• 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  
dylan winter

I am really impressed with Shooter Jeff and Tom

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, LB 15 said:

Still waiting for a reply from yesterday Ronald?. And as the world is flat, don't try and pull that 'It was night time here bullshit'

Reply for what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Once again LB - the BULLETS are the same diameter - the CARTRIDGES aren't.

Even an ignorant fuckwit gun grabber like me can grasp that.

Then why did he post this photo then? 

22_vs_223_caliber_bullet.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kmacdonald said:

Reply for what?

No you did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mad said:

Well it's seems that the incremental improvements made by it year on year are proving good results, so I'd say it's a good thing. 

Good thing they didn't stop in a knee jerk reaction after the first decade. 

Knee jerk reactions are rarely a good idea. 

Like more gun registration? Or is that just Jeff's knee jerk reaction to the possibility of losing his guns this terrible incident?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Then why did he post this photo then? 

22_vs_223_caliber_bullet.jpg

Are you being willfully obtuse here or do you really not get it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Jeebus - just put him on ignore. Shit posting trolls are a waste of electrons and brain cells.

Only for people who lack the will power to scroll past without reading. Or don't like what they read. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Are you being willfully obtuse here or do you really not get it?

Of course I am being willfully obtuse! Anyone can see from that photo they both have the same diameter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Of course I am being willfully obtuse! Anyone can see from that photo they both have the same diameter.

The bullets or the cartridges? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kmacdonald said:

The bullets or the cartridges? 

The exit wound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bloody Chum said:

"I'm surrounded by idiots!" - Likely LB Quote

Don't you have something you need to be doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

That's exactly why you need to have dramatically fewer guns available.

It's not really a tough concept.

So your solution is? Does it involve redefining words, like how "prohibited" in your gun laws might not mean "prohibited" as most english speakers would define it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something for Uncooperative Tom to mull over later this evening.

"Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to sell firearms to the public? No, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday in Teixeira v. County of Alameda, a landmark decision affirming the government’s constitutional authority to strictly regulate gun shops. The 9–2 ruling is a victory for gun safety advocates who feared judicial aggrandizement of the right to bear arms could invalidate myriad laws governing firearm commerce. The decision may be imperiled, however, if the plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court, where conservative justices are increasingly eager to expand the scope of the Second Amendment."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/10/11/ninth_circuit_rules_there_s_no_second_amendment_right_to_sell_firearms.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kmacdonald said:

Don't you have something you need to be doing?

Maybe he is unemployed retired like you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badlatitude said:

Here's something for Uncooperative Tom to mull over later this evening.

I see what you did there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LB 15 said:

You posted this photo and stated both have the same diameter.

22_vs_223_caliber_bullet.jpg

Try bashing each of these up your arse and get back to me on your understanding of diameter.

Image result for thin dildosImage result for huge dildos

 

 

Like I said: dicks are the same size around (though one is twice as long), it's the balls that are way bigger on one.

Perhaps a diagram will help.

nTIWsWx.png

 

bonus fun fact:  the little wee one likes rimjobs, the big one with huge balls likes to get poked hard, right up the center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, frenchie said:

Like I said: dicks are the same size around (though one is twice as long), it's the balls that are way bigger on one.

Perhaps a diagram will help.

nTIWsWx.png

 

bonus fun fact:  the little wee one likes rimjobs, the big one with huge balls likes to get poked hard, right up the center.

I get it now mate. Its not the size of your bullet that matters it is what you do with it that counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bpm57 said:

So your solution is? Does it involve redefining words, like how "prohibited" in your gun laws might not mean "prohibited" as most english speakers would define it?

There is no solution for you.

As I have said before - you're fucked - for several more generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bpm57 said:

No Dylan, you used to be allowed to own and even carry pistols in the UK. To bad your government decided in 1937 that firearms were not suitable for self defense.

And now it is this:

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q85.htm

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm

The right to bear arms in self defense was part of British common law for hundreds of years, but now it is carry a rape whistle to protect yourself. And if you do get in a situation, make sure you don't hurt your attacker.

Nice try on the muzzleloader angle. Since the only means of communicating was by talking (face to face), letter (handwritten, through the mail), or in newpapers/pamphlets (manual typeset) - does that mean "freedom of speech" only applies to those methods?

Fek me - I now realise you are completely right

we invented radio, TV and the web so that means

we should all carry assault rifles with bump stocks

"an armed society is a polite society"

good one

Dylan

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly arguments about statistics and specifics avoid the obvious point:

America's gun laws  are insane.

