• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

Black Targets Matter

Recommended Posts

‘More paint and less hate’: Online petition calls for end to ‘black targets’ at shooting ranges

Jon Street Feb 19, 2017 3:53 pm

Jennifer Deasy shows a target that she shot with a pistol at the target range at Niagara Gun Range in North Tonawanda, N.Y., Thursday June 26, 2008. Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in the justices' first-ever pronouncement on the meaning of gun rights under the Second Amendment. (AP Photo/David Duprey)

A new Change.org petition calls for the end of “human black targets” at shooting ranges, citing the disproportionate number of black individuals who are shot by trained shooters than white people.

“Young black men are three times more likely to be shot by trained shooters than their white peers,” the petition states, noting a “disturbing potential correlation” in that “the most popular target for shooters to learn to use their firearm is a black silhouette.”

The petition cited a Dec. 20, 2016 CNN report, which points to a 2015 study by researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The study analyzed 42 other studies, and concluded that “relative to white targets, participants were quicker to shoot armed black targets, slower to not shoot unarmed Black targets and more likely to have a liberal shooting threshold for Black targets.”

The Change.org petition called on the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors to ditch the traditional black silhouette targets commonly used to train officers at police academies, among other “instruction environments.”

“Unconscious bias can be deadly, and we need to fight the deadly epidemic of gun violence towards black people,” the petition states. “Getting rid of black targets at shooting ranges and replacing them with variations of more diverse target designs, changing from the negative stimulus shown in the study above.”

As for the petition’s solution to the perceived problem? The group calls on artists from “diverse background” to create new targets “where there is more paint and less hate.”

Image source: Change.org

So is it true that more black people are victims to gun violence than white people?

According to a July 2016 Washington Post report, the answer is complicated:

According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.

U.S. police officers have shot and killed the exact same number of unarmed white people as they have unarmed black people: 50 each. But because the white population is approximately five times larger than the black population, that means unarmed black Americans were five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by a police officer.

Nevertheless, the Change.org petition is intent on getting rid of black silhouette targets at shooting ranges.

The group behind the petition, No More Black Targets, which describes itself as “an advocacy campaign to raise awareness of the danger of unconscious bias and how it may be perpetuating gun violence against young black males,” showcases a variety of artwork on its website and encourages supporters to create their own colorful expressions to potentially replace the black silhouettes.

The Change.org petition had just 220 signees as of Sunday afternoon. The group states on the website that it intends to deliver the names to International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors.

The IALEFI did not immediately respond Sunday to a request for comment from TheBlaze asking if it plans to yield to the online protesters’ demands.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/19/more-paint-and-less-hate-change-org-petition-calls-for-end-to-black-targets-at-shooting-ranges/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And liberals think people voted for Trump because of the Russians.

If only things were as simple as you'd like to distill them to be.

 

Trying to make all Liberals fit into the pigeonhole you choose is beneath you.

 

Binary thinking. Us vs. Them. Good vs. Evil. White vs. Black. THAT is what got us Trump. And, Dog, you're participating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to make all Liberals fit into the pigeonhole you choose is beneath you.

 

Yo, Bus Driver. This is Dog we're talking about here. What in the world makes you think something as commonplace around here as "pigeonholing liberals" is beneath him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And liberals think people voted for Trump because of the Russians.

 

Guess you missed the regular bullshit storys (200 signatures, yup, that's got wide support) that you right wing fuckwhits forwarded amongst yourselves and regularly jerked off to to build moral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And liberals think people voted for Trump because of the Russians.

If only things were as simple as you'd like to distill them to be.

 

Trying to make all Liberals fit into the pigeonhole you choose is beneath you.

 

Binary thinking. Us vs. Them. Good vs. Evil. White vs. Black. THAT is what got us Trump. And, Dog, you're participating.

 

Ok ...ok...Many liberals think it was the Russians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And liberals think people voted for Trump because of the Russians.

If only things were as simple as you'd like to distill them to be.

 

Trying to make all Liberals fit into the pigeonhole you choose is beneath you.

 

Binary thinking. Us vs. Them. Good vs. Evil. White vs. Black. THAT is what got us Trump. And, Dog, you're participating.

 

Ok ...ok...Many liberals think it was the Russians.

 

 

Seriously, it is just the type of demonization your post illustrated that got us here. Mind you, I don't fault you, personally, with this. But, that attitude is indicative of the divisive mentality that seated the most unqualified person to occupy the office of POTUS.

 

Folks on the right rightly screamed when some attempted to paint them all as racist, sexist, xenophobic bigots. That was wrong. This is, too.

 

As to the Russians, I think it is pretty clear they meddled. Are you cool with that? I'm not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And liberals think people voted for Trump because of the Russians.

If only things were as simple as you'd like to distill them to be.

 

Trying to make all Liberals fit into the pigeonhole you choose is beneath you.

 

Binary thinking. Us vs. Them. Good vs. Evil. White vs. Black. THAT is what got us Trump. And, Dog, you're participating.

 

Ok ...ok...Many liberals think it was the Russians.

 

 

Are they demanding red targets? So, that's why they wanted the colors changed a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

And liberals think people voted for Trump because of the Russians.

If only things were as simple as you'd like to distill them to be.

 

Trying to make all Liberals fit into the pigeonhole you choose is beneath you.

 

Binary thinking. Us vs. Them. Good vs. Evil. White vs. Black. THAT is what got us Trump. And, Dog, you're participating.

 

Ok ...ok...Many liberals think it was the Russians.

 

 

Are they demanding red targets? So, that's why they wanted the colors changed a few years ago.

 

 

I am demanding "registration marks".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree this is ridiculous I will tell you that right when I started with my police department we had three targets we used. They are all printed on a target sized piece of paper but they are "actors" who are holding guns in a threatening manner and then have scoring rings printed on the picture.

 

The first one was a white man holding a knife, the second is a white woman holding a gun, and the third was a black man holding a gun.

