Sign in to follow this  
Guest

The debate over assault weapons

Recommended Posts

Guest
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I don't know much about ammosexual overcompensators like the one badlat sold, but I'm familiar with the guns we actually own and how the laws apply to them.

Hey Tom, I'm curious.  I happen to own several "ammosexual overcompensators" like Badlat sold.  We all know you think dogballs shouldn't be banned, but what's your feeling on those other scary gunz that the rest of us own?  

Share this post


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

Hey Tom, I'm curious.  I happen to own several "ammosexual overcompensators" like Badlat sold.  We all know you think dogballs shouldn't be banned, but what's your feeling on those other scary gunz that the rest of us own?  

That you guys are scaring hoplophobes into banning my ordinary... well, you know.

That I hope I continue to see no need to own one.

That I hope I continue to be able to legally buy one.

That you and Billy and badlat probably wouldn't kill anyone just because of your penis size issues. Not so sure about Badlat's friend.

Share this post


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

This very week, @Uncooperative Tom tossed in a picture of his assault sombrero

It was last week and that's just a picture I found on the internet.

I'm still looking for a large sombrero that can be attached to the thread protector of a S&W Victory so I can have a large cap weapon.

Share this post


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

It was last week and that's just a picture I found on the internet.

I'm still looking for a large sombrero that can be attached to the thread protector of a S&W Victory so I can have a large cap weapon.

Let's not quote partial sentences. Let's present context, and the light of day, not just the dodgy chosen shadows which a rat prefers

Quote

(Jocal's full quote)

This very week, @Uncooperative Tom tossed in a picture of his assault sombrero, from his ghost database. Let's hope we ever see it again. If we do, in your honor, we can call it the assault buttplug.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2018 at 9:54 AM, jocal505 said:

....and Tom whips a link out of his computer memory, a database he denies using...

Tom is generating daily confusion, and unwanted dogballs in our lives, over which guns are battle guns, and the use of the word rimfire.

AFTER THE DOGBALLS   

Tom says he will remain stuck there, while vocal. Yet Tom wants to be considered wise in all things XYZ. He sounds like a dumbshit, and he can't really discuss The Federalist in the context of the 1600's which generated them.

 

Tom is OCD, and still butthurt over d'ranger. Tom goes to his database to regurgitate the d'ranger-related  butthurt, repeatedly.  Let's all stay informed on this one. 

That’s rich, you putting someone on blast for allegedly using a data base to store links and quotes. At least he wasn’t so prideful of his DB that he didn’t admit to it in proud and glowing terms. 

Share this post


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

That’s rich, you putting someone on blast for allegedly using a data base to store links and quotes. At least he wasn’t so prideful of his DB that he didn’t admit to it in proud and glowing terms. 

I collect articles, and I organize research. I study various stuff, highlight it, and take notes. It leaves a body of entries. Those entries meet the definition of database. Um, you ought to see my work on native fighting in the PNW.

 After getting tired of a few liars, while being abused and villified on PA, I was compelled to study the subject of gun violence.  While uninformed, and therefore defenseless, I began to document the contradictory statements of men playing both sides of morality.Actually, I missed a few gems.

 

DOES MURDER PROHIBITION REALLY WORK?

Boothy was a different study. His constant subconscious need for violence flowed constantly into his ideas. He was a poster boy for the underlying problem with Larry Pratt's thing, and by that I mean all the vigilante motivation. Boothy left the octagon in 2016, not long after he had seen the compilation I just presented.

Boothy was a fixture, and we ALL enjoyed him. But let's examine the mechanisms and rationalities he uses, as he plans lethal violence. You may have a problem with such a blatant airing of your own, not very hidden, mentality. Or YMMV,  you may accept that Boothy is good to go, with an arsenal...outdoors.

To conclude, Boothy and his elk are the reason we still need castle doctrine, IMO.

Boys, U have been lured into many discussions of the advantages of non-violence.

 

Share this post


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

Let's not quote partial sentences. Let's present context, and the light of day, not just the dodgy chosen shadows which a rat prefers

Quote

(Jocal's full quote)

This very week, @Uncooperative Tom tossed in a picture of his assault sombrero, from his ghost database. Let's hope we ever see it again. If we do, in your honor, we can call it the assault buttplug.

 

Hah!

Do you really think your buttplug fetish adds anything?

FYI, you presented content. In my post, your quote links back to the original, presenting context.

Learn to work Scot's database.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Learn to work Scot's database.

The problem is scot's database seems to only go back to 2015 or so

Share this post


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

Hah!

Do you really think your buttplug fetish adds anything?

 

Fetish? You have nerve to mention the word? You have a dogball fetish, Mr. Ray. I've typed the word buttplug maybe three times.

Quote

FYI, you presented content. In my post, your quote links back to the original, presenting context.

Learn to work Scot's database.

If a person wants the whole picture, he must start pushing buttons? Your shit has to be fleshed out and verified by readers?

You are clipping what suits you, out of partial sentences. You have to hide from, and cannot present,  the actual complete thoughts of others. Your mind works like Donald Trump, standing on half-truths. The net effect can be untruthful.

Man on dike, Tom's credibility.PNG

Share this post


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

FYI, you presented content. In my post, your quote links back to the original, presenting context.

