to think twice before drawing down on her.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow!  So you've pretty much sized me up based on my assessment of your post.  With all due respect you:

    *Know zippo about me except that I responded to your post.  And if I were a liberal (which I am not) so what?  Because I wouldn't think the same way that you do makes me somehow wrong automatically?

    *Posted the words 'defend herself'.  That's not deterrence that's using the firearm for its intended purpose - killing another individual.

    *Presuming rational thought on Belcher's part otherwise you wouldn't have used the term 'deterrent' in your last post.

    [/QUOTE]

    A firearms intended purpose is not to kill another individual but rather for hunting, target shooting, clay busting, and self defense, as well as just plain exercising your 2nd Ammendment right to protect yourself against any and all oppressors/aggressors. Let me put it in a simple form for you. Lets say there were two cities side by side: city A nobody is allowed to own a gun, city B everyone must own a gun for protection. Now  lets say you are a thief and break into houses for a living. Which city are you going to burglarize? City A where posessions are ripe for the taking or city b where you may get your head blown off by a homeowner protecting his property? Obviously the "Peoples Republic of Massachusetts" would be city A. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Very well stated Quagmire-and if anti-gun people on this board can't understand your point they never will. BTW stop dissing Mass - I was born there-left in 1978 and moved to Montana and now live in Idaho--fell in love with the West after visiting my brother in Montana upon getting released from the Marine Corps. Believe it or not there are people in Mass that own shotguns and rifles,(pistols you need a concealed permit which is almost impossible to get). I've been trying to convince my two other brothers to buy some guns-but to no luck--hey I tryed---at least my brother in Kalispell Mt gets it and has multiple guns. Go Pats -- this has been a great topic to kill time before the big Monday game!

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Nobody here mentioned the fact that Arab owned convienience stores have the lowest robbery rate, simply because they have a reputation for having an arsenal under the front counter. If a criminal knows he may face an armed store or home owner, he is not coming to rob you... 

    P.S. Where is the NY guy answering my response that I have no problem with Bill Koch and his Sherman tank in the driveway a few miles down the road???

    [/QUOTE]

    Where do you get your data?

    [/QUOTE]


    Prolax--good luck with all those Muslims that Canada has been so liberally letting into your Country. When they decide to go all Jihad on your as_ because you won't pray to Mecca 6 times a day and make your wife wear a face covering mask, your going to wish you had something besides a butter knife. Ehh!

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     I'll just add that I think it's rather callous to say "it's a small price to pay for our liberty" or "it's nothing to wring hands about."  If it was your daughter who was murdered in front of you or mowed down in a movie theatre, I suspect you'd feel a bit differently. If the US could get its firearms death rate more in line with the firearm death rates of similarly advanced nations, there'd be about 15,000 or 20,000 fewer parents every year in the situation Ms. Perkins is in.  Is that trivial? I think not. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If you can come down of your high horse for a minute you might realize that it just apparently isn't sinking in to you that the situation in the USA is simply not the same as it is in Austria for example. Considering the profound difference between the structure of the legal system in the US and those countries you champion the difference is in fact trivial. The ability of the federal government to shove gun control down a states throat is questionable legally and not well supported in principle.

    If Alaskans through their representatives want lax gun laws then I as a Bay Stater am going to honor that because I believe in states rights and do not possess the liberal agenda to homogenize the nation and expand federal oppression.

    You can moan all you like about the freedom the several states are allowed to have in determining how the people there want to do things, but it won't change the fact that 1.7 more homicides per 100k is a trivial number when weighed against the right to self determination. Are Arizonans stupid to not have stricter gun laws? Maybe so. But I sure as hell defend their right to determine that rather than have it dictated to them by a guy from Toronto.

    [/QUOTE]

    I know those 1.7 homicides are trivial to you, but I have a 19 year-old nephew who's doing 20 years right now.  The kid he shot two years ago is dead.  Honestly my nephew isn't really a bad kid.  Just too much testosterone and a too easily available high-capacity firearm. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Right. Convicted murderers aren't "bad kids". It's the evil gun that did it.

    I'm saying the 1.7 are trivial in relation to the larger issue of allowing states to determine their own laws.

     

    I'm also saying you repeatedly compare apples and oranges.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm just saying there are real people behind those statistics. 

    [/QUOTE]


    You just made the point for guns--"there are real people behind the statistics". And all the while I thought the gun shot by itself with no person pulling the trigger! How stupid of me! LOL

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    Yoo Hoo!  ATJ!!!!

    (Believe it or not there are people in Mass that own shotguns and rifles,(pistols you need a concealed permit which is almost impossible to get).

    Just one of the 20,000+ nationwide anti gun laws. Or, depending on your view and admission of such, laws enacted to make it increasingly difficult for someone to exercise their 2nd ammendment rights.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share