 

Our city attorney came to the range one day and it just so happened that while he was there we were at the point in the stack of targets where about 2/3s were the black male. After that he recommended that we stop using that target because of possible perception.

 

So now we no longer use the black male targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

And liberals think people voted for Trump because of the Russians.

If only things were as simple as you'd like to distill them to be.

 

Trying to make all Liberals fit into the pigeonhole you choose is beneath you.

 

Binary thinking. Us vs. Them. Good vs. Evil. White vs. Black. THAT is what got us Trump. And, Dog, you're participating.

 

Ok ...ok...Many liberals think it was the Russians.

 

 

Seriously, it is just the type of demonization your post illustrated that got us here. Mind you, I don't fault you, personally, with this. But, that attitude is indicative of the divisive mentality that seated the most unqualified person to occupy the office of POTUS.

 

Folks on the right rightly screamed when some attempted to paint them all as racist, sexist, xenophobic bigots. That was wrong. This is, too.

 

As to the Russians, I think it is pretty clear they meddled. Are you cool with that? I'm not.

 

BD..You have to take me with a grain of salt. There is some illustrating absurdity with absurdity in my commentary.

As to the Russians, I think Democrats are looking for an explanation for their loss which doesn't involve their own failings. That was my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

And liberals think people voted for Trump because of the Russians.

If only things were as simple as you'd like to distill them to be.

 

Trying to make all Liberals fit into the pigeonhole you choose is beneath you.

 

Binary thinking. Us vs. Them. Good vs. Evil. White vs. Black. THAT is what got us Trump. And, Dog, you're participating.

 

Ok ...ok...Many liberals think it was the Russians.

 

 

Seriously, it is just the type of demonization your post illustrated that got us here. Mind you, I don't fault you, personally, with this. But, that attitude is indicative of the divisive mentality that seated the most unqualified person to occupy the office of POTUS.

 

Folks on the right rightly screamed when some attempted to paint them all as racist, sexist, xenophobic bigots. That was wrong. This is, too.

 

As to the Russians, I think it is pretty clear they meddled. Are you cool with that? I'm not.

 

BD..You have to take me with a grain of salt. There is some illustrating absurdity with absurdity in my commentary.

As to the Russians, I think Democrats are looking for an explanation for their loss which doesn't involve their own failings. That was my point.

 

 

Point taken.

 

As for the Russians, I get that some see that as the reason Hillary lost. I don't. I think she was the only candidate who could manage to lose to Trump. While I don't believe all the crap hurled at her for 30+ years (murder-for-hire, along with salacious gossip about her sexual proclivities), I think she is an unlikable person who comes across as pompous and condescending. Like it or not, the candidate has to "connect" with voters and she never really did that, IMHO. Most of the folks I know who were supporters offered up variations on two themes for their support - "it's her time" and "it's about time we had a woman in charge". I reject both of those.

 

I think we should be looking at how Russian was involved. My biggest concern is what they may have on Trump. That kind of leverage is bad for the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

And liberals think people voted for Trump because of the Russians.

If only things were as simple as you'd like to distill them to be.

 

Trying to make all Liberals fit into the pigeonhole you choose is beneath you.

 

Binary thinking. Us vs. Them. Good vs. Evil. White vs. Black. THAT is what got us Trump. And, Dog, you're participating.

 

Ok ...ok...Many liberals think it was the Russians.

 

 

Seriously, it is just the type of demonization your post illustrated that got us here. Mind you, I don't fault you, personally, with this. But, that attitude is indicative of the divisive mentality that seated the most unqualified person to occupy the office of POTUS.

 

Folks on the right rightly screamed when some attempted to paint them all as racist, sexist, xenophobic bigots. That was wrong. This is, too.

 

As to the Russians, I think it is pretty clear they meddled. Are you cool with that? I'm not.

 

BD..You have to take me with a grain of salt. There is some illustrating absurdity with absurdity in my commentary.

As to the Russians, I think Democrats are looking for an explanation for their loss which doesn't involve their own failings. That was my point.

 

 

Point taken.

 

As for the Russians, I get that some see that as the reason Hillary lost. I don't. I think she was the only candidate who could manage to lose to Trump. While I don't believe all the crap hurled at her for 30+ years (murder-for-hire, along with salacious gossip about her sexual proclivities), I think she is an unlikable person who comes across as pompous and condescending. Like it or not, the candidate has to "connect" with voters and she never really did that, IMHO. Most of the folks I know who were supporters offered up variations on two themes for their support - "it's her time" and "it's about time we had a woman in charge". I reject both of those.

 

I think we should be looking at how Russian was involved. My biggest concern is what they may have on Trump. That kind of leverage is bad for the USA.

 

I don't disagree with any of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to take me with a grain of salt. There is some illustrating absurdity with absurdity in my commentary.

As to the Russians, I think Democrats are looking for an explanation for their loss which doesn't involve their own failings. That was my point.

 

nah, I'll just take you for the racist partisan cheerleader you act on here.

 

and you do disagree with him Dog, you flung the bullshit against hillary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You have to take me with a grain of salt. There is some illustrating absurdity with absurdity in my commentary.

As to the Russians, I think Democrats are looking for an explanation for their loss which doesn't involve their own failings. That was my point.

 

nah, I'll just take you for the racist partisan cheerleader you act on here.

 

and you do disagree with him Dog, you flung the bullshit against hillary.

 

Bullshit...I'm no racist and I never accepted or advanced the murder conspiracies or sexual innuendo smears about Hillary that BD cited. I have slammed her for her obvious lies and deceit. I think there is very little daylight between BD and I on Hillary. Conservatives are leaving here in part because they can't be bothered defending themselves from shit like this. Debate honestly or please put me on ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You started off this thread with dishonest debate, if you don't want bullshit attacks, don't start them:

 

And liberals think people voted for Trump because of the Russians.