Learn to work Scot's database.

If a person wants the whole picture, he must start pushing buttons?

In my post, one would start and finish the context-seeking process by pushing one button.

In yours, yes, one would have to start pushing buttons to figure out which thread provides the context since there's no link back.

Learn to work Scot's database.

19 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The problem is scot's database seems to only go back to 2015 or so

And threads just disappear sometimes. It's not perfect, but still a good idea to learn how it works to link back for context.

Share this post


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

And threads just disappear sometimes. It's not perfect, but still a good idea to learn how it works to link back for context.

Especially in your case, since you regularly clip partial sentences to present non-truthful ideas. Thank you.

Seriously, Tom, when I follow those red arrows you usually look twisted and distorted within the content on the other side. Therefore, I know the information you provide on other subjects is probably also twisted. You have quite the cottage industry going.*

*Research provided to us from the Tom Ray Ghost Database

Quote

Item: TR's non-gun-posts jpg, by Tom Ray

 

non-gun-posts.jpg

Share this post


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

And threads just disappear sometimes.

Dabs got the whole Wrenn thread disappeared. From that thread, this is Tom's brain on The Federalist. Tom needs to retract something, if he wants to quote Mr. Hamilton as a fighter of federal tyrants with gunz.

Quote

First Correction Post 113, Aug 13

(Tom ) Unfortunately, King George and Parliament, much like our government, neglected to put into law the proper procedures for overthrowing the government

(Joe) Parliament passed Blackstone's fifth auxiliary right, bubba.

Second correction, Post 155 Aug. 14

(Tom) The Founders were not following any "right of armed rebellion" that had been written into British law. 

(Joe) This is my second correction of this mis-statement, Tom.

Third correction, Post 172 Aug. 17

(Tom)  ...despite there being no provision in British laws for the violent overthrow of the government.

... no form of government has ever had prescribed procedures for the violent overthrow of the government.

(Joe) WTF? Tom, this is your third correction.

Fourth correction, Post 186 Aug 17

(Tom) …ones  that did not have a constitutionally-prescribed procedure for the violent overthrow of the government. Meaning, again, every government.

(Joe)  DAILY LIES? You are repeating an untruthful statement for the fourth or fifth time.

I don't know what Tom's problem was on that day. But he is wrong, and needs to retract, to support the quality and growth of our group.

You see, Hamilton had a legal standing to be spouting off about fighting tyrants. Where?

 

When intimidated by Catholic gunz, Parliament had faced King James II down, non-violently, and had spelled out their natural, legal, and procedural right to fight a sovereign, if necessary.

But the process was orderly, and had layers, redress, communication, elected representation, process...THEN fighting with arms, if necessary. Here, we place Hamilton in context. HONEST historical context. In this context, in their words, those militia arms, controlled by Parliamenarily-sworn officers, were not to be infringed. 

Mr. Tom Ray can't say if his militia will be sworn in and mustered, whether they will elect a captain approved by the Governor, or whether lone wolf actors can have constitutionally-based, individual, militia credentials. Tom is very vague with the specifics of his ideas of insurrection theor, while Hamilton's belief system about fighting tyrants was based on The Glorious Revolution. Hamilton's confrontation of tyrants was honorable, legal, and formal, not loosey-goosey.

Tom needs to be careful about quoting The Federalist.

Share this post


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

HONEST historical context. In this context, in their words, those militia arms, controlled by Parliamenarily-sworn officers, were not to be infringed. 

Dumfuk, go learn what the battles at Lexington and Concord were about.

Share this post


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

Dumfuk, go learn what the battles at Lexington and Concord were about.

You are mistaken. Don't call me a dumfuk, at least not about FF history. You can't begin to support The Standard Model. You can't even say if you support it, or not.

But here's what those skirmishes were about: broad issues with smugglers. Non-gun issues and general disagreement led to Samuel Adams stealing British powder, from a British fort, in broad daylight, in NH, while ringing the bell in Town Center. This triggered the orders which Gage acted on, which led to Lexington.

 

Many Colonists were listening to lawbreakers, absorbing a flood of propaganda pamphlets, failing to pay their taxes, were beating up tax collectors, and had driven the governor of MASS into fort. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was full of human cunts, it seems. At this time, the Colonists religious persecution of Quakers and others had drawn leal action, and attention from English courts.

The conflict reflected in gunplay, but according to non-Libertarian writers, was not based on established gun rights.

 

TRIVIA FOR TOM    Who owned the ship which was sequestered in Boston Harbor until taxes were paid on its cargo?

American criminals kidnapped and detained the government official, and sailed the boat away, as he watched. IIRC it was Hamilton's boat. Let's debate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys know that two guys in love can get married, right? This affair has gone well beyond courtship.

Go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

You guys know that two guys in love can get married, right? This affair has gone well beyond courtship.

Go for it.

I don't care for bullies. I have always wanted a situation with a few bullies who couldn't get away. Boothy and Kevin went away, and the crude end of the spectrum of white noise died down around here.

I am enjoying PA more after having done the reading of my choice. The McDonald briefs are a gold mine of footnotes, because Heller pissed off the scholars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2018 at 5:47 AM, jocal505 said:

TRIVIA FOR TOM    Who owned the ship which was sequestered in Boston Harbor until taxes were paid on its cargo?