Allowing just about anybody to own firearms, and having a gun industry lobby group ruling one of the major political parties while it provides a comfortable "we're all right and we're powerful" group mind for its members, is just another symptom of how fucked the USA has become.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Ok Jeff well here is what I know about guns. If you point them at someone and pull the trigger there is a possibility that person might die. Regardless of how black and scary they might or might not be. 

Could you, as an expert witness, comment on and correct anything about this statement that is incorrect. 

You are 100% correct.  But notice it takes someone to pick up the gun, point it at another human being and pull the trigger.  The gun cannot do that all by itself.

Here is what I know about refrigerated Box trucks.....  If you point them at someone and punch the accelerator there is a possibility that person might die. Regardless of how white and scary they might or might not be.

What is the common denominator in those two examples???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually you caused yourself a lot of extra work there mate.  Here let me help you.....

 

11 hours ago, LB 15 said:
On 10/11/2017 at 12:08 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

And I have consistently said that hunting and other shooting sports were secondary to the right to own guns.  

I do absolutely and PRIMARILY enjoy them as a hobby. 

 

But the Vegas shooting has not changed my view or my stance on gunz in the slightest. 

Events like this actually harden me even further against "reasonable gun regulations". 

 

There are many many of us who would LOVE to strengthen the guns laws to keep asshats like this shooter getting their hands on gunz 

 I would love to have a discussion where we actually address root causes of these problems - Real ones 

 

Jaysaz Mate, most people at least use separate posts to contradict themselves, little own doing it 4 times in the one post. This makes it much easier to point it out your staggering hypocrisy, so thank you for your consideration. 

Sport shooting is secondary to you exercising your right to own guns but primarily why you own them. Check. Yes, sport shooting is secondary to defending myself, my community or my nation with my gunz.  Do you even understand what the definition of "primary" even means?  It seems not.  Primary implies there are secondary and maybe even tertiary uses for something.  The beauty of gunz is they can be both sporting tools and self defense tools depending on my mood and need sometimes near simultaneously.  And given that I haven't been assaulted or the nation hasn't been invaded or the gov't hasn't usurped the Constitution, fortunately and happily I have not ever needed them for their primary purpose.  So in the meantime, I get to enjoy them for their other purposes until such a time as I might need them for their primary purpose.  Its not like they are not allowed to ever be touched or removed from the safe unless I use it for it sole purpose. 

So I PRIMARILY ENJOY (i.e. USE) them as a hobby.  But their PRIMARY PURPOSE is for self-defense and defense of the nation.

Shirley, You cannot be THIS DUMB, mate.  

The Vegas shooting hasn't changed your view on gun regulation, apart from causing you to change your view on gun regulation. Check.  THE LV shootings and other mass shootings do not cause me to change my views on gun regulations because there are no gun regulations that would address this problem.  It was already ILLEGAL to kill these people with a gun.  They all passed Federal Background checks.  Registration would not have prevented this and the crime was solved after the fact without registration.

Mass shootings cause your opposition to strengthening gun laws to increase, yet you would love to strengthen gun laws. Check.  Those two things do not go together.  I have long said I favor strengthening SOME gun regulations such as making all sales go through BGCs including private sales.  And I want to increase the enforcement of existing gun regulations - which I think the lack of is the THE #1 reason why we have such high gun crime in the first place.  But again, don't confuse that will mass shootings.  There are no new laws that regulate guns that will have much effect on mass shooters.  That is a mental disease issue - and while there are many things we could and should do to address that, liberals want nothing to do with it because it might hurt some snowflake's feelings or impose on their privacy.  So they focus on tool only solutions.  I think there is much we could do about the general gun violence out there like in Chicago wrt to strengthening gun laws.  But that is a whole separate matter from mass shootings.

You want to strengthen gun laws to stop mass shooting despite guns not being the cause of mass shooting. Check.  See above.

Again thanks Jeff. You saved me a a bit of work there.

I am not hypocritical or contradictory.  You just don't get it.  Hopefully I've explained it to your satisfaction now......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You are 100% correct.  But notice it takes someone to pick up the gun, point it at another human being and pull the trigger.  The gun cannot do that all by itself.

Here is what I know about refrigerated Box trucks.....  If you point them at someone and punch the accelerator there is a possibility that person might die. Regardless of how white and scary they might or might not be.