 

But you did. And you used a bullshit story designed as catnip for rightwing idiots to forward around and mine clicks (like JBSF did) to slam "liberals". And after being called on it somehow spun yourself a victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If cops train to shoot at black targets, doesn't it make sense that they would shoot more black targets in the field?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this modern age I should think that photographic images of actual people would make more sense as targets than the silhouettes and line drawings used now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a member at 2 different clubs that own and operate gun ranges, going back 15 years. Neither allowed any sort of human image target on the ranges. All targets allowed were round bullseye type or the oval ones similar to the pictures. I didn't know that any gun ranges allowed human looking targets

 

630110.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

While I agree this is ridiculous I will tell you that right when I started with my police department we had three targets we used. They are all printed on a target sized piece of paper but they are "actors" who are holding guns in a threatening manner and then have scoring rings printed on the picture.

 

The first one was a white man holding a knife, the second is a white woman holding a gun, and the third was a black man holding a gun.

 

Our city attorney came to the range one day and it just so happened that while he was there we were at the point in the stack of targets where about 2/3s were the black male. After that he recommended that we stop using that target because of possible perception.

 

So now we no longer use the black male targets.

 

Very interesting, & not surprising. I was going to make additional comments, but in fear of being called a racist & being

Zapped permantely, I will refrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Our city attorney came to the range one day and it just so happened that while he was there we were at the point in the stack of targets where about 2/3s were the black male. After that he recommended that we stop using that target because of possible perception."

 

From a part of the country where the admitted practice for stopping a black in a nice car was the question "Where'd you steal that car, boy" (late '50's) and sunset laws were enforced through the '70's, the perception could be possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why dont you just use rainbow color targets, then you can equally offend everyone..... problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

In my earlier years I did a lot of big bore target shooting, NRA Marksman & Pro-Marksman programs, I mean

lots of targets. IIRC, I can't remember ever seeing targets with white bulls eyes? I didn't know, at the time, that

shooting at black bulls eyes was bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think we should be looking at how Russian was involved. My biggest concern is what they may have on Trump. That kind of leverage is bad for the USA.

 

 

Concur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

Why no hyspanic or asian targets? freakin cops and narrow caste views

 

I like Keith's idea of multi colored one size fits all targets, a good way to offend everybody, no discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "people" shaped targets I shoot are different shades of green - problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why dont you just use rainbow color targets, then you can equally offend everyone..... problem solved.

 

No, then you'll only offend the LGBQT crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

fc,550x550,black.u4.jpg

 

 

220px-Target_223_Savage_10FP_25_shot.jpg

 

 

When does that ever happen?

 

 

 

The target? From the bench, at 100 yards, on a good day, I could do about a 2" group, if I really concentrated.

However, most of our practice was from hunting positions, mainly kneeling or offhand.

 

Winning an argument with a liberal would be like hitting a 12" gong at 1,000 yards, shooting offhand, possible,

but not likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a member at 2 different clubs that own and operate gun ranges, going back 15 years. Neither allowed any sort of human image target on the ranges. All targets allowed were round bullseye type or the oval ones similar to the pictures. I didn't know that any gun ranges allowed human looking targets

 

630110.jpg

gunshop I was at today still had a stack of Osama Bin Laden target posters. no black outlines, just orange and green. better tell 'em next time they are libruls.

 

 

oh the irony for agitc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

fc,550x550,black.u4.jpg

 

 

220px-Target_223_Savage_10FP_25_shot.jpg

 

 

When does that ever happen?

 

Winning an argument with a liberal would be like hitting a 12" gong at 1,000 yards, shooting offhand, possible,

but not likely.

 

 

You seem to be accepting a bit of reality Dabs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my earlier years I did a lot of big bore target shooting, NRA Marksman & Pro-Marksman programs, I mean

lots of targets. IIRC, I can't remember ever seeing targets with white bulls eyes? I didn't know, at the time, that

shooting at black bulls eyes was bad.

 

I see you struggle with the meaning of the word 'refrain' as much as your old sparring partner Bent does with the word 'Ignore'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

fc,550x550,black.u4.jpg

 

 

220px-Target_223_Savage_10FP_25_shot.jpg

When does that ever happen?

 

The target? From the bench, at 100 yards, on a good day, I could do about a 2" group, if I really concentrated.

However, most of our practice was from hunting positions, mainly kneeling or offhand.

 

Winning an argument with a liberal would be like hitting a 12" gong at 1,000 yards, shooting offhand, possible,

but not likely.

A 2 inch grouping is good shooting Dabs and a useful skill if you ever have to shoot a fellow NRA member in the cock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why dont you just use rainbow color targets, then you can equally offend everyone..... problem solved.

 

No, then you'll only offend the LGBQT crowd.

 

 

original.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The target? From the bench, at 100 yards, on a good day, I could do about a 2" group, if I really concentrated.

However, most of our practice was from hunting positions, mainly kneeling or offhand.

 

Winning an argument with a liberal would be like hitting a 12" gong at 1,000 yards, shooting offhand, possible,

but not likely.

A 2 inch grouping is good shooting Dabs and a useful skill if you ever have to shoot a fellow NRA member in the cock.

 

 

A 2" group at 100 yds from the bench is terrible. Either the shooter or the weapon (or both) need some work. Just sayin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100 yards from a bench there should only be a single 1" hole in the target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100 yards from a bench there should only be a single 1" hole in the target.

 

Or less, unless you are shooing .50 cals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

 

 

fc,550x550,black.u4.jpg

 

 

220px-Target_223_Savage_10FP_25_shot.jpg

 

 

When does that ever happen?

 

Winning an argument with a liberal would be like hitting a 12" gong at 1,000 yards, shooting offhand, possible,

but not likely.

 

 

You seem to be accepting a bit of reality Dabs.

 

 

Well, I have said "Never say never" here but I think me doing that offhand is about as close to never as it could be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

 

The target? From the bench, at 100 yards, on a good day, I could do about a 2" group, if I really concentrated.

However, most of our practice was from hunting positions, mainly kneeling or offhand.

 

Winning an argument with a liberal would be like hitting a 12" gong at 1,000 yards, shooting offhand, possible,

but not likely.