There were three, not counting the one that wrecked. Which one are you talking about?

Share this post


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

There were three, not counting the one that wrecked. Which one are you talking about?

The Boston Tea Party is the setting for taxation issues (and violence). You are on the right track now The war was over smuggling issues, it was all about the avoidance of taxation.

The ship I asked about is the one where colonists kidnapped the English tax official, and sailed away with un-taxed cargo in a ship belonging to a founding father. This stunt, and the Boston Tea Party, demonstrate sketchy, commerce-related behavior, unrelated to the gun issues which you claim started the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2018 at 1:16 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Dumfuk, go learn what the battles at Lexington and Concord were about.

The gun issues were hot, but they reflected broader problems. They were an effect, not a cause. Plus, we find from the record that the colonists' guns were unprotected by the courts.

During the skirmishes, and even after the dust settled, colonists would proceed to take away the guns of their American political adversaries. Guns would be taken from insurrectionists after the Shay's Rebellion, by 13,000 militia volunteers. The Second was ratified soon after, largely because the PA militia was no help with Shay's. With the new gun policy in place, the Whiskey Rebellion actors were disarmed a few years later.

The idea that colonists stood upon strong gun rights is a romantic fabrication.

 

Share this post


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

During the skirmishes, and even after the dust settled, colonists would proceed to take away the guns of their American political adversaries. Guns would be taken from insurrectionists after the Shay's Rebellion, by 13,000 militia volunteers. The Second was ratified soon after, largely because the PA militia was no help with Shay's. With the new gun policy in place, the Whiskey Rebellion actors were disarmed a few years later.

Joe, the PA militia had nothing to do with Shay's Rebellion - that was put down by 3000 volunteers from MA. By "soon after", you mean _4 years_, right?

The whiskey rebellion actually did happen in PA, and VA, MD, NJ, and PA all sent militia.

But feel free to continue misstating easily checked history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2018 at 1:16 PM, lonesailor said:

On and guns on the decline? That is a lie too! Why do you keep lying?

20160925%20-%20Guns%206.jpg

3% of truly crazed gun nutters own a third of all gun more than 50% of what I like to characterize as reasonable, non terrified Americans don’t own guns and that number increases every years.  What we got here is the true crazies buying massive amounts of guns and ordinance.

 

i recommend nose bleed levels of taxes and bans on certain calibers to attract the problem.

 

 

Share this post


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

Joe, the PA militia had nothing to do with Shay's Rebellion -

Correct, Deadeye. You are a sharp one. When they were needed for intervention, the PA militia was complicit instead. The problem pointed for a need of Federal authority over militia activity. It inspiried the title of The Federalist. 

 

\

Share this post


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

Correct, Deadeye. You are a sharp one.

Then why did you say

14 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Guns would be taken from insurrectionists after the Shay's Rebellion, by 13,000 militia volunteers. The Second was ratified soon after, largely because the PA militia was no help with Shay's.

Do you count on people not actually checking your work, Joe? Because what you wrote is factually incorrect in multiple ways.

18 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

When they were needed for intervention, the PA militia was complicit instead.

Cite.

Share this post


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

Then why did you say

Do you count on people not actually checking your work, Joe? Because what you wrote is factually incorrect in multiple ways.

Cite.

You are a time waster, Pal. Do you support The Standard Model, or not?

And I notice you haven't disputed the only point I was making. They confiscated a lot of guns in those days... during years when our search and seizure amendment was in place, right next to the Second. Where were individual gun rights, if political loyalty determined the right to a gun?

Gun Grabber Boogallo II.PNG

Share this post


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

You are a time waster, Pal. Do you support The Standard Model, or not?

Bob, weave, deflect, change the question... Not the behavior of someone who claims to "play it straight".

We are talking about your misrepresentation of Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion, Joe. I can't really help it if you are unable to spend 30 seconds checking the history of those 2 events. If you are unable to correctly talk about the basics of those 2 events, why should anyone believe what you write on any topic?

Are you ever going to understand a major issue with your new favorite meme gif? Are you really to thick to understand that there was a war going on then?

Share this post


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

Bob, weave, deflect, change the question... Not the behavior of someone who claims to "play it straight".

We are talking about your misrepresentation of Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion, Joe. I can't really help it if you are unable to spend 30 seconds checking the history of those 2 events. If you are unable to correctly talk about the basics of those 2 events, why should anyone believe what you write on any topic?

Are you ever going to understand a major issue with your new favorite meme gif? Are you really to thick to understand that there was a war going on then?

I don't feel I have mis-represented squat. You just ask too many questions, in general, and you have become high maintenance and annoying, ot ulike a sea-lion. 

But mainly you DeadEye at the little things, to avoid the big things. 

2 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Are you really to thick to understand that there was a war going on then?

Wars are not special. Whereas this revolution had new and special ideas in play,  arming up for insurrection against the King was not one of them.

Share this post


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

Wars are not special. Whereas this revolution had new and special ideas in play,  arming up for insurrection against the King was not one of them.

I see. So when there is a shooting war going on, leaving enemy sympathizers armed is the normal and expected thing in your imagination.