What is the common denominator in those two examples???

Some people behind the wheel of a car or behind the trigger  change and become aggressive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Actually you caused yourself a lot of extra work there mate.  Here let me help you.....

 

I am not hypocritical or contradictory.  You just don't get it.  Hopefully I've explained it to your satisfaction now......

Holy fuck mate that's like one of bents larger essays. I will take a while to read all of it. Stand by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Some people behind the wheel of a car or behind the trigger  change and become aggressive?

I'm sure that happens in some cases.  Ever hear of road rage?  In any event,Mr Obtuse Fuckwit, the common denominator is that it takes a person with free will and intent to use either tool for good or evil.  Neither tool MAKES them aggressive or makes them commit violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Holy fuck mate that's like one of bents larger essays. I will take a while to read all of it. Stand by.

Please do.  And you will be dazzled by the brilliance of my logical reasoning and writing aplomb.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dylan winter said:

The right to bear arms in self defense was part of British common law for hundreds of years, but now it is carry a rape whistle to protect yourself. And if you do get in a situation, make sure you don't hurt your attacker.

Cite this if you want it accepted on PA. For hundreds of years (1285 - 1689 and beyond) you are dead wrong.

Quote

*see  p436 exc. Judges Drayton, Otis, and Blackstone

'Arms for Their Defence?': An Historical, Legal, and Textual Analysis of the English Right to Have Arms

and Whether the Second Amendment should Be Incorporated in McDonald v. City of Chicago 

A MacDonald brief by Patrick Charles

Cleveland State Law Review, Vol. 57, No. 3, 2009

599 Stephen P. Halbrook and other Individual Right Scholars mischaracterize the history of the Boston Town Meeting and the Convention of Towns.  The earliest history of this event was written by William Tudor (1779-1830) in his 1823 work THE LIFE OF JAMES OTIS, OF MASSACHUSETTS. WILLIAM TUDOR, THE LIFE OF JAMES OTIS, OF MASSACHUSETTS (Boston, Wells & Lilly 1823). 

Tudor, the son of America’s first Judge Advocate Colonel William Tudor (1715-1819), did not characterize the 1768 Militia Act as a right to armed individual self-defense.  He described the Militia Act as “founded in nature, reason, and sound policy, and is well adapted for the necessary defence of the community.”  Id. at 332-33. Tudor elaborated on “founded in nature” in a footnote.  The footnote states:

 It will be perceived, that by the authority they quoted, it was only “protestants,” that could be justified by “nature, reason and policy,” for having arms.  There lurks in this resolve, as well as in that of the legislature, in the observation, that “an army brought among them without their consent, was an unlawful assemblage of the worst and most alarming nature,” a kind of grave humour, which does not disparage the soundness of reasoning. 

 

 

Quote
  1. Question.  From the bench, did Blackstone quote the Statute of Northampton in 1769?
  2. Did Blackstone Support OC?
  3. Did Blackstone support CC?

I know the answers, but will entertain libertarian dogma about armed self defense. But where is Pooplius in this discussion?

 

Answer 1. Yes. Clearly and with eloquence.

Answer 2. No on OC. Pay attention. OC was what was forbidden by Northampton, No riders were to be armed. No arms allowed at  the marketplace. courts, or in other public places..

Answer 3. No on CC. Concealed weapons made the misdemeanor offense of packing a felony.

Who was Judge Blackstone? What is his importance to the founding father's elk? Why did Joyce Malcolm use Blackstone's name eighteen times in the opening pages of the Heller brief?

  Quote

Wiki

(Blackstone's work was) designed to provide a complete overview of English law, the four-volume treatise was repeatedly republished in 1770, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1778 and in a posthumous edition in 1783.

In the United States, the Commentaries influenced Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, James Wilson, John Jay, John Adams, James Kent and Abraham Lincoln, and remain frequently cited in Supreme Court decisions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blackstone

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm sure that happens in some cases.  Ever hear of road rage?  In any event,Mr Obtuse Fuckwit, the common denominator is that it takes a person with free will and intent to use either tool for good or evil.  Neither tool MAKES them aggressive or makes them commit violence.

If a pattern of free will and battlefield gunz is violently imposed on peaceful citizens, we only need to adjust human nature for Jeffie, to protect his hobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

51 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm sure that happens in some cases.  Ever hear of road rage?  In any event,Mr Obtuse Fuckwit, the common denominator is that it takes a person with free will and intent to use either tool for good or evil.  Neither tool MAKES them aggressive or makes them commit violence.