A 2 inch grouping is good shooting Dabs and a useful skill if you ever have to shoot a fellow NRA member in the cock.

 

 

A 2" group at 100 yds from the bench is terrible. Either the shooter or the weapon (or both) need some work. Just sayin'

 

 

In my case, I was shooting a stock, out of the box 1950 Winchester Model 70 in .30-06 caliber, with a Weaver K4 scope.

I am sure that in more capable hands the gun would have grouped better.

 

In the 10 or so deer I killed most were taken from the kneeling position with one shot at 100 to 200 yards, never

lost a cripple. About the only time I shot from the bench was to make sure it was sighted in properly, or shooting

at the 600 yard gong, just for the fun of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

 

 

fc,550x550,black.u4.jpg

 

220px-Target_223_Savage_10FP_25_shot.jpg

When does that ever happen?

 

The target? From the bench, at 100 yards, on a good day, I could do about a 2" group, if I really concentrated.

However, most of our practice was from hunting positions, mainly kneeling or offhand.

 

Winning an argument with a liberal would be like hitting a 12" gong at 1,000 yards, shooting offhand, possible,

but not likely.

A 2 inch grouping is good shooting Dabs and a useful skill if you ever have to shoot a fellow NRA member in the cock.

 

 

Oh ouch!!, that would hurt, & would be impolite. Why would I shoot another NRA Member, the good guys have

to hang together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

In my earlier years I did a lot of big bore target shooting, NRA Marksman & Pro-Marksman programs, I mean

lots of targets. IIRC, I can't remember ever seeing targets with white bulls eyes? I didn't know, at the time, that

shooting at black bulls eyes was bad.

I see you struggle with the meaning of the word 'refrain' as much as your old sparring partner Bent does with the word 'Ignore'.

 

 

Actually, I used to put a small white cross in the middle of the black 10 ring so it would show up better

in the scope, so it really wasn't an all black bulls eye. I will refrain from making a further comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I take a peek to see wtf is going on in SA and, whoa!

What is this?

An entire thread about shooting paper targets? And that the COLOR somehow matters....?

Really? Most by the 10,000+ post club?

What good is any of this?

We are fucking doomed.

Fuck it.

I'm going outback to clean the .220 Swift.....

See you all next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

So I take a peek to see wtf is going on in SA and, whoa!

What is this?

An entire thread about shooting paper targets? And that the COLOR somehow matters....?

Really? Most by the 10,000+ post club?

What good is any of this?

We are fucking doomed.

Fuck it.

I'm going outback to clean the .220 Swift.....

See you all next year.

 

Have to agree, however, I think the main issue is the color or the targets, it is OK to shoot at white silhouette man targets,

but not black silhouette man targets. I always tried to practice as close as I could to actual hunting situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So I take a peek to see wtf is going on in SA and, whoa!

What is this?

An entire thread about shooting paper targets? And that the COLOR somehow matters....?

Really? Most by the 10,000+ post club?

What good is any of this?

We are fucking doomed.

Fuck it.

I'm going outback to clean the .220 Swift.....

See you all next year.

 

Have to agree, however, I think the main issue is the color or the targets, it is OK to shoot at white silhouette man targets,

but not black silhouette man targets. I always tried to practice as close as I could to actual hunting situations.

 

 

So you hunt humans you say?

 

Why else would you use other than a deer or an elk shaped target?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And liberals think people voted for Trump because of the Russians.

 

"We're an increasingly polarized nation especially since the election and this forum is reflecting that polarization." - Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

100 yards from a bench there should only be a single 1" hole in the target.

 

Or less, unless you are shooing .50 cals.

 

or you are 186 years old like Dabs. Come on guys give the racist old cunt a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I take a peek to see wtf is going on in SA and, whoa!

What is this?

An entire thread about shooting paper targets? And that the COLOR somehow matters....?

Really? Most by the 10,000+ post club?

What good is any of this?

We are fucking doomed.

Fuck it.

I'm going outback to clean the .220 Swift.....

See you all next year.

Thanks for that cockring - come back in about another 9650 posts when you have some real life experience like us 10000+ post guys...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The target? From the bench, at 100 yards, on a good day, I could do about a 2" group, if I really concentrated.

However, most of our practice was from hunting positions, mainly kneeling or offhand.

 

Winning an argument with a liberal would be like hitting a 12" gong at 1,000 yards, shooting offhand, possible,

but not likely.

A 2 inch grouping is good shooting Dabs and a useful skill if you ever have to shoot a fellow NRA member in the cock.

A 2" group at 100 yds from the bench is terrible. Either the shooter or the weapon (or both) need some work. Just sayin'

depends on what you're shooting, no? A 2 inch group from 100 yards with a slug gun with iron sights would probably be pretty good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

Dabs, you're a disgusting racist piece of shit.

 

There. I feel much better now.

 

"Whoa, Nellie"!! Good thing you are not a moderator. Do you know Mr. Zapata?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

So I take a peek to see wtf is going on in SA and, whoa!

What is this?

An entire thread about shooting paper targets? And that the COLOR somehow matters....?

Really? Most by the 10,000+ post club?

What good is any of this?

We are fucking doomed.

Fuck it.

I'm going outback to clean the .220 Swift.....

See you all next year.

 

Have to agree, however, I think the main issue is the color or the targets, it is OK to shoot at white silhouette man targets,

but not black silhouette man targets. I always tried to practice as close as I could to actual hunting situations.

 

 

So you hunt humans you say?

 

Why else would you use other than a deer or an elk shaped target?

 

 

Never shot any kind of silhouette targets, black or white, just square ones with a white background & a black

round center section, called a "bull eye". Never shot at anything that could shoot back. Did get to shoot

the twin barrel version of these, however, & the taxpayers even payed for the ammo, huge amounts of fun:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

100 yards from a bench there should only be a single 1" hole in the target.

 

Or less, unless you are shooing .50 cals.