Or are you saying that our gov't is illegal, and the sovereign of the UK is still our rightful head of gov't?

15 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

I don't feel I have mis-represented squat.

So you stand behind this bit of..misrepresentation?

On 9/11/2018 at 5:51 AM, jocal505 said:

Guns would be taken from insurrectionists after the Shay's Rebellion, by 13,000 militia volunteers. The Second was ratified soon after, largely because the PA militia was no help with Shay's. With the new gun policy in place, the Whiskey Rebellion actors were disarmed a few years later.

Well, I guess you got the _names_ correct. The numbers are wrong, the timeline is wrong, Can't find anything that says the PA militia was even invited to MA for Shay's..

20 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

to avoid the big things.

Well, we could talk about "Peruta II", but I can't find any sources for it.

Or maybe you could explain the "big win" in Palmer.

 

Share this post


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

I see. So when there is a shooting war going on, leaving enemy sympathizers armed is the normal and expected thing in your imagination.

Or are you saying that our gov't is illegal, and the sovereign of the UK is still our rightful head of gov't?

So you stand behind this bit of..misrepresentation?

Well, I guess you got the _names_ correct. The numbers are wrong, the timeline is wrong, Can't find anything that says the PA militia was even invited to MA for Shay's..

Well, we could talk about "Peruta II", but I can't find any sources for it.

Or maybe you could explain the "big win" in Palmer.

 

You are a non-stop whiner machine, but you haven't disproven the rampant confiscation in Colonial times. Not even the search and seizure improvement over the English Declaration of Righty could prevent gun confiscation. The Colonists had no individual rights evidently. 

You are DeadEye Dick, with the superior comprehension thing happening. You need to tell me what is so clever about violence, and using guns to fight battles.

Now, go find something else to be miserable about.

Share this post


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

You are a non-stop whiner machine, but you haven't disproven the rampant confiscation in Colonial times.

I haven't seen anything except uncited claims about the Whiskey rebellion. Do you understand why Shay's can be skipped in this analysis?

Do you understand why we can skip discussion about what happened during wartime? (When the "legal" gov't was still british)

7 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You are DeadEye Dick, with the superior comprehension thing happening.

Why bother to discuss anything with you, when your main thing now is "make shit up"?

Maybe you could run your version of history past one of your email penpals.

9 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Now, go find something else to be miserable about.

If your delusions about being able to read my mind are acting up again go see a mental health professional, Joe.

Share this post


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

I haven't seen anything except uncited claims about the Whiskey rebellion. Do you understand why Shay's can be skipped in this analysis?

Do you understand why we can skip discussion about what happened during wartime? (When the "legal" gov't was still british)

Why bother to discuss anything with you, when your main thing now is "make shit up"?

Maybe you could run your version of history past one of your email penpals.

If your delusions about being able to read my mind are acting up again go see a mental health professional, Joe.

Boring!  (both of you).

Share this post


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

Boring!  (both of you).

But obviously more interesting than threads that you don't visit or bump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
16 hours ago, bpm57 said:
On 9/12/2018 at 6:18 AM, jocal505 said:

You are a time waster, Pal. Do you support The Standard Model, or not?

Bob, weave, deflect, change the question... Not the behavior of someone who claims to "play it straight".

The moment you get joe to post his MS Paint Art masterpieces and he calls you a time waster...... you know you're winning.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don’t give a shit about the standard model.  I wouldn’t piss on it if it were on fire.  Same for your other models.

Share this post


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

...weapons most useful in military service are off limits.*

 

*Source: Heller


Even if they're pretty in pink?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's talk about pink now, shall we? Or dogballs. We are hanging with TR.

Share this post


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

Tom if you really want to start building bridges, throw all you dogballs into the lake and renounce you gun nuttery. 


Randumbly Bent 15, if you really want to discuss banning assault weapons, general anarchy isn't the place. This is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not discussing pink any more. Silver now.

WHAT WINNING LOOKS LIKE: Tom Ray is out with a whimper, basically. I am Tom's nemesis, and for engagement, am reduced to discussing the colors of dogballs.

Share this post


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

We're not discussing pink any more. Silver now.

WHAT WINNING LOOKS LIKE: Tom Ray is out with a whimper, basically. I am Tom's nemesis, and for engagement, am reduced to discussing the colors of dogballs.

You spelled narcissist wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, chinabald said:

You spelled narcissist wrong. 

I spelled anarchist, correctly.

My antithesis is a dissembler, when he shows up. Flowers in gun barrels? No working knowledge of common law and self-defense? 
Yo, I welcome you to do any better, chinabald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jocal505 said:

Flowers in gun barrels?

No, that might be a bad idea. Keep up. The flowers are to be mounted on the thread protector. It's just a metal cylinder that screws onto the end of the barrel, but on the outside, not in it.

You have to protect the threads because they're what make it an assault weapon. At least, that would be my reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

No, that might be a bad idea. Keep up. The flowers are to be mounted on the thread protector. It's just a metal cylinder that screws onto the end of the barrel, but on the outside, not in it.

You have to protect the threads because they're what make it an assault weapon. At least, that would be my reason.