Come on Jeff you don't have to be so formal. Call me LB fuckwit please. The big difference is that cars, unlike guns, are not specifically deigned to Kill. Quite the opposite in fact. Most are designed to save lives . Except for muscle cars of course. They are designed to be dangerous but normally only owned by guys compensating for their small...ah....guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

 

Come on Jeff you don't have to be so formal. Call me LB fuckwit please. The big difference is that cars, unlike guns, are not specifically deigned to Kill. Quite the opposite in fact. Most are designed to save lives . Except for muscle cars of course. They are designed to be dangerous but normally only owned by guys compensating for their small...ah....guns?

Yet again, the red herring of "design" gets trotted out.  Design intent has nothing to do with anything.  Cars and trucks can kill far higher numbers than guns - as the Nice attacker demonstrated.  The fact that trucks were not designed to run over people certainly didn't stop that goatfucker from doing it.  It is a tied old argument that gets used every the grabbers run out of anything useful to say.

I would submit that those same guns are also designed to save lives.  If I shoot some meth head who has broken into my house to kill me and my family over a flat screen TV - then I have saved lives with that tool.  Is the Cop's gun that he carries every day "designed" to murder people or to save lives???  But.... but.... but.....  Can a cops's gun be used to save a life without firing it and killing someone?  But..... but..... but....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False equivalence, and floundering. Were bump stockas designed to save lives? How about the AR15?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

False equivalence, and floundering. Were bump stockas designed to save lives? How about the AR15?

If it happens by intent it is lethal. If it happens by accident it is just as lethal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BigUnot said:

If it happens by intent it is lethal. If it happens by accident it is just as lethal.

Degrees of deadness are not the discussion here. If the gun's design intent is to kill, then the gun kills, we see the connection. If a car is designed to transport, beneficially, but is used used to kill, we find  a bit of disconnect. 

As for any supposed self-defense benefit,  it gets offset, overall, by other gun mayhem, such as 23,000 gun suicides a year and the annual cost of 85,000 gunshot survivors. 

For another example, the self-protection claimed for women is an illusion: male lovers are shooting their exes in femicidal numbers, within homes, where Heller protects guns. 84% of the women in the world killed by guns are in the USA. 

Guns are designed to kill, and they are killing people. Battlfield guns are designed to mow down lots of people, and we find them doing that in Vegas and elsewhere. How about that.

The more guns around, the more people getting killed by guns. Cars are a false equivalence, and a desperate straw man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

False equivalence, and floundering. Were bump stockas designed to save lives? How about the AR15?

Bump stockas are not guns.  They are aftermarket accessories that the savior Obama approved.  And bump stockas are not the subject.  I'm happy to ban or regulate them.  

Yes, AR-15s save lives.  Cops carry AR-15s for that reason.  People defend their homes with them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Holy fuck mate that's like one of bents larger essays. I will take a while to read all of it. Stand by.

LB Fuckwit, any thoughts on what I wrote?  Do you understand why what I wrote is not hypocritical or contradictory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

People defend their homes with them.  

Wrong. The NSSF could not demonstrate that during Kolbe deliberations. That got a big FAIL.

Quote

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3470578-Kolbe-v-Hogan-en-Banc-Opinion.html

P25 Neither the plaintiffs nor Maryland LE could provide a single example where an AW's capabilities were needed for home defense.

P26 The NRA's magazine Armed Citizen says that 2.1 rounds are used in average home defense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, frenchie said:

Like I said: dicks are the same size around (though one is twice as long), it's the balls that are way bigger on one.

Perhaps a diagram will help.

nTIWsWx.png

 

bonus fun fact:  the little wee one likes rimjobs, the big one with huge balls likes to get poked hard, right up the center.

A novel way off explaining it.:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Wrong. The NSSF could not demonstrate that during Kolbe deliberations. That got a big FAIL.

Well, Kolbe should have asked me.  I defend my home with one.  I know several others that do as well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Well, Kolbe should have asked me.  I defend my home with one.  I know several others that do as well.  

The NSSF made the argument in Kolbe that scared women are bad shots, therefore need AW's and LCM's. P 28. OMG.

Quote

P24  31% to 41% of the murders of law officers happen with AW's.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

P24  31% to 41% of the murders of law officers happen with AW's.