 

or you are 186 years old like Dabs. Come on guys give the racist old cunt a break.

 

 

Well, I was about 14 years old at the time, even wore glasses then. No problem with the criticism, I am sure the

gun was more accurate than I was. Shooting the 400 & 600 yard gongs was fun, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Have to agree, however, I think the main issue is the color or the targets, it is OK to shoot at white silhouette man targets,

but not black silhouette man targets. I always tried to practice as close as I could to actual hunting situations.

 

 

So you hunt humans you say?

 

Why else would you use other than a deer or an elk shaped target?

 

 

Never shot at anything that could shoot back.

 

 

Colour me surprised.

 

People with your attitudes seldom have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

 

Have to agree, however, I think the main issue is the color or the targets, it is OK to shoot at white silhouette man targets,

but not black silhouette man targets. I always tried to practice as close as I could to actual hunting situations.

 

 

So you hunt humans you say?

 

Why else would you use other than a deer or an elk shaped target?

 

 

Never shot at anything that could shoot back.

 

 

Colour me surprised.

 

People with your attitudes seldom have.

 

 

Never had any desire to shoot another person, that would be impolite, & if I missed, they might shoot back, very uncivilized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why else would you use other than a deer or an elk shaped target?

 

 

I thought a human silhouette was an "elk" shaped target around here. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

Why else would you use other than a deer or an elk shaped target?

 

 

I thought a human silhouette was an "elk" shaped target around here. ;)

 

 

As mentioned, I always tried to practice in a manner similar to hunting conditions.

 

I would think a Law enforcement Officer would want to practice in a manner similar to his enforcement, or

defense activities. So, if he encounters more black violent criminals than white violent criminals, black

silhouette man targets may be the best choice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dabs - don't go there or you'll be gone for good. Your cuteness and tippy toeing around doesn't amuse anyone here.

 

You ARE a slow learner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dabs - don't go there or you'll be gone for good. Your cuteness and tippy toeing around doesn't amuse anyone here.

 

You ARE a slow learner.

It takes a lot longer to learn anything the older one gets although, in dabs case, it may have nothing to do with age. :(

 

 

Yeah, he has said himself that he hasn't had a new thought or attitude in over 50 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The color of the target aside, I hear this bitch about human shaped targets all the time. I see no issue with doing target practice against a human silhouette if you are practicing for defensive purposes. Most human intruders than break into your house or attempt to rob the 7-11 - at least last I checked - are not shaped like round bullseyes. I would not expect a hunter going deer hunting to practice on human shaped targets while sighting his/her rifle in nor would I expect a woman learning to shoot her pistol in a defensive situation to shoot at coyote shaped targets.

 

I think all this hysteria that because we are practicing against human shaped targets must somehow make us blood thirsty killers and more prone to shoot someone. Rubbish!

 

As far as the whining over black targets, that's even more specious. Most modern pistol and rifle sights typically have some kind of white/red/etc dot to help pick up the sights quicker. You can see those against a darker target easier and more precisely place the shot when learning & practicing. And the other reality is that most criminals, in fact most people in general, tend to wear more darker clothing. So you are training to shoot targets more similar to what you would most likely encounter. I mean unless you live somewhere like fantasy island or south beach and all our potential assailants are dressed in white suits like in Miami Vice - shooting dark human shaped targets is more realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gallery_120910_1310_671929.jpg

 

Shit. Black target. I need fuckin sensitivity training,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

 

 

100 yards from a bench there should only be a single 1" hole in the target.

 

Or less, unless you are shooing .50 cals.

 

or you are 186 years old like Dabs. Come on guys give the racist old cunt a break.

 

 

Well, I was about 14 years old at the time, even wore glasses then. No problem with the criticism, I am sure the

gun was more accurate than I was. Shooting the 400 & 600 yard gongs was fun, however.

 

 

Did you get a teddy bear from the man at the booth at your local amusement park, Dabs?

 

 

Coast Side Sportsman's Club, Linda Mar, California, late 40's, early 50's. Regular rifle range with steel plates suspended

by chains at 400 & 600 yards. Fun to hear them go "Bong" The original range is now covered by houses. Just think

of all those spent lead core bullets in the ground, how terrible!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

100 yards from a bench there should only be a single 1" hole in the target.

 

Or less, unless you are shooing .50 cals.

 

or you are 186 years old like Dabs. Come on guys give the racist old cunt a break.

 

 

Well, I was about 14 years old at the time, even wore glasses then. No problem with the criticism, I am sure the

gun was more accurate than I was. Shooting the 400 & 600 yard gongs was fun, however.

 

 

Did you get a teddy bear from the man at the booth at your local amusement park, Dabs?

 

 

Just think of all those spent lead core bullets in the ground, how terrible!!

 

 

As long as your grandchildren don't live there it'll be O/K though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last time I shot at a target, the target consisted of a circle with a white circle in the middle surrounded by a black one. It was about half the size of a salad dish. If you can't hit that with the weapon I used with very little experience, you had better take the gun home and never pick it up again.

 

When you put of a silhouette of a human, what do you imagine it is? If it's black, what do you think you are shooting at or does it just improve your aim because it's off a man and not a circle. How boring it must be for you folks not using a circle on a piece of cardboard to shoot at.

Shooting a salad bowl shaped targets is exteamly offensive to vegetarians. Imagine how vegiterians must feel when people shoot at human shaped targets that are wasted to the point of emancipation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, a game warden should shoot at white silhouettes with a black backgrounds of criminal, white guys, as I suspect there are way more big white hunters out there than criminal, big black, hunters, that often shoot deer or elk illegally, which is criminal.. Yup, makes sense to DABs..

hunters often shoot deer or elk illegally? What sort of pharmaceuticals are you abusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

 

 

 

 

100 yards from a bench there should only be a single 1" hole in the target.

 

Or less, unless you are shooing .50 cals.

 

or you are 186 years old like Dabs. Come on guys give the racist old cunt a break.

 

 

Well, I was about 14 years old at the time, even wore glasses then. No problem with the criticism, I am sure the

gun was more accurate than I was. Shooting the 400 & 600 yard gongs was fun, however.

 

 

Did you get a teddy bear from the man at the booth at your local amusement park, Dabs?

 

 

Coast Side Sportsman's Club, Linda Mar, California, late 40's, early 50's. Regular rifle range with steel plates suspended

by chains at 400 & 600 yards. Fun to hear them go "Bong" The original range is now covered by houses. Just think

of all those spent lead core bullets in the ground, how terrible!!

 

 

Yup, that lead shit, that's why duck hunters have to use steel shot. Oh wait, that's a regulation! That must piss you off, steel shot, I bet costs you more.

 

 

I quit hunting ducks just before lead shot was banned. From what I have read, & what my son in law tells me

steel shot is not as good as Bismuth or Remington's Hevi shot, both of which are close to the weight of lead,

at about $5.00 or so per round. IIRC, 12 gauge ammo was about $.50 per round when we were hunting.

 

However, $5.00 per round is OK, people shouldn't be murdering ducks, anyway. Sorry about the delays in

replying to you. When I am not signed in the pages load normally. As soon as I sign in I am lucky to get one

out of ten pages to load. Maybe the moderators have me on "Strangle" mode?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

100 yards from a bench there should only be a single 1" hole in the target.

Or less, unless you are shooing .50 cals.

or you are 186 years old like Dabs. Come on guys give the racist old cunt a break.

Well, I was about 14 years old at the time, even wore glasses then. No problem with the criticism, I am sure the

gun was more accurate than I was. Shooting the 400 & 600 yard gongs was fun, however.

Did you get a teddy bear from the man at the booth at your local amusement park, Dabs?

Coast Side Sportsman's Club, Linda Mar, California, late 40's, early 50's. Regular rifle range with steel plates suspended

by chains at 400 & 600 yards. Fun to hear them go "Bong" The original range is now covered by houses. Just think

of all those spent lead core bullets in the ground, how terrible!!

Yup, that lead shit, that's why duck hunters have to use steel shot. Oh wait, that's a regulation! That must piss you off, steel shot, I bet costs you more.

no duck hunter I know uses steel shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, a game warden should shoot at white silhouettes with a black backgrounds of criminal, white guys, as I suspect there are way more big white hunters out there than criminal, big black, hunters, that often shoot deer or elk illegally, which is criminal.. Yup, makes sense to DABs..

hunters often shoot deer or elk illegally? What sort of pharmaceuticals are you abusing.

 

I'd go with hunters never shoot illegally. Poachers do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, a game warden should shoot at white silhouettes with a black backgrounds of criminal, white guys, as I suspect there are way more big white hunters out there than criminal, big black, hunters, that often shoot deer or elk illegally, which is criminal.. Yup, makes sense to DABs..

hunters often shoot deer or elk illegally? What sort of pharmaceuticals are you abusing.

 

 

Its not drugs in Sandy's case...... its pure early onset dementia coupled with hereditary stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100 yards from a bench there should only be a single 1" hole in the target.

Or less, unless you are shooing .50 cals.

or you are 186 years old like Dabs. Come on guys give the racist old cunt a break.

Well, I was about 14 years old at the time, even wore glasses then. No problem with the criticism, I am sure the

gun was more accurate than I was. Shooting the 400 & 600 yard gongs was fun, however.

Did you get a teddy bear from the man at the booth at your local amusement park, Dabs?

Coast Side Sportsman's Club, Linda Mar, California, late 40's, early 50's. Regular rifle range with steel plates suspended

by chains at 400 & 600 yards. Fun to hear them go "Bong" The original range is now covered by houses. Just think

of all those spent lead core bullets in the ground, how terrible!!

Yup, that lead shit, that's why duck hunters have to use steel shot. Oh wait, that's a regulation! That must piss you off, steel shot, I bet costs you more.

no duck hunter I know uses steel shot.

 

 

I have no first hand experience with it. However, if I was still hunting I would want to send the heaviest stuff out there

I could. I think there is one shot that is heavier than lead, has three letters in its name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

Chinabold DUH, it's NOW against the law of course they don't anymore but, they used lead for years. Of course, Trump may regard as one of those regulations, 2 out of every 3, should be eliminated.

 

And then, we have DABS who, based on his post sees nothing wrong with using heavier shot like LEAD instead of steel. Why would he care that duck and geese can die from lead poisoning from injesting lead shot.

 

The shot I am talking about does not contain lead & is approved by the US Fish & wildlife Service for hunting waterfowl.

 

There are other choices on non lead, steel being only one of them:

 

http://www.gameandfishmag.com/hunting/making-sense-of-non-toxic-shot-shells/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy, there is an old saying that "it is better to keep quiet and let people imagine you're a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it for them". Just sayin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So, a game warden should shoot at white silhouettes with a black backgrounds of criminal, white guys, as I suspect there are way more big white hunters out there than criminal, big black, hunters, that often shoot deer or elk illegally, which is criminal.. Yup, makes sense to DABs..

hunters often shoot deer or elk illegally? What sort of pharmaceuticals are you abusing.

 

I'd go with hunters never shoot illegally. Poachers do.

 

I've tried that here, the less then subtle difference is lost on some of the rabble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chinabold DUH, it's NOW against the law of course they don't anymore but, they used lead for years. Of course, Trump may regard as one of those regulations, 2 out of every 3, should be eliminated.

 

And then, we have DABS who, based on his post sees nothing wrong with using heavier shot like LEAD instead of steel. Why would he care that duck and geese can die from lead poisoning from injesting lead shot.

Care to point me to the law that says duck hunters must use steel shot? There isn't one, never was one either. The law says you can't use lead.

 

The vast majority of duck hunters use something other then steel that also is not lead. Like Dabs was referring to, there are plenty of options that are not lead and that are heavier then lead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

Chinabold DUH, it's NOW against the law of course they don't anymore but, they used lead for years. Of course, Trump may regard as one of those regulations, 2 out of every 3, should be eliminated.

 

And then, we have DABS who, based on his post sees nothing wrong with using heavier shot like LEAD instead of steel. Why would he care that duck and geese can die from lead poisoning from injesting lead shot.

 

The shot I am talking about does not contain lead & is approved by the US Fish & wildlife Service for hunting waterfowl.

 

There are other choices on non lead, steel being only one of them:

 

http://www.gameandfishmag.com/hunting/making-sense-of-non-toxic-shot-shells/

 

 

Yup, one of the regulations that were jammed through much to your horror I'm sure. Probably one of them that will be defanged by Trump so, you'll be able to lead instead of steel. What did you say, you want the heaviest possible shot for duck hunting? Steel weighs less than lead. And for further insult the proposed 10% military spending, 58billion, will end up be siphoned from the EPA. Go TRUMP GO!

 

Sounds like an "oh dear" situation for you Dabs.

 

 

Increase military effectiveness=Good

 

Reducing or eliminating EPA overkill=Good

 

BO leaving the White House=Good

 

Life is good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

Trump in the WH bad Good

Arms race bad Good, keep them scared, kill or be killed

EPA funding cut back to pay for weapons bad Good, EPA overkill bad

eliminating Obamacare bad Double good

Keystone pipeline bad Good

Racism bad Agree

Religious differences bad Don't care

Same sex marriage bad Don't care

Abortions bad Don't care, maybe good in some cases

Voucher schools bad Good, teacher's unions don't like vouchers

Pruitt bad Good

Sessions bad "

Pence bad "

Goldman Sacs bad "

Billionaires usually bad "

Welfare bad Agree

Spicer bad and comes across as stupid Not so

Kellyanne bad "

Bannon bad "

Relations with Mexico bad So what

Relations with Europe borderline bad or confused "

Russia investigations bad "

Trump's reading ability non-existant "

1st Amendment bad Rioting & looting are not First Amendment rights

Gun regulations bad Excessive gun regulations & confiscation of law abiding gun owners guns are bad

Regulations on air quality bad Excessive regulations of any kind are bad

 

 

Life is good for Dabs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

:(

Here ya go Dabs - found the perfect target for you.

 

silhouette-cap.gif?w=724

 

 

Oh dear, I dasn't comment on this. :( I think you my be trying to get me Zapataed, or JB'd? I am probably

already on double secret probation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

:(

Here ya go Dabs - found the perfect target for you.

 

silhouette-cap.gif?w=724

 

 

Oh dear, I dasn't comment on this. :( I think you my be trying to get me Zapataed, or JB'd? I am probably

already on double secret probation?

 

You don't HAVE to comment on it Dabs, we all know what kind of old, And as far as the list, figured you'd agree with all of them until one directly effects you and then, you won't.racist redneck you are!

 

 

I only speak the truth. I will continue to restrain myself from commenting on Life Boy's picture. To do so, would likely force

me back to Calguns. Actually, I liked The Wooden Boat Forum, but many of the kind folks on the left there didn't like me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

 

:(

Here ya go Dabs - found the perfect target for you.

 

silhouette-cap.gif?w=724

 

 

Oh dear, I dasn't comment on this. :( I think you my be trying to get me Zapataed, or JB'd? I am probably

already on double secret probation?

 

You don't HAVE to comment on it Dabs, we all know what kind of old, And as far as the list, figured you'd agree with all of them until one directly effects you and then, you won't.racist redneck you are!

 

 

I only speak the truth. I will continue to restrain myself from commenting on Life Boy's picture. To do so, would likely force

me back to Calguns. Actually, I liked The Wooden Boat Forum, but many of the kind folks on the left there didn't like me.

 

 

WBF, more that likely, no one liked you regardless of party! And you may speak the truth but, as I said, you didn't have to comment on Life boy's post. You are an open book. Go hang out with the KKK if you're looking for friends.

 

 

Well, Life Boy posted the picture for me. It would have been impolite for me to ignore him. I think my party & positions were

unliked by some on WBF. "Oh great, another redneck gun nut, that is all we need" ( Actual WBF quote) It appears the WBF

moderators agreed with him.

 

At least here, Mr. Zapata was kind enough to give me a warning, unlike on WBF. I liked WBF, having owned &

helped build large & small wooden boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Trump in the WH bad Good

Arms race bad Good, keep them scared, kill or be killed

EPA funding cut back to pay for weapons bad Good, EPA overkill bad

eliminating Obamacare bad Double good

Keystone pipeline bad Good

Racism bad Agree

Religious differences bad Don't care

Same sex marriage bad Don't care

Abortions bad Don't care, maybe good in some cases

Voucher schools bad Good, teacher's unions don't like vouchers

Pruitt bad Good

Sessions bad "

Pence bad "

Goldman Sacs bad "

Billionaires usually bad "

Welfare bad Agree

Spicer bad and comes across as stupid Not so

Kellyanne bad "

Bannon bad "

Relations with Mexico bad So what

Relations with Europe borderline bad or confused "

Russia investigations bad "

Trump's reading ability non-existant "

1st Amendment bad Rioting & looting are not First Amendment rights

Gun regulations bad Excessive gun regulations & confiscation of law abiding gun owners guns are bad

Regulations on air quality bad Excessive regulations of any kind are bad

 

 

Life is good for Dabs!

 

 

Dabs, you really are an irredeemably clueless old fart. It's just as well that you & your elk have long since rounded the clubhouse turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

Trump in the WH bad Good

Arms race bad Good, keep them scared, kill or be killed

EPA funding cut back to pay for weapons bad Good, EPA overkill bad

eliminating Obamacare bad Double good

Keystone pipeline bad Good

Racism bad Agree

Religious differences bad Don't care

Same sex marriage bad Don't care

Abortions bad Don't care, maybe good in some cases

Voucher schools bad Good, teacher's unions don't like vouchers

Pruitt bad Good

Sessions bad "

Pence bad "

Goldman Sacs bad "

Billionaires usually bad "

Welfare bad Agree

Spicer bad and comes across as stupid Not so

Kellyanne bad "

Bannon bad "

Relations with Mexico bad So what

Relations with Europe borderline bad or confused "

Russia investigations bad "

Trump's reading ability non-existant "

1st Amendment bad Rioting & looting are not First Amendment rights

Gun regulations bad Excessive gun regulations & confiscation of law abiding gun owners guns are bad

Regulations on air quality bad Excessive regulations of any kind are bad

 

 

Life is good for Dabs!