You are hiding behind flowers, in gun barrels? The big furor,  the new dogballs lexicon, has gone mainstream. Stupid shit abounds, after 21 months of it, and it's starring an elusive sort, Tom Ray.  As you cement your legacy, I note the lost and useless energy in play.

Quote

A Top NRA Executive’s Trail of Business Flops and Unpaid Debt

As the gun group confronts serious financial straits, it has entrusted its operations to Josh Powell, a failed mail-order mogul who attracted a mountain of lawsuits in his former career.

(...) “Carry Guard is Josh’s baby,” a source close to the NRA told The Trace. “It was his brainchild, billed by Josh as an integral part of securing the NRA’s finances well into the future. But it’s a huge fucking mess.” 

 https://www.thetrace.org/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Joe, there's a gun thread going where you get to be gun-ban king for a day.  Hell for the month.....  But you have to explain what makes it bannable or why it can stay.  

 

Share this post


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

Joe, there's a gun thread going where you get to be gun-ban king for a day.  Hell for the month.....  But you have to explain what makes it bannable or why it can stay.  

 

No one care about your stupid gun thread which is failing bigly. 

Share this post


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

Uncropped. For some reason, Jeff didn't want to go full LGBT.

LGBT.jpg

Might be the same reason Mid cropped this one:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 10/2/2018 at 8:05 PM, Olsonist said:

Uncropped. For some reason, Jeff didn't want to go full LGBT.

LGBT.jpg

Huh???

I need one of those Tshirts, BTW!  Love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2018 at 6:27 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Huh???

I need one of those Tshirts, BTW!  Love it.

I don't think Olsonist knows that when you post a link to another thread the preview image is automagically cropped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2018 at 3:23 AM, dogballs Tom said:

I think I need one that comes to a point like this:

hat-300x225.jpg

Buttplug anarchy. Thanks, Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2018 at 7:31 AM, jocal505 said:

Buttplug anarchy. Thanks, Tom.

One man's "large cap" is another man's buttplug. Whatever turns you on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass Shooting In Tulsa

Quote

 

TULSA, Oklahoma - Four people are recovering tonight from gunshot and shrapnel wounds after an early morning shooting.

...

During the fight police say a young man pulled a handgun and fired 7 or 8 shots in the crowd. Two people outside were hit and two inside the club with shrapnel. All of the victim’s injuries are considered not life-threatening, but other people in the crowd were hurt as well.

...

The police say they've responded before to problems in and outside the club. Other tenants in the shopping center say they're afraid they'll be caught up in the problems created by patrons of the club.

 

This kind of thing could not happen if people did not put adjustable stocks on their squirrel assault weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is (was) Happy Jack running for office?

Connecticut Legislative Candidate Quits After Uproar Over Online Comments About Parkland Victims

I’m not supposed to speak ill of David Hogg because he is a ‘survivor.’ Apparently if you survive horrific events, that makes the stupidity spewing out of your mouth above reproach. I disagree. Hogg can burn in hell, I don’t care what he survived. Survivors who wage war on my country are my enemies.

http://www.courant.com/community/southington/hc-news-southington-gop-quit-20181011-story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a Republican thing. It's funny how so many college educated Republicans avoided reading Freud.

image.png.16bd74b0f31f33573e69045b3eecd5b5.png

22 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Is (was) Happy Jack running for office?

Connecticut Legislative Candidate Quits After Uproar Over Online Comments About Parkland Victims

I’m not supposed to speak ill of David Hogg because he is a ‘survivor.’ Apparently if you survive horrific events, that makes the stupidity spewing out of your mouth above reproach. I disagree. Hogg can burn in hell, I don’t care what he survived. Survivors who wage war on my country are my enemies.

http://www.courant.com/community/southington/hc-news-southington-gop-quit-20181011-story.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
8 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:
Quote

TULSA, Oklahoma - Four people are recovering tonight from gunshot and shrapnel wounds after an early morning shooting.

...

During the fight police say a young man pulled a handgun and fired 7 or 8 shots in the crowd. Two people outside were hit and two inside the club with shrapnel. All of the victim’s injuries are considered not life-threatening, but other people in the crowd were hurt as well.

...

The police say they've responded before to problems in and outside the club. Other tenants in the shopping center say they're afraid they'll be caught up in the problems created by patrons of the club.

 

This kind of thing could not happen if people did not put adjustable stocks on their squirrel assault weapons.

Well....which is it??  Was it 7 shots or 8 shots?  This is important.  If this were New York, 7 shots would be fine and perfectly legal. 

But 8 shots would be a fully auto, hi-capacity belt fed magazine battlefield assault machine gun that obviously generates ill-will and promotes violence.  And jocal's head would explode.

 

 

Share this post


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

Well....which is it??  Was it 7 shots or 8 shots?  This is important.  If this were New York, 7 shots would be fine and perfectly legal. 

But 8 shots would be a fully auto, hi-capacity belt fed magazine battlefield assault machine gun that obviously generates ill-will and promotes violence.  And jocal's head would explode.

 

 

Not necessarily. There are 9 shot revolvers like the one owned by Dick Heller and those are not naughty. Yet.

Meanwhile, the scourge of assault weapons continues to cause mass shootings.

Yesterday in Vegas

Quote

Las Vegas police gang unit detectives are investigating a shooting that sent four people to the hospital early Friday morning.