SO what toolz were cops murdered with the other 59-69% of the time???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

SO what toolz were cops murdered with the other 59-69% of the time???

Answer your own damn questions.  But Christopher Koper has studied this subject since 1994. His new work produced by George Mason says the criminal use of AW's is increasing dramatically.

Quote

2017 Koper

This study investigates current levels of criminal activity with assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics in the USA using several local and national data sources including the following:

  • (1) guns recovered by police in ten largecities,
  • (2) guns reported by police to federal authorities for investigative tracing,
  • (3) guns used in murders of police, and (4) guns used in mass murders.

Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2–12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13–16% of guns used in murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some esti- mates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police.

Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total), though data on this issue are very limited.
Trend analyses also indicate that high-capacity semiautomatics have grown from 33 to 42% as a share of crime guns since the expiration of the federal ban—a trend that has coincided with recent growth in shootings nationwide.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Here is a big part of the problem in trying to have a dialogue regarding "assault weapons". The definition means whatever the speaker wants it to mean at any time. Most folks do not picture a standard Glock handgun as an "assault weapon", however that is being counted as one in the post above. Given that exceedingly broad definition of "assault weapon", I am surprised the share is not higher. I guess that a large number of bad guys are still using revolvers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LenP said:

^ Here is a big part of the problem in trying to have a dialogue regarding "assault weapons". The definition means whatever the speaker wants it to mean at any time. Most folks do not picture a standard Glock handgun as an "assault weapon", however that is being counted as one in the post above. Given that exceedingly broad definition of "assault weapon", I am surprised the share is not higher. I guess that a large number of bad guys are still using revolvers.

Well, we all know by know that tube fed .22s are "assault weapons", so it stands to reason that a Glock would be one too to the grabbdoucheratzi.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LenP said:

Most folks do not picture a standard Glock handgun as an "assault weapon", however that is being counted as one in the post above. Given that exceedingly broad definition of "assault weapon", I am surprised the share is not higher. I guess that a large number of bad guys are still using revolvers.

Single stack semi-autos  (e.g., Glock 43) have become popular in recent years due to easy of carry.

What defines high-capacity, 10+?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cal20sailor said:

Single stack semi-autos  (e.g., Glock 43) have become popular in recent years due to easy of carry.

What defines high-capacity, 10+?

It depends. For some it is 15+, some it is 10+, for others it is 7+.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You are 100% correct.  But notice it takes someone to pick up the gun, point it at another human being and pull the trigger.  The gun cannot do that all by itself.

Here is what I know about refrigerated Box trucks.....  If you point them at someone and punch the accelerator there is a possibility that person might die. Regardless of how white and scary they might or might not be.

What is the common denominator in those two examples???

Your fanaticism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly enough 19th century Americans had no issue at all with restricting firearms to cut down on violence. When some ammosexuals started going on about MY GUNZZZZZZZZZ  they got shot for their trouble by the law.

 

But as with much of the Wild West, myth has replaced history. The 1881 shootout took place in a narrow alley, not at the corral. Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday weren't seen as heroic until later; they were initially charged with murder.

And one fact is usually ignored: Back then, Tombstone had far stricter gun control than it does today. Indeed, the American West's most infamous gun battle erupted when the marshal tried to enforce a local ordinance that barred carrying firearms in public. A judge had fined one of the victims $25 earlier that day for packing a pistol.

"You could wear your gun into town, but you had to check it at the sheriff's office or the Grand Hotel, and you couldn't pick it up again until you were leaving town," said Bob Boze Bell, executive editor of True West Magazine, which celebrates the Old West. "It was an effort to control the violence."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Happy said:

Silly arguments about statistics and specifics avoid the obvious point:

America's gun laws  are insane.

Allowing just about anybody to own firearms, and having a gun industry lobby group ruling one of the major political parties while it provides a comfortable "we're all right and we're powerful" group mind for its members, is just another symptom of how fucked the USA has become.

 

+1  

mericafukyea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

What defines high-capacity.

For deflection? Gun ownership obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Actually you caused yourself a lot of extra work there mate.  Here let me help you.....

 

I am not hypocritical or contradictory.  You just don't get it.  Hopefully I've explained it to your satisfaction now......

Reading that was indeed hard work. Like marking a grade 5 special school essay. 

