Whaddayasay, gun nuts?

@McGentrix,

Now it's not a serious post. I see it's only meant to be taken seriously when the obvious flaws aren't pointed out. By that logic I assume none of your posts are meant to be taken seriously.

The truth is, you tried to wrap yourself up in patriotic hubris, but hubris always fails.

Here's a bit of advice, try not to be so quick with what you think is a snappy comeback, think it through first, and then your posts might be taken seriously or even deemed mildly amusing. I think you can do it, I know we disagree on a lot of things, but I don't think you're a complete idiot.

0 Replies

@saab,

I know, unfortunately Kubrick's message seems to have shot over a lot of people's heads.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Truth is, people who need guns are sad and pathetic and need a gun to maintain their delusions of adequacy.

Ill admit that oralloy is a one issue Republican. Im a Dem and Im a gun owner. I own several, quite few actually. The responsibility of gun ownership includes keeping the guns out of circulation to all but a limited few.
To me a gun is a necessary tool for country life. We have coyotes and feral animals that like nothing more than singling out a youngish lamb or calf for a snack. This affects my business and I will take the predator out

We are infested with groundhogs that are fecund little bastards who, by digging their burrows along field edges, and eating lush fields of alfalfa that can turn a profitable crop into a loss and can make a field a dangerous plot where a tractor can be overturned.

My work carries me into deep woods where we have a healthy population of things like bears and, in the west, pumas.
A gun is not a first choice for avoiding animals, its a last chance to save a life. Weve had several black bear attacks along the Appalachian Trail and along the Northern Kingdom areas where I have several Ilmenite and gas well project sites .

I maintain a single weapon for in-home protection. We do have violent break-ins in the US, (mostly due IMHO, to the loose availability of guns, mostly because th 2nd Amendment is a right that is out of control). .

In the past year a fellow over near Fulton who, by bragging about a lucrative insurance payout in a neighborhood diner, made himself a target to two thugs who were "just passing through the town" and happened to overhear the guys brag-fest. They found out where he lived, cased his house for a few days (he lived alone on a 200+ acre farm). They closed in one evening and brutally murdered the guy using knives . The two thugs (one 18 the other 22) were quickly caught and sentenced. The victim should have

1. Watched his original boasting in public where he didnt know everyone

2 Kept a gun, its only smart

I keep a 12 gage riot gun pump action. Its loaded with 01 and 00 SHOT. It will kill. Ive had experience being shot at in anger (Nigeriqn/Biqfran border wars) so I have no doubt that I will not even hail an intruder to "Stop". If he breaks into my home, he will become dead and I will face the consequences. Period. Im not going to wax philosophical about his "rights", hes there to assault my family. Im daddy bear in this case.

I wish we lived in a more mature civilization here in the US, so that guns could be kept out of the hands of criminals, then Id feel totally safe without guns available. My wife is a crack shot and we hunt together. Im not sure she could kill someone in our defense, but sometimes the weapon alone is a deterrent.

My life is a happy (mostly) pursuit of xperiences that dont involve guns. As I said, I keep them as tools for my farm, for sport, and yes, for protection.

Actually Ive had to use a gun to scare off bears in 3 separate events. Ive only had to confront a human once (and that was a drunk who came into our hayloft to sleep it off.)

2 Replies

@farmerman,

There is an obvious exception for people living out in the country. Over here shotguns and rifles can be obtained with a licence, and farmers need to be able to shoot foxes and dogs worrying their sheep.

You've got grizzly bears, coyotes and all manner of other **** including weird looking robins and things you call buzzards that aren't really.

I was being a bit sweeping in my statement. Sorry for unintentionally including you. If I'd said sad pathetic losers who can only define themselves by gun ownership I'd have been spot on. You know who I'm talking about the sort of person who would fit in a bucket if their gun were taken away.

Would a gun have saved your friend? It's not a panacea, if someone gets the drop on you no amount of guns will help. You're right about not running your mouth off in public, that's true everywhere.

1 Reply

Where I grew up and live we do have strict laws what gun are concerned.
I would say I am a liberal person.
My father had a hunter´s licence, because he came from a family with land and forrest. He had hunting guns at home.
I do not even know if he ever went hunting. I think he did - at least there were hunters amongst his friends - people with land and forrest. He did not like it that much. He/we went fishing a lot.
Never ever have I met someone who wanted a gun for protecting family or values.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Ill admit that oralloy is a one issue Republican.

If someone has told you that I've switched parties, they didn't know what they were talking about.

farmerman wrote:

The responsibility of gun ownership includes keeping the guns out of circulation to all but a limited few.