Like every other mass shooting, the SOLution is obvious. Can't type it any more, but...

DiFiScreenshotTruth.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:
17 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Well....which is it??  Was it 7 shots or 8 shots?  This is important.  If this were New York, 7 shots would be fine and perfectly legal. 

But 8 shots would be a fully auto, hi-capacity belt fed magazine battlefield assault machine gun that obviously generates ill-will and promotes violence.  And jocal's head would explode.

 

 

Not necessarily. There are 9 shot revolvers like the one owned by Dick Heller and those are not naughty. Yet.

They are in NY. Safe act had a 7 shot limit, no?

 

Share this post


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

They are in NY. Safe act had a 7 shot limit, no?

What a breakthrough it was.

Share this post


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

They are in NY. Safe act had a 7 shot limit, no?

 

For detachable magazines. Not revolvers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
21 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

For detachable magazines. Not revolvers.

So this is OK then?

crye-shotgun.jpg

Share this post


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

So this is OK then?

crye-shotgun.jpg

How much peace and understanding does it project? As much as your nice tan AW?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2018 at 9:25 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Well....which is it??  Was it 7 shots or 8 shots?  This is important.  If this were New York, 7 shots would be fine and perfectly legal. 

But 8 shots would be a fully auto, hi-capacity belt fed magazine battlefield assault machine gun that obviously generates ill-will and promotes violence.  And jocal's head would explode.

 

 

If you are sincere while loudly addressing the causes of violence, fewer shots would be your choice.

Share this post


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

How much peace and understanding does it project?

Joe, I don't think you are finding many converts to your firearms animist religion here.

 

Share this post


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

How much peace and understanding does it project? As much as your nice tan AW?

I dunno.  You tell me.  I've been asking you for days now to explain how inanimate objects such as gunz can project human qualities just as peace and understanding.  And I've specifically asked you how they generate goodwill and non-violence.  Define how those things work and I'll then be able to answer your question above.  

Share this post


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

I dunno.  You tell me.  I've been asking you for days now to explain how inanimate objects such as gunz can project human qualities just as peace and understanding.  And I've specifically asked you how they generate goodwill and non-violence.  Define how those things work and I'll then be able to answer your question above.  

I was hinting around. Guns seem to generate violence and problems, not goodwill. 

You tell us that you are a certified range instructor. Do you ever coach just when to shoot others? Is that not violence? Are there violent bits in placing the shot in the center of mass? Please reveal any humanitarian aspects in destroying your "adversary", with multiple bullets.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

I was hinting around. Guns seem to generate violence and problems, not goodwill. 

So inanimate lumps of metal do things without a human involved?

2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You tell us that you are a certified range instructor.

Maybe you could show some initiative and look into what that might mean, Joe. It might save you from some of the mind-numbingly stupid things that you say about firearms and firearm training.

Share this post


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

So inanimate lumps of metal do things without a human involved?

Give it the eagle eye, Slick: homes with guns have 3X the homicides, and 10X the suicides. What is this direct association between guns and violence?

Quote

Maybe you could show some initiative and look into what that might mean, Joe. It might save you from some of the mind-numbingly stupid things that you say about firearms and firearm training.

Let's lay out the range instructor training right here. Just who is coaching the instructors to coach violence? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

13 hours ago, jocal505 said:
15 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I dunno.  You tell me.  I've been asking you for days now to explain how inanimate objects such as gunz can project human qualities just as peace and understanding.  And I've specifically asked you how they generate goodwill and non-violence.  Define how those things work and I'll then be able to answer your question above.  

I was hinting around. Guns seem to generate violence and problems, not goodwill. 

Hinting around???  You said that Difi would give any gun a pass that generates goodwill and promotes non-violence.  Are you saying that was just a lie?

Share this post


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

Let's lay out the range instructor training right here. Just who is coaching the instructors to coach violence?

And just when I mention your ability to say mind-numbingly stupid things, Joe. Grats on living up to your standard.

Do archery instructors "coach violence" as well, Joe?

What about instructing a kid in baseball, specifically hitting?

Share this post


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

Are you saying that was just a lie?

Sorry, Joe can only offer someone elses opinion after  the law review articles start coming out. Maybe he will have an answer in 3-4 years.

Share this post


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

Hinting around???  You said that Difi would give any gun a pass that generates goodwill and promotes non-violence.  Are you saying that was just a lie?

I didn't say that, at all. I have no control over that girl. But I did predict some women would clip your wings, back before the  Parkland high school kids pulled your pants down. 

Tell us about all your training to train others in the art of gun violence. Do you teach children to shoot away at fist fighters and garbage tossers? At what age are they welcome to the SDU indoctrination?

Do they give you lead abatement awareness angles?  Are long sleeves required with kids? Do you burn the shirts, or send them to the home environment?

Photo courtesy of Range Instructor Jeff.

kids' lead poison factory.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
10 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 10/15/2018 at 11:42 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Hinting around???  You said that Difi would give any gun a pass that generates goodwill and promotes non-violence.  Are you saying that was just a lie?

I didn't say that, at all. I have no control over that girl. 

I'm sorry, you didn't say she "would", but you said she "SHOULD" give it a pass:

On 10/3/2018 at 11:24 AM, jocal505 said:
On 10/2/2018 at 7:45 PM, dogballs Tom said:

Joey, please Tell the class why this should or should not be banned.  

If the gun will generate good will and non-violent behavior, Di Fi should give it a pass.

Share this post


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

I'm sorry, you didn't say she "would", but you said she "SHOULD" give it a pass:

That is correct. If wishes were horses, the homeless would ride.

Share this post


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

What about instructing a kid in baseball, specifically hitting?

Ah, the degrees of violence, and the satisfaction of violence, may include baseball bats. Sure, good call.

And what about football? It is based on violence, and force. It's our big deal national sport, we are crashing and bashing into brain injuries galore.  It is medically unsupportable, it turns out...very slowly.

We are waking up to the effects of very common, every day, institutionalized violence. How about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2018 at 11:11 PM, Not guilty said:

Still no AWB

LIES, assault weapons have the least amount of homicides and suicides of  all weapons, including fists/feet. Assault weapons is what this thread is about isn't it?

You need to face some nuances about assault weapons. Their national results are not very beneficial. Congratulations,  the problems clearly got worse after the AW ban expired in 2004.

Quote

Koper AW Study, 2017

 

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 large cities,

(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%). 
  • Assault weapons account for 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 estimates 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
On 10/13/2018 at 12:57 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Not necessarily. There are 9 shot revolvers like the one owned by Dick Heller and those are not naughty. Yet.

Meanwhile, the scourge of assault weapons continues to cause mass shootings.

Yesterday in Vegas

Like every other mass shooting, the SOLution is obvious. Can't type it any more, but...

DiFiScreenshotTruth.jpg

 

*^^^By popular demand, it's back. It is kept safely in the TR database, which Tom said he didn't have.

IMO, Tom should admit  the existence of his photo database, his linky database, his thread topic database, his subjects database(s), and his bicker content database.  :o 

There was no reason for Tom to fib about this, but he did, which is interesting. Many fibs are worth retracting...and some are consequential.

Tom, non gun posts.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Not guilty said:

Except it didn't. Your lies are not going to help you.

Your uninformed opinion is nice, but Koper's informed voice will be heeded.

I presented David Koper. His last work, documenting the modest successes of the '94 AW ban,, is now quoted in court. His 2017 work will be quoted as well.

Quote

Koper,'s first AW study, Conclusion

 Research suggests that gunfire attacks involving semiautomatics produce more lethal and

injurious outcomes [2, 10, 17, 55] and that 45% of assault-related gunshot victims are wounded in attacks

involving more than ten shots fired [2].

 

However, such evidence is extremely limited at present. Studies of this

issue, combined with evaluation research on the effects of current state and local LCM laws, could provide

additional insights into the efficacy of expanding LCM restrictions at the local, state, and/or national levels.

 

Research illuminating the public health and safety benefits of AW-LCM restrictions could also inform the

courts as they continue to adjudicate recent challenges to the constitutionality of these statutes. Although this

study does not directly evaluate any AW-LCM law, it provides further evidence that the federal ban curbed the

spread of high-capacity semiautomatic weapons when it was in place and, in so doing, may have had preventive

effects on gunshot victimizations.

The AW mayhem was so bad during the Kolbe decision that two different cop shops got shot up during deliberations, the Dallas and Baton Rouge. incidents. Beyond those unfortunate anecdotes, the courts grasp what is happening here, through such research as Koper's. 

The work quoted above was hijacked because of the weaknesses it honestly laid out. His subsequent work is stronger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Not guilty said:

Violent crime has gone down?

Where did you show nice tits, anywhere?

Reasons for crime drop. (And remember that very few violent crimes involve firearms)

  • The baby boom males aged, and mellowed.
  • The crack cocaine epidemic came, and went.
  • The 911 emergency response system was implemented.
  • Triage centers improved in emergency rooms, and medical advances addressed high velocity bullet cavitations in human flesh.
  • Security camera use, and the presence of cellphone cameras, both influenced criminal activity.
  • An impressive (but incomplete) body of evidence suggests that because the presence of lead poisoning (from both gasoline and paint) was curbed, violent behavior diminished.
  • BIrth control meant that unwanted children would not extend their poor upbringing into criminal fields. 
  • Stiffer criminal penalties also had a documented effect.
Quote

Christian Science Monitor: Why crime is down

Because the pattern "transcends cities and US regions, we can safely say crime is down," says James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston. "We are indeed a safer nation than 20 years ago."

He and others give four main reasons for the decline:

Increased incarceration, including longer sentences, that keeps more criminals off the streets.

Improved law enforcement strategies, including advances in computer analysis and innovative technology.

The waning of the crack cocaine epidemic that soared from 1984 to 1990, which made cocaine cheaply available in cities across the US.

The graying of America characterized by the fastest-growing segment of the US population – baby boomers – passing the age of 50. Christian Science Monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/...

 

Quote

Am Pediatrics: Why crime is down

 Postulated reasons include

  1.  improved socioeconomic conditions,
  2. violence prevention programs,
  3. decline in the crack/cocaine market,
  4. changes in legislation,
  5. declines in firearms availability for other reasons, and
  6. community policing.