'Jeff needs to use actual facts to make his arguments. He needs to understand that deflection from the discussion points and long rambling poorly constructed sentences  do not make his arguments any less foolish.  His typing has showed some improvement now using two fingers but it is still well below the required standard. I recommend that Jeff be kept down again next year. 2/10'

Dare I say you have been schooled again?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yet again, the red herring of "design" gets trotted out.  Design intent has nothing to do with anything.  Cars and trucks can kill far higher numbers than guns - as the Nice attacker demonstrated.  The fact that trucks were not designed to run over people certainly didn't stop that goatfucker from doing it.  It is a tied old argument that gets used every the grabbers run out of anything useful to say.

I would submit that those same guns are also designed to save lives.  If I shoot some meth head who has broken into my house to kill me and my family over a flat screen TV - then I have saved lives with that tool.  Is the Cop's gun that he carries every day "designed" to murder people or to save lives???  But.... but.... but.....  Can a cops's gun be used to save a life without firing it and killing someone?  But..... but..... but....

So have you had to plug many Meth heads with your 'primarily for' sport guns yet mate?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

So have you had to plug many Meth heads with your 'primarily for' sport guns yet mate?

 

Amazing how the gun nutters prepare so hard for something that is highly unlikely to happen.  Their motto is: a very paranoid person is a very happy person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LB 15 said:
10 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You are 100% correct.  But notice it takes someone to pick up the gun, point it at another human being and pull the trigger.  The gun cannot do that all by itself.

Here is what I know about refrigerated Box trucks.....  If you point them at someone and punch the accelerator there is a possibility that person might die. Regardless of how white and scary they might or might not be.

What is the common denominator in those two examples???

Your fanaticism?

Jeff, 

Can a 3yo drive a refrigerated truck?

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2017/09/27/children-shot-dearborn/707787001/

One of the 3yos shot lost an eye.  They haven't yet filed charges against an adult but it is just a matter of time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeffie and Tommy Gun (and their elk) are unable to comprehend the definition of "specious" in regards to their "arguments".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Jeff, 

Can a 3yo drive a refrigerated truck?

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2017/09/27/children-shot-dearborn/707787001/

One of the 3yos shot lost an eye.  They haven't yet filed charges against an adult but it is just a matter of time

Hey Jeff you relax buddy - I got this for ya...

Another obtuse fuckwit. This is simply a matter of bad parenting. If the parents of the two toddlers have done the responsible thing and given the kids their own guns this would have ended differently. Perhaps the two kids were watching 'the wiggles' and the pusstrailian attitudes hidden in the show had effected them? Maybe the two toddlers were 'Milk heads' who had broken in and were trying to steal his flat-screen whilst he was watching Barney the Dinosaur? If this kid didn't have access to a gun or a refrigerated truck he would have used a knife or an airbus A80. The issue here is not the tools and until we start dealing with the root cause of toddler mental health, this will keep happening. Why shouldn't toddlers have guns? The 2A  doesn't mention age and there are plenty of 'well organised' 3 year olds. Until we know exactly what the gun was no one can draw any conclusions. Some pussy snowflake 3 year olds can't tell the difference between a scary black gun or a sporting gun and that makes all the difference in this case. It appears to be a' through and through' with one bullet so it was probably a .123 not a .456. The caliber is the key issue here and everyone should jump in so we can discuss this at length without all the emotional bullshit. The gun grabbers will now call for a knee jerk response that stops ALL 3 year olds from having access to guns. And why did the kindergarten cop take so long to respond?

Hows that Jeff? Did I miss any?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bloody Chum said:

IMG_1993.JPG.9255bc0e2826170cf1d4af6e7dd7c035.JPGDodge Challenger SRT Demon. 840 hp. Who needs all this power? It just a penis extension.

Sign me up.

American Exceptionalism.

As to the AR platform and home defense, I don't think it's the optimal choice personally. Many people do. This was in the news recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5fXM2OlLM8&feature=share

 

 

Mustangs are selling like hot cakes since they were introduced here a few years back. The Camaro will be available in OZ next year and is expected to take the market by storm. Only natural given our pussy gun laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dylan winter said:

Fek me - I now realise you are completely right

 

Oh go fuck yourself Dylan.

_You_ were the one trying to use the technology argument for the 2nd amendment. If that sort of thinking applies to the 2nd, doesn't it apply to the whole document (or at least the first 10 amendments)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:

Jeff, 

Can a 3yo drive a refrigerated truck?