 

 

Dabs, you really are an irredeemably clueless old fart. It's just as well that you & your elk have long since rounded the clubhouse turn.

 

Well,Sloop, it appears we have some differences of opinion on some things. However, we are polite to each other.

 

"Clueless old fart"? Not sure what age has to do with anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

 

 

Trump in the WH bad Good

Arms race bad Good, keep them scared, kill or be killed

EPA funding cut back to pay for weapons bad Good, EPA overkill bad

eliminating Obamacare bad Double good

Keystone pipeline bad Good

Racism bad Agree

Religious differences bad Don't care

Same sex marriage bad Don't care

Abortions bad Don't care, maybe good in some cases

Voucher schools bad Good, teacher's unions don't like vouchers

Pruitt bad Good

Sessions bad "

Pence bad "

Goldman Sacs bad "

Billionaires usually bad "

Welfare bad Agree

Spicer bad and comes across as stupid Not so

Kellyanne bad "

Bannon bad "

Relations with Mexico bad So what

Relations with Europe borderline bad or confused "

Russia investigations bad "

Trump's reading ability non-existant "

1st Amendment bad Rioting & looting are not First Amendment rights

Gun regulations bad Excessive gun regulations & confiscation of law abiding gun owners guns are bad

Regulations on air quality bad Excessive regulations of any kind are bad

 

 

Life is good for Dabs!

 

 

Dabs, you really are an irredeemably clueless old fart. It's just as well that you & your elk have long since rounded the clubhouse turn.

 

Well,Sloop, it appears we have some differences of opinion on some things. However, we are polite to each other.

 

"Clueless old fart"? Not sure what age has to do with anything?

 

 

It's NOT Sloop! Old plays a definite part here, you can't teach a Dabs nothing being ancient and stuck in a deep rut for over 70 years. Seventy, because I'd wager there was perhaps ten years before his brain atrophied.

 

 

I always consider other's opinions, before rejecting them.

 

So, how about a new bicycle thread? Some of the kind WBF folks really got worked up after I commented on their existing bicycle

thread titled "I like bicycles", really steamed their clams. Right now we are really enjoying their absence, but they will be back in about

4, or so, more months. Maybe I will buy a big dually diesel,pickup? That looked like fun. Looks like they can really generate some

serious smoke, especially up here at about 7,000 feet elevation

 

Looks like re-cycling diesel smoke through bike rider's lungs is a good way to ensure clean air for the rest of us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trump in the WH bad Good

Arms race bad Good, keep them scared, kill or be killed

EPA funding cut back to pay for weapons bad Good, EPA overkill bad

eliminating Obamacare bad Double good

Keystone pipeline bad Good

Racism bad Agree

Religious differences bad Don't care

Same sex marriage bad Don't care

Abortions bad Don't care, maybe good in some cases

Voucher schools bad Good, teacher's unions don't like vouchers

Pruitt bad Good

Sessions bad "

Pence bad "

Goldman Sacs bad "

Billionaires usually bad "

Welfare bad Agree

Spicer bad and comes across as stupid Not so

Kellyanne bad "

Bannon bad "

Relations with Mexico bad So what

Relations with Europe borderline bad or confused "

Russia investigations bad "

Trump's reading ability non-existant "

1st Amendment bad Rioting & looting are not First Amendment rights

Gun regulations bad Excessive gun regulations & confiscation of law abiding gun owners guns are bad

Regulations on air quality bad Excessive regulations of any kind are bad

 

 

Life is good for Dabs!

 

 

Dabs, you really are an irredeemably clueless old fart. It's just as well that you & your elk have long since rounded the clubhouse turn.

 

Well,Sloop, it appears we have some differences of opinion on some things. However, we are polite to each other.

 

"Clueless old fart"? Not sure what age has to do with anything?

 

 

It's NOT Sloop! Old plays a definite part here, you can't teach a Dabs nothing being ancient and stuck in a deep rut for over 70 years. Seventy, because I'd wager there was perhaps ten years before his brain atrophied.

 

 

I always consider other's opinions, before rejecting them.

 

So, how about a new bicycle thread? Some of the kind WBF folks really got worked up after I commented on their existing bicycle

thread titled "I like bicycles", really steamed their clams. Right now we are really enjoying their absence, but they will be back in about

4, or so, more months. Maybe I will buy a big dually diesel,pickup? That looked like fun. Looks like they can really generate some

serious smoke, especially up here at about 7,000 feet elevation

 

Looks like re-cycling diesel smoke through bike rider's lungs is a good way to ensure clean air for the rest of us?

 

 

Dabs go play with the KKK, they are more your type and they probably have a forum who would love to have you. You can be as racist as you want with impunity. Just a thought you might want to pursue.Regarding bicycles, why do I sense you've never been on one. Maybe one with a huge front wheel with an itty biitty one in the back but, that would have centuries ago.

 

Regarding reading other's opinions, goes right through your head like water through a sieve. Oh wait Trump's opinions you wouldn't reject and will like no mater what. His opinions become your opinions.

 

 

Ah, SV, just came in from working outside in the 20 degree weather to warm up a bit. I rode bicycles for

about six years. Then, I drove a car. "KKK"? They wouldn't take me, although I am blonde, I don't have blue eyes.

 

"Other opinions"? As mentioned, I always consider them, some are very amusing, & yes, I do agree with

most of President Trump's positions & opinions, because they are right.

 

Well, back out into the cold.

Share this post


Link to post