 

There are no social scientists who attribute any part of the crime drop to gun popularity or personal "self defense" gun use. CCP increases violent crime in the double digits, about 15% in the new RTC states. Source: John Donohue

Share this post


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

IMO, Tom should admit  the existence of his photo database, his linky database, his thread topic database, his subjects database(s), and his bicker content database.

What you call my "photo database" is my website. Putting it in my profile wasn't admitting it exists?

I put photos there instead of on photobucket or something, which is why my old posts still have the images but freeloaders like yourself who don't pay for your own space have old posts without images.

As for the other databases, I'll admit that Scot's database is mine the day after I start receiving checks from him. So don't hold your breath. But do go learn what a database actually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

What you call my "photo database" is my website. Putting it in my profile wasn't admitting it exists?

I put photos there instead of on photobucket or something, which is why my old posts still have the images but freeloaders like yourself who don't pay for your own space have old posts without images.

As for the other databases, I'll admit that Scot's database is mine the day after I start receiving checks from him. So don't hold your breath. But do go learn what a database actually is.

I am an honest man who uses One Note, with satisfaction. Once accused of having a datasbase, I scoffed and looked up the definition. I had already built three, and loved each of them.

Your honesty factor is for shit. And so is your dictionary factor. I am now a big fan of the Ghost Database.

brady-vs-census.jpg

FDLE, firearmmurders.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Not guilty said:

Yes we know. It is ok. Here are the facts for you.

Firearms%20Manufactured%20Chart.jpg

main-qimg-2b101973c4c579cc1199f2b7684627

Connect the two for me, with empirical evidence. This was the demand put on me in 2012, when I was uninformed. I came back with the empirical evidence to back uo my facts.

Go get peer-reviewed, respectable research to support your gun rights talking point.

Do it before I present my dozen which dispute you. These sources are varied: some have worked together, and many are  unrelated to the Hemenway group, or the Rivara Group in Seattle, or Wintemute's respectful supporters (the U.C. Davis work).

Share this post


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

Where did you show nice tits, anywhere?

Reasons for crime drop. (And remember that very few violent crimes involve firearms)

  • The baby boom males aged, and mellowed.
  • The crack cocaine epidemic came, and went.
  • The 911 emergency response system was implemented.
  • Triage centers improved in emergency rooms, and medical advances addressed high velocity bullet cavitations in human flesh.
  • Security camera use, and the presence of cellphone cameras, both influenced criminal activity.
  • An impressive (but incomplete) body of evidence suggests that because the presence of lead poisoning (from both gasoline and paint) was curbed, violent behavior diminished.
  • BIrth control meant that unwanted children would not extend their poor upbringing into criminal fields. 
  • Stiffer criminal penalties also had a documented effect.

 

 

There are no social scientists who attribute any part of the crime drop to gun popularity or personal "self defense" gun use. CCP increases violent crime in the double digits, about 15% in the new RTC states. Source: John Donohue

Ok so let’s say gun ownership increases have zero to do with decreased crime. Where is the proof that increased gun ownership has resulted in more violent crimes?

Hard to prove it when as gun ownership has increased and violent crime has decreased over a 20+ year period. And not just a little bit. Violent crime numbers in the early 90s look to be double what they were in 2014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Building a .450 Bushmaster AR-15 Hunting Rifle
 

Quote

 

One of the most interesting parts of the .450 BM is that it is a really terrible cartridge in almost every sense of the word. It is large and heavy, despite being designed around lightweight semiautomatic rifles, is relatively slow, has a rebated .308 size case head, and a somewhat undefined performance spectrum. The cartridges use magnum pistol powder, small rifle primers, and .452” bullets. Nothing about this cartridge seemed destined for success, especially with the known issues it has in most AR mags (a topic so maddening that I have devoted an entire upcoming article to it).

Certainly, the .458 SOCOM and other big-bore rounds would be better, right? I think so, but hunting laws don’t really care about what this writer thinks.

For all the strange attributes this cartridge has, it is rapidly growing in popularity and is fast becoming a favored round in states that prohibit bottlenecked cases, such as my home state of Michigan. No other cartridge out there really offers the same power, versatility, and legality of the .450 BM. It wasn’t what the law was written for, but if the shoe fits…

 

It's popular because it's legal for hunting.

Does it really go in this thread?

450b12-e1535474372294-600x330.jpg

Is green as scary as black?

 

Share this post


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

Building a .450 Bushmaster AR-15 Hunting Rifle
 

It's popular because it's legal for hunting.

Does it really go in this thread?

450b12-e1535474372294-600x330.jpg

Is green as scary as black?

 

It’s popular because you can hunt in Michigan’s shotgun zone with it. Due to its relative slow speed and clunky performance it won’t fly a mile. But It’s better then most shotgun slugs. It’s a favorite for raffles and give aways in the southern part of MI. I know 2 guys who won one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2018 at 12:15 PM, chinabald said:

It’s popular because you can hunt in Michigan’s shotgun zone with it. Due to its relative slow speed and clunky performance it won’t fly a mile. But It’s better then most shotgun slugs. It’s a favorite for raffles and give aways in the southern part of MI. I know 2 guys who won one. 

Maybe I'm just old fashioned but I think anything with a scope doesn't belong in shotgun season.

Share this post


Link to post