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2017/09/27/children-shot-dearborn/707787001/

One of the 3yos shot lost an eye.  They haven't yet filed charges against an adult but it is just a matter of time

So the point (that other things can be used to kill people) zings straight over your head, and we go right to the "for the children" argument of gun control.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

So the point (that other things can be used to kill people) zings straight over your head, and we go right to the "for the children" argument of gun control.

 

Exactly. That kid could have just as easily used a teddy bear in this case, but that aside, a guy with as bad a little mans syndrome as you, really shouldn't make comments about things going over peoples heads popet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Cite this if you want it accepted on PA. For hundreds of years (1285 - 1689 and beyond) you are dead wrong.

Well, there is the English Bill of Rights.

Blackstone even commented on it!

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Clearly the laws were changed since then. Hope a policeman hears your rape whistle.

And, jocal, the only person crying about cites is you. And don't forget, "peer reviewed" can have nothing to do with accuracy or neutrality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you look at our (USA) Bill Of Rights in context you will see they are all there to protect the citizens from their government. The authors understood only too well how rulers can become power drunk and dictatorial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Exactly. That kid could have just as easily used a teddy bear in this case, but that aside, a guy with as bad a little mans syndrome as you, really shouldn't make comments about things going over peoples heads popet.

Oh look, its LB the troll!

I'm so honored!

And how cute, the "guns are phallic symbols" insult.

Since we are talking about things zinging over peoples heads, have you figured out yet that ".22" refers to the approximate diameter of the bullet?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Autonomous said:

When you look at our (USA) Bill Of Rights in context you will see they are all there to protect the citizens from their government. The authors understood only too well how rulers can become power drunk and dictatorial.

not the 2nd. It was to ensure a citizen militia there to defend the nation against enemies, foreign and domestic. Meaning, it was there to FIGHT those that fought the gov't....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

not the 2nd. It was to ensure a citizen militia there to defend the nation against enemies, foreign and domestic. Meaning, it was there to FIGHT those that fought the gov't....

So, who are the members of this "citizen militia"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bpm57 said:

I'm so honored!

Don't be petal - all you mouth breathers will get your turn. All you need to do is say something stupid. I suspect you will be hearing from me a bit.  Now pop back and cite the Phallic symbol insult in the post you replied to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

So, who are the members of this "citizen militia"?

historically? you could look it up. What you'd find is that at the time of the writing of the constitution, there was no standing Federal army(or for that matter, up to the time of the civil war). Rather, each state had a militia that was to be called upon in time of need.

Today, you'd call that the National Guard, but the current model of the national guard, there for time of civil need of the state, was different than the model 230 years ago.

 

Feel free to interpret the constitution in an "activist" manner - which is what the Supremes did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

So, who are the members of this "citizen militia"?

As is only to be expected you miss the point about how times have changed. Back when the 2A was written the kind of person likely to take up arms was frightened, paranoid, had little or no education, sort affirmation by assembling with like minded people, believed the womenfolks place was in the home and had poor dental health.

Wait. ...Oh never mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

not the 2nd. It was to ensure a citizen militia there to defend the nation against enemies, foreign and domestic. Meaning, it was there to FIGHT those that fought the gov't....

No, put your preconceived notions aside and look at the Bill Of Rights in context. It was not assembled randomly.

The 1st Amendment guarantees our right to say things the Govt. and others in positions of power do not want you to say.

The 2nd Amendment gives us the teeth to defend that and the other rights that follow.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Autonomous said:

 

The 1st Amendment guarantees our right to say things the Govt. and others in positions of power do not want you to say.

The 2nd Amendment gives us the teeth to defend that and the other rights that follow.

 

Well up until a few days after 911. Your government can now do what ever they like to you under the title of homeland security. And it is those on the right that have the most to fear about this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Hey Jeff you relax buddy - I got this for ya...

Another obtuse fuckwit. This is simply a matter of bad parenting. If the parents of the two toddlers have done the responsible thing and given the kids their own guns this would have ended differently. Perhaps the two kids were watching 'the wiggles' and the pusstrailian attitudes hidden in the show had effected them? Maybe the two toddlers were 'Milk heads' who had broken in and were trying to steal his flat-screen whilst he was watching Barney the Dinosaur? If this kid didn't have access to a gun or a refrigerated truck he would have used a knife or an airbus A80. The issue here is not the tools and until we start dealing with the root cause of toddler mental health, this will keep happening. Why shouldn't toddlers have guns? The 2A  doesn't mention age and there are plenty of 'well organised' 3 year olds. Until we know exactly what the gun was no one can draw any conclusions. Some pussy snowflake 3 year olds can't tell the difference between a scary black gun or a sporting gun and that makes all the difference in this case. It appears to be a' through and through' with one bullet so it was probably a .123 not a .456. The caliber is the key issue here and everyone should jump in so we can discuss this at length without all the emotional bullshit. The gun grabbers will now call for a knee jerk response that stops ALL 3 year olds from having access to guns. And why did the kindergarten cop take so long to respond?