That is incorrect. Being responsible with guns means taking care of how you handle your own guns. It does not include violating other people's rights.

And if the Left had their way, you'd be one of the people barred from having guns.

farmerman wrote:

To me a gun is a necessary tool for country life. We have coyotes and feral animals that like nothing more than singling out a youngish lamb or calf for a snack. This affects my business and I will take the predator out

We are infested with groundhogs that are fecund little bastards who, by digging their burrows along field edges, and eating lush fields of alfalfa that can turn a profitable crop into a loss and can make a field a dangerous plot where a tractor can be overturned.

My work carries me into deep woods where we have a healthy population of things like bears and, in the west, pumas.
A gun is not a first choice for avoiding animals, its a last chance to save a life. Weve had several black bear attacks along the Appalachian Trail and along the Northern Kingdom areas where I have several Ilmenite and gas well project sites .

The Left would still bar you from having guns if the NRA was not protecting you.

farmerman wrote:

I maintain a single weapon for in-home protection. We do have violent break-ins in the US, (mostly due IMHO, to the loose availability of guns, mostly because th 2nd Amendment is a right that is out of control). .

The Second Amendment is not out of control.

The reason why we have violent break-ins is because we have violent criminals. Guns are not the cause of this.

farmerman wrote:

I wish we lived in a more mature civilization here in the US, so that guns could be kept out of the hands of criminals, then Id feel totally safe without guns available.

Your logic is in error. If criminals did not have guns, that would still leave the risk of dangerous animals. Also, criminals could attack with other weapons, or even their bare hands if they were a very large person. Guns are a viable defense against such an attack.

farmerman wrote:

My wife is a crack shot and we hunt together. Im not sure she could kill someone in our defense, but sometimes the weapon alone is a deterrent.

Careful if you are in a liberal jurisdiction. Sometimes liberals pass laws against brandishing a gun to scare off attackers. People have been prosecuted for it when they would have been in the clear had they actually killed the bad guy. Warning shots are another thing that liberal jurisdictions often outlaw.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

farmerman wrote:
Ill admit that oralloy is a one issue Republican.

If someone has told you that I've switched parties, they didn't know what they were talking about.

farmerman wrote:
The responsibility of gun ownership includes keeping the guns out of circulation to all but a limited few.

That is incorrect. Being responsible with guns means taking care of how you handle your own guns. It does not include violating other people's rights.

And if the Left had their way, you'd be one of the people barred from having guns.

farmerman wrote:
To me a gun is a necessary tool for country life. We have coyotes and feral animals that like nothing more than singling out a youngish lamb or calf for a snack. This affects my business and I will take the predator out

We are infested with groundhogs that are fecund little bastards who, by digging their burrows along field edges, and eating lush fields of alfalfa that can turn a profitable crop into a loss and can make a field a dangerous plot where a tractor can be overturned.

My work carries me into deep woods where we have a healthy population of things like bears and, in the west, pumas.
A gun is not a first choice for avoiding animals, its a last chance to save a life. Weve had several black bear attacks along the Appalachian Trail and along the Northern Kingdom areas where I have several Ilmenite and gas well project sites .

The Left would still bar you from having guns if the NRA was not protecting you.

farmerman wrote:
I maintain a single weapon for in-home protection. We do have violent break-ins in the US, (mostly due IMHO, to the loose availability of guns, mostly because th 2nd Amendment is a right that is out of control). .

The Second Amendment is not out of control.

The reason why we have violent break-ins is because we have violent criminals. Guns are not the cause of this.

farmerman wrote:
I wish we lived in a more mature civilization here in the US, so that guns could be kept out of the hands of criminals, then Id feel totally safe without guns available.

Your logic is in error. If criminals did not have guns, that would still leave the risk of dangerous animals. Also, criminals could attack with other weapons, or even their bare hands if they were a very large person. Guns are a viable defense against such an attack.

farmerman wrote:
My wife is a crack shot and we hunt together. Im not sure she could kill someone in our defense, but sometimes the weapon alone is a deterrent.

Careful if you are in a liberal jurisdiction. Sometimes liberals pass laws against brandishing a gun to scare off attackers. People have been prosecuted for it when they would have been in the clear had they actually killed the bad guy. Warning shots are another thing that liberal jurisdictions often outlaw.

Well said my friend.

I just can't understand why that heartless bastard wants to blow away those poor defenseless groundhogs...You would think being a lefty he'd have some compassion.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Farming>Politics

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The Left would still bar you from having guns if the NRA was not protecting you

You are so full of **** your eyes are dark brown.

Quote:

Careful if you are in a liberal jurisdiction. Sometimes liberals pass laws against brandishing a gun to scare off attackers. People have been prosecuted for it when they would have been in the clear had they actually killed the bad guy. Warning shots are another thing that liberal jurisdictions often outlaw.

and you are
a fear monger just like Paul Ryan and his Replacement "scare tactics" to supplant Obamcare with "Obamacare Less"

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

That is incorrect. Being responsible with guns means taking care of how you handle your own guns. It does not include violating other people's rights.

That is where the sane people disagree with you and your mantra.

PS if youre not a GOP, you are still "one issue Oralloy" You are even in dispute with the majority USSC justices in Heller.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Would a gun have saved your friend? It's not a panacea

He wasnt my friend, I just read about the entire event in the paper.
As far as "would a gun have saved him?" I dont know, but not having one certainly assisted in his demise. He was stabbed to death. Being unaware of surroundings and reacting appropriately is , to me, totally illogical behavior.

I used to teach sappers about deployment of explosives and was amazed at how "macho douche bags" were blowing body parts off with det caps . . Respect for a tool is foremost. Some people should NOT have guns, I care not what the idiot gun fringe says. When their rights, based upon their depraved indifference, interfere with mine, a Constitutional change is overdue.

It will happen but Ive said bfore, that it will be generational.

PS a "Buzzard" , to Europeans alone, is a large sluggish carrion eating BUTEO (vulgaris or other species). In the US we only use the term buzzard for the vultures clan. I like our differentiation better.
I have copies of the LANSDOWNE BOOKS of B. O. P. of Europe, Asia, and the Americas. The title is unique to you and the continent of Africa.

Its a title that split off with Pangea BFD

1 Reply

@farmerman,

We called buzzards buzzards long before Columbus set sail. We have primacy. And we have Leighton.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

You are so full of **** your eyes are dark brown.

You aren't special. The Left will get just as much enjoyment out of violating your rights as they get out of violating everyone else's rights.

farmerman wrote:

and you are a fear monger

No. I was serious about those laws.

People in liberal jurisdictions really do get prosecuted for brandishing a gun or firing a warning shot in circumstances where they are justified in killing in self defense.

farmerman wrote:

That is where the sane people disagree with you and your mantra.

Only if sanity is defined as "opposition to civil rights".

farmerman wrote:

You are even in dispute with the majority USSC justices in Heller.

True, but that is a pretty esoteric dispute. I favor language emphasizing the actual intent of the Second Amendment. They prefer language emphasizing self defense.

It is a distinction without a difference. Either way what ultimately determines the validity of a law is strict scrutiny.

0 Replies

Must've been destined for that "well regulated militia" that protects us so effectively:

Quote:

In telephone conversations recorded by wiretap and played at a news conference in Downtown Brooklyn, where officials announced the indictment, some of those charged could be heard boasting about their roles as traffickers and mocking Virginia’s lax gun laws.

“We’re the big dogs,” Kenneth Threatts of North Chesterfield, Va., said in one recorded conversation in November. “We’re trafficking! You know what I’m saying?”

The acting Brooklyn district attorney, Eric Gonzalez, said the case highlighted the need for federal gun control to help stem the flow of thousands of illegal guns from the South coming up the I-95 corridor to New York, a stretch the authorities call the “Iron Pipeline.”

NYT

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Must've been destined for that "well regulated militia" that protects us so effectively:

No such militia.

That's one of the things that undercuts the Left's attempts to limit the Second Amendment to the militia. You can't limit a right to a certain group unless that group actually exists.

But those guns are destined for people who have every right to have them, so all is good.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

It's never a problem getting a gun in America. Pretty soon we're gonna be stuffing them in Easter Baskets for the toddlers.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

You can't limit a right to a certain group unless that group actually exists.

So possibly the 2nd Amndment, in its entirety is Bullshit ??

1 Reply

We've put so many guns and other weapons in the destabilized portions of the world that many are now being turned against us. The same situation holds here in the states.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

So possibly the 2nd Amndment, in its entirety is Bullshit ??

No. But the liberals' claim that the Second Amendment only applies to the militia, is.

Such a claim could only be valid if there were an actual militia for the right to apply to.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

you really cant successfully parse the BoR 's if youre an Originalist. It is what it says. STop trying to sound like you know whats on the USSC's "majority" mind.
Remember, both Scalia and Alito say (wrt Heller) that there exist reasonable and constitutional "Controls" available to Congress other than the regs enacted in Heller.

2 Replies

Whaddayasay, gun nuts?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know