Hows that Jeff? Did I miss any?

Oh bravo!  Well played sir, well played indeed.

Jeff will be by fuming and blustering shortly, I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, soak_ed said:

Oh bravo!  Well played sir, well played indeed.

Jeff will be by fuming and blustering shortly, I'm sure.

"Well played"? As is typical of 99% of what LB writes, it isn't even good as satire.

But that is typical of this thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

"Well played"? As is typical of 99% of what LB writes, it isn't even good as satire.

But that is typical of this thread.

 

Well I guess you understanding 1% is a start. You are really coming on mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, soak_ed said:

Oh bravo!  Well played sir, well played indeed.

Jeff will be by fuming and blustering shortly, I'm sure.

Shh..his head won't go through the hatch if you keep this up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Shh..his head won't go through the hatch if you keep this up.

Never heard it called a hatch before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Well, there is the English Bill of Rights.

Blackstone even commented on it!

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Clearly the laws were changed since then. Hope a policeman hears your rape whistle.

And, jocal, the only person crying about cites is you. And don't forget, "peer reviewed" can have nothing to do with accuracy or neutrality.

Please accept my hearty, warm congratulations, whoever you are. We've got some smart whippersnappers in our commuity, but none of them have dared to discuss these details. Not a one, except yourself.

My cites are rock solid, have scientific credential, and most come straight from higher court briefs. But cites from pro-rights contributors have gone curiously missing on gun threads. Hmmm.

 

Such blind beauty we find in peer review. Our peer reviewed system is the envy and pinnacle of the scientific world. And your analysis is old territory and incomplete, so would fail there. Neither Malcolm nor Scalia dared to vet their history because they were lawyers,  bullshitting.

Blackstone's fifth auxiliary right followed four peaceful, mature efforts at parliamentary resolution. Then it formed up a state-sanctioned militia, under muster and authority.

Quote

p1760 CHARLES_CHRISTENSEN  2/6/2013 FORDHAM URB. L.J. [Vol. XXXIX

 The 2nd in Historiographical Crisis:

Why the Supreme Court Must Reevaluate the Embarrassing 'Standard Model' Moving Forward

As I have shown in previous articles, the founding generation properly restated and applied what Blackstone meant by the fifth auxiliary right many times over—the right of lawful revolution and resistance to restore the Constitution.158 Numerous sources support this proposition, including

  • --the writings of Samuel Adams in conjunction with the 1768 Boston Town Council affair,159
  • -- James Otis’s pamphlet entitled A Vindication of the British Colonies, 160
  • -- the legal works of St. George Tucker,161
  • --and even more generalized writings in the popular print culture.162

All confirm the Standard Model approach to interpreting Blackstone is without context and must be discarded as embarrassing.

Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 39, pg 1727, 2012

P.S. Blessed are the peacemakers. The Glorious Revolution was settled peacefully, using the brilliant legal manipulation of Blackstone's Fifth Auxiliary Right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, soak_ed said:

Hows that Jeff? Did I miss any?

Yes. but your post was still gold. Your Jeffie imitation lacks carpetbagger innuendo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where the fuck is Jeff today? Maybe those goat fucking jet ski riders are perusing their hobby in their own country outside his window again?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Security detail. Stays late to lock up the janitor closet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Security detail. Stays late to lock up the janitor closet.

Friday's a day off. I've got money that says he's out sailing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Well, there is the English Bill of Rights.

Now show it to us under the U.S. Constitution, not the English Bill of Rights. The English Parliament vs. James II  is not the same struggle as, and does not hold the same conclusion as, the Colonies vs the Crown. 

Pooplius quotes Hamilton in The Federalist 29 alluding to Fifth Auxiliary Right action. Fine, Hamilton stood on English law and tradition..but that's not the U.S. law which applies today.

Insurrection is treason. McVeigh stood on insurrection theory, sincerely, and was terminated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites