PDA

View Full Version : Bernie Sanders and Gun Control



UncaRastus
07-31-2015, 06:12 PM
On a Sundays Meet the Press;

Sanders said, “Nobody should have a gun who has a criminal background, who’s involved in domestic abuse situations. People should not have guns who are going to hurt other people, who are unstable. And second of all I believe that we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America, and we have a huge loophole now with gun shows that should be eliminated.”

While most of the positions that he advocated for on guns on Meet the Press fall within the mainstream of the Democratic Party, Media Research Center points out the fact that calling for a ban on all firearms “used to kill people” and “not for hunting” implies a ban on all weapons that are impractical for hunting but used primarily for self defense, including handguns, shotguns, and specific classes of rifles.

The above paragraphs are excerpted from an article found at website, truthinmedia.com

http://truthinmedia.com/bernie-sanders-calls-for-sweeping-gun-ban-that-would-outlaw-all-self-defense-firearms/

What do y'all think of this?

Bos Mutus
07-31-2015, 06:41 PM
On a Sundays Meet the Press;

Sanders said, “Nobody should have a gun who has a criminal background, who’s involved in domestic abuse situations. People should not have guns who are going to hurt other people, who are unstable. And second of all I believe that we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America, and we have a huge loophole now with gun shows that should be eliminated.”

While most of the positions that he advocated for on guns on Meet the Press fall within the mainstream of the Democratic Party, Media Research Center points out the fact that calling for a ban on all firearms “used to kill people” and “not for hunting” implies a ban on all weapons that are impractical for hunting but used primarily for self defense, including handguns, shotguns, and specific classes of rifles.

The above paragraphs are excerpted from an article found at website, truthinmedia.com

http://truthinmedia.com/bernie-sanders-calls-for-sweeping-gun-ban-that-would-outlaw-all-self-defense-firearms/

What do y'all think of this?

1. I'm pretty sure shotguns are used for hunting

2. I don't think the Second Amendment was designed to protect hunting.

3. Haven't heard his comments, just reading them here...but "certain type of gun", I would think he's referring to "assault rifles"...I'm not sure of that, don't know exactly what he meant...but I think saying this "implies" "handguns, shotguns" is leaping to a conclusion in order to stir up opposition from gun owners.

Tomorrow there will be the Right-wing websites with headlines saying "Sanders wants to ban all handguns, shotguns"...based on what someone said he implied when he said "certain types of guns"...the headline will be misleading because whoever thought they knew what Sanders was implying was simply guessing.

That said, I don't doubt Sanders would be for as much gun-banning as he could get away with...I just don't think that's what this statement is saying, sounds to me more like he's talking about what is often referred to as Assault Rifles....automatic/semi-automatic, high capacity magazines..that sort of thing.

I don't think most of the mass shooting crazies have prior criminal records...

Absinthe Anecdote
07-31-2015, 06:50 PM
Being an East Coast person, I go hunting almost exclusively with shotguns.

Deer, ducks, geese and rabbits are about the only thing I'll hunt.

Tried bow hunting a few times but didn't like it much. In concept bow hunting sounds cool, but it is mostly ambush style hunting.

Bos Mutus
07-31-2015, 07:15 PM
Misleading headline and poor assumption of implication aside...I'll address Sanders actual statement.


On a Sundays Meet the Press;

Sanders said, “Nobody should have a gun who has a criminal background, who’s involved in domestic abuse situations.

I think a lot of people could agree to "something" here in principle...does anyone think a convicted violent felon should still be able to get all the guns they want? I'm sure some people do....

The statement here, taken at face value says nobody with a criminal background...that's a lot of nonviolent minor criminals...I'm gonna assume he means violent criminal background...and what kind of domestic abuse are we talking about?


People should not have guns who are going to hurt other people, who are unstable.

This one is tough in practice, I think. Who is "unstable"? Does a mental health provider make that claim and report the patient? As mentioned on another thread, a lot of ripple effect to something like that with mentally ill people avoiding treatment.


And second of all I believe that we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America, and we have a huge loophole now with gun shows that should be eliminated.”

I think most of us agree that Achmed Al-Alwihari should not be allowed to purchase a personal nuclear weapon...so, we all agree on limiting/banning some types of weapons.

Once we get the principle out of the way...we just need to work together on where to draw the line.

If we can agree on what the 2nd Amendment means, that would be a good start....is it about hunting? Then we can eliminate non-hunting weapons (I don't think it is)

Is it about personal self-defense and home protection? Then can work on stuff that's not for that...I work with someone who has a 60-cal machine gun...he doesn't really have it for any purpose, it's just a hobby. He's only fired it one day...the ammo is cost prohibitive. It's certainly not for hunting or even self defense...he just likes guns and this is a big one. He means no harm to anyone and has no illusions of needing to defend his home from the govt. Honestly, I have no problem with this person having this gun...

OTOH...had this conversation with a friend of mine who is a big gun nut:

Me: Hey buddy...man, my neighbor is big into guns...he's got a mini-arsenal in his garage. Every weekend all is buddies come over with their guns, the talk about guns, the dry shoot them, clean them, trade them, I dunno...watch gun videos...what do you think about htat?

Him: Hell yeah! This is America...2nd Amendment, baby!

Me: Oh, he and his friends are all Muslim

Him: Sleeper cell, no doubt.




While most of the positions that he advocated for on guns on Meet the Press fall within the mainstream of the Democratic Party, Media Research Center points out the fact that calling for a ban on all firearms “used to kill people” and “not for hunting” implies a ban on all weapons that are impractical for hunting but used primarily for self defense, including handguns, shotguns, and specific classes of rifles.

The above paragraphs are excerpted from an article found at website, truthinmedia.com

http://truthinmedia.com/bernie-sanders-calls-for-sweeping-gun-ban-that-would-outlaw-all-self-defense-firearms/

What do y'all think of this?

Rainmaker
08-01-2015, 12:20 AM
Misleading headline and poor assumption of implication aside...I'll address Sanders actual statement.



I think a lot of people could agree to "something" here in principle...does anyone think a convicted violent felon should still be able to get all the guns they want? I'm sure some people do....

The statement here, taken at face value says nobody with a criminal background...that's a lot of nonviolent minor criminals...I'm gonna assume he means violent criminal background...and what kind of domestic abuse are we talking about?



This one is tough in practice, I think. Who is "unstable"? Does a mental health provider make that claim and report the patient? As mentioned on another thread, a lot of ripple effect to something like that with mentally ill people avoiding treatment.



I think most of us agree that Achmed Al-Alwihari should not be allowed to purchase a personal nuclear weapon...so, we all agree on limiting/banning some types of weapons.

Once we get the principle out of the way...we just need to work together on where to draw the line.

If we can agree on what the 2nd Amendment means, that would be a good start....is it about hunting? Then we can eliminate non-hunting weapons (I don't think it is)

Is it about personal self-defense and home protection? Then can work on stuff that's not for that...I work with someone who has a 60-cal machine gun...he doesn't really have it for any purpose, it's just a hobby. He's only fired it one day...the ammo is cost prohibitive. It's certainly not for hunting or even self defense...he just likes guns and this is a big one. He means no harm to anyone and has no illusions of needing to defend his home from the govt. Honestly, I have no problem with this person having this gun...

OTOH...had this conversation with a friend of mine who is a big gun nut:

Me: Hey buddy...man, my neighbor is big into guns...he's got a mini-arsenal in his garage. Every weekend all is buddies come over with their guns, the talk about guns, the dry shoot them, clean them, trade them, I dunno...watch gun videos...what do you think about htat?

Him: Hell yeah! This is America...2nd Amendment, baby!

Me: Oh, he and his friends are all Muslim

Him: Sleeper cell, no doubt.

"If we could agree on what the 2nd amendment means that would be a good start"

And you consider yourself a moderate?

garhkal
08-01-2015, 03:14 AM
On a Sundays Meet the Press;

Sanders said, “Nobody should have a gun who has a criminal background, who’s involved in domestic abuse situations. People should not have guns who are going to hurt other people, who are unstable. And second of all I believe that we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America, and we have a huge loophole now with gun shows that should be eliminated.”

While most of the positions that he advocated for on guns on Meet the Press fall within the mainstream of the Democratic Party, Media Research Center points out the fact that calling for a ban on all firearms “used to kill people” and “not for hunting” implies a ban on all weapons that are impractical for hunting but used primarily for self defense, including handguns, shotguns, and specific classes of rifles.



I think a lot of people could agree to "something" here in principle...does anyone think a convicted violent felon should still be able to get all the guns they want? I'm sure some people do....


I get in a bar fight and convicted, i am now a violent offender. Should that disqualify me of owning a gun?

BUT with how easily IMO it seems to be these days to get labeled an abuser in DV situations, i disagree there. Heck, 2 of my fellow Seabees had to be left behind our last deployment as base 'Clean up crew" cause of a DV Charge (NO conviction, just a Charge), which prohibited them from owning/using firearms..


This one is tough in practice, I think. Who is "unstable"? Does a mental health provider make that claim and report the patient? As mentioned on another thread, a lot of ripple effect to something like that with mentally ill people avoiding treatment.


Agreed. We first off would need to Identify HOW someone would be considered unstable. Would it be their psychiatrist, or someone else? Would that person have a say in the matter (since it IS his or her mental diagnosis being put out there)?
Then we would need to qualify what mental issues count. Does OCD? Bi-polar? Schizophrenic? Kleptos? ADD/ADHD?


Is it about personal self-defense and home protection? Then can work on stuff that's not for that...I work with someone who has a 60-cal machine gun...he doesn't really have it for any purpose, it's just a hobby. He's only fired it one day...the ammo is cost prohibitive. It's certainly not for hunting or even self defense...he just likes guns and this is a big one. He means no harm to anyone and has no illusions of needing to defend his home from the govt. Honestly, I have no problem with this person having this gun...


If they own it, but not for shooting, but for say a museum/collection item, then imo they should have the firing pin removed and stored elsewhere.

Rainmaker
08-01-2015, 03:26 AM
What do y'all think of this?

Sanders is a trojan horse. He calls himself an independent and then votes with Obama nearly 100% of the time.

Sanders is a labor zionist, who spent his formative years on a kibbutz.

Based on his work for Marxist front groups in the Vietnam Anti-War movement,he may be an actual Communist.

We have enough dual-citizen socialists in the government already.

Bos Mutus
08-01-2015, 08:47 PM
"If we could agree on what the 2nd amendment means that would be a good start"

And you consider yourself a moderate?

Yes...what I'm saying is not everyone agrees on the meaning

do you disagree with that?

do you think an American born Muslim should be allowed to import a personally owned nuclear device?

Rainmaker
08-01-2015, 08:59 PM
Yes...what I'm saying is not everyone agrees on the meaning

do you disagree with that?

do you think an American born Muslim should be allowed to import a personally owned nuclear device?

Ahhh the "voice of reason" weighs in with his anti Islamic insanity. You've been watching BBC again huh? Suspend the constitution. ISIS is on the loose!

Give me an example of a personally owned nuclear device, where would you get such a thing?

Cue dancing Mossads in 3....2....1

Bos Mutus
08-01-2015, 09:06 PM
Ahhh the "voice of reason" weighs in with his anti Islamic insanity.

I use the Muslim reference to help you....most conservahicks usually can only picture the 'right to bear arms' as applying to white people



Give me an example of a personally owned nuclear device, where would you get such a thing?

maybe Iran will gift them one in a few years

you're avoiding the question

Absinthe Anecdote
08-01-2015, 10:02 PM
I use the Muslim reference to help you....most conservahicks usually can only picture the 'right to bear arms' as applying to white people




maybe Iran will gift them one in a few years

you're avoiding the question

He doesn't like you talking about Muslims, because they are only a slightly different variety of the same "sand people" who invented his God.

Plus, they provide him a great reason to build his prepper bunker and play with his arsenal of guns while Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh play on his radio nonstop.

Bos Mutus
08-01-2015, 10:45 PM
I get in a bar fight and convicted, i am now a violent offender. Should that disqualify me of owning a gun?

I don't think so...not sure what Sanders thinks.


BUT with how easily IMO it seems to be these days to get labeled an abuser in DV situations, i disagree there. Heck, 2 of my fellow Seabees had to be left behind our last deployment as base 'Clean up crew" cause of a DV Charge (NO conviction, just a Charge), which prohibited them from owning/using firearms..

You are getting too caught up in the details...they can be worked out later if the principle is agreed to.

Do you think that some people should be barred from owning firearms based on their criminal background and/or domestic abuse history?

Is that constitutional?


Agreed. We first off would need to Identify HOW someone would be considered unstable. Would it be their psychiatrist, or someone else? Would that person have a say in the matter (since it IS his or her mental diagnosis being put out there)?
Then we would need to qualify what mental issues count. Does OCD? Bi-polar? Schizophrenic? Kleptos? ADD/ADHD?

Long before we even get into the details, again, we'd need to establish whether or not this is even constitutional...then whether it's a good idea.


If they own it, but not for shooting, but for say a museum/collection item, then imo they should have the firing pin removed and stored elsewhere.

I don't know what he does with the firing pin...

Rainmaker
08-02-2015, 01:13 AM
He doesn't like you talking about Muslims, because they are only a slightly different variety of the same "sand people" who invented his God.

Plus, they provide him a great reason to build his prepper bunker and play with his arsenal of guns while Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh play on his radio nonstop.

Open your eyes there Sparky...... Do you Think Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh will ever tell you that Jesus is the second most quoted prophet in the Quran?

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-02-2015, 01:53 AM
Open your eyes there Sparky...... Do you Think Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh will ever tell you that Jesus is the second most quoted prophet in the Quran?

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

Actually Glen Beck might, but Rush never gets too deep into talking about religion.

Rainmaker
08-02-2015, 01:53 AM
I use the Muslim reference to help you....most conservahicks usually can only picture the 'right to bear arms' as applying to white people

I've never heard any white person (conservahick) ever say that..... But, if John Stewart and Bill Maher and the rest of the girls on the view say so, then obviously, it must be true.


maybe Iran will gift them one in a few years

Gift who one? ISIS? How would they even get it past the vaunted TSA dragnet of behavioral detection analysts?


you're avoiding the question

Avoiding what question? Do I think a Muslim should be able to import a personal nuclear weapon? was that supposed to be a serious question? What about a death ray?

Yes, The 2nd amendment protects all arms.

I know, Maybe you and Abs should launch "a we the people petition" on Obama's website requesting a constitutional amendment to protect us from the violent "non Jewish" sand people with death rays.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-02-2015, 04:17 AM
I've never heard any white person (conservahick) ever say that..... But, if John Stewart and Bill Maher and the rest of the girls on the view say so, then obviously, it must be true.

Since you are a white conservahick who routinely complains about white European culture being marginalized and displaced by diversity shouting minorities, I have to ask why you follow a god invented by violent tribal sand people?

Shouldn't you go back to praying to tree gods and wood sprites like the pagans of Europe did?

I guess that would be difficult since the purveyors of the sand people God 2.0 (Christianity) destroyed what little was written about your real gods.

Sad, huh?




I know, Maybe you and Abs should launch "a we the people petition" on Obama's website requesting a constitutional amendment to protect us from the violent "non Jewish" sand people with death rays.

The worshipers of Islam (the sand people God 3.0) do have a tendency toward violence.

I think it is all that desert tribal behavior that makes them that way.

How do you feel knowing that Chistianity and Islam are both based on the same God?

I think we'd be better off if we convinced more people to stop believing in a bunch of nonsensical gods that sand people invented, don't you?

Rainmaker
08-02-2015, 03:45 PM
I have to ask why you follow a god invented by violent tribal sand people?

I think You have it ass backwards. I follow the God that invented the people, not the other way around.

The Adamic line (Humanity) originated in the Eastern part of the fertile crescent (also known as the cradle of civilization). Fertile. As in not a desert.

So, If you want to have further discussions. Please lose the constant "sand people" smears. Your thinly veiled Anti-Semetic slurs are not flying here..


Shouldn't you go back to praying to tree gods and wood sprites like the pagans of Europe did?

You have a warped sense of history. Stop watching Martin Scorsese flicks and pick up an actual book once in while.

The History of Western Civilization is far more than just some Anglo Saxon Jutes dancing around a camp fire.


I guess that would be difficult since the purveyors of the sand people God 2.0 (Christianity) destroyed what little was written about your real gods.

Sad, huh?

St. Constantine The Great took care of that for us, He blended in some cool Mithra holidays and rituals to make it more interesting for us Barbarians.


The worshipers of Islam (the sand people God 3.0) do have a tendency toward violence.

I think it is all that desert tribal behavior that makes them that way.

Another Racist Slur launched from your Secular Atheist ivory tower.


How do you feel knowing that Chistianity and Islam are both based on the same God?

I feel great about it. Just as I have no problem with the concept that the jews were guilty of the crucifixion of Jesus and at the same time responsible for creating and spreading it. They were redeemed by the blood of Christ.


I think we'd be better off if we convinced more people to stop believing in a bunch of nonsensical gods that sand people invented, don't you?

No, I don't think so. There's an absolute moral standard that comes from the belief in one God.

The one true God created the Earth for us to enjoy (not abuse) it.... All things are ordered and correct when we act in accordance with his laws. However, Man is the Operant power on Earths (free will). And some times we fall short and miss the mark (sin).

You are under the forces of darkness right now. But, It's your choice to do so. free your mind and your ass will follow....

Song sung by Hitler youth
We are the joyous Hitler youth,
We do not need any Christian virtue
Our leader is our savior
The Pope and Rabbi shall be gone
We want to be pagans once again.”

Bos Mutus
08-02-2015, 04:22 PM
I've never heard any white person (conservahick) ever say that..... But, if John Stewart and Bill Maher and the rest of the girls on the view say so, then obviously, it must be true.



Gift who one? ISIS? How would they even get it past the vaunted TSA dragnet of behavioral detection analysts?


use your imagination....any random person




Avoiding what question? Do I think a Muslim should be able to import a personal nuclear weapon? was that supposed to be a serious question?


yes




Yes, The 2nd amendment protects all arms.

ok...then we have nothing left to discuss

Absinthe Anecdote
08-02-2015, 04:28 PM
I think You have it ass backwards. I follow the God that invented the people, not the other way around.

The Adamic line (Humanity) originated in the Eastern part of the fertile crescent (also known as the cradle of civilization). Fertile. As in not a desert.

So, If you want to have further discussions. Please lose the constant "sand people" smears. Your thinly veiled Anti-Semetic slurs are not flying here..



You have a warped sense of history. Stop watching Martin Scorsese flicks and pick up an actual book once in while.

The History of Western Civilization is far more than just some Anglo Saxon Jutes dancing around a camp fire.



St. Constantine The Great took care of that for us, He blended in some cool Mithra holidays and rituals to make it more interesting for us Barbarians.



Another Racist Slur launched from your Secular Atheist ivory tower.



I feel great about it. Just as I have no problem with the concept that the jews were guilty of the crucifixion of Jesus and at the same time responsible for creating and spreading it. They were redeemed by the blood of Christ.



No, I don't think so. There's an absolute moral standard that comes from the belief in one God.

The one true God created the Earth for us to enjoy (not abuse) it.... All things are ordered and correct when we act in accordance with his laws. However, Man is the Operant power on Earths (free will). And some times we fall short and miss the mark (sin).

You are under the forces of darkness right now. But, It's your choice to do so. free your mind and your ass will follow....

Song sung by Hitler youth
We are the joyous Hitler youth,
We do not need any Christian virtue
Our leader is our savior
The Pope and Rabbi shall be gone
We want to be pagans once again.”

You didn't miss a beat did you?

You have spent a couple of years spouting anti-Jewish and racial slurs on this forum.

When I pick up your tactics and use them against your religion, you're suddenly pious and above the trash talk, hilarious!

You make me laugh and I know it must have bothered you to come to the defense of a bunch of Jews and Arabs.

Too funny.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-02-2015, 04:42 PM
Rick Perry was talking about the Louisiana theater shooting and said that he thinks less restrictive carry laws would prevent such shootings because other members of the audience would have been able to open fire on the bad guy.

I'm sure a lot of people in the forum agree with Perry.

So, in a dark theater a nut job opens fire and Perry thinks it would be a good idea for full-scale firefight to erupt.

That is an insane line of thinking that I'll never understand.

It is every bit as dumb as Arabs firing AK-47s in the air to celebrate at a wedding reception.

Rainmaker
08-02-2015, 04:42 PM
ok...then we have nothing left to discuss

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

If you don't like it, you can carry your Torie asses back to England.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-02-2015, 04:55 PM
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

If you don't like it, you can carry your Torie asses back to England.

So, the second amendment protects all arms?

Tanks, heavy machine guns, rockets, mortars should be owned by any citizen who can afford them.

That's great, let's turn Texas into some weird version of the tribal controlled region of Pakistan.

Rainmaker
08-02-2015, 05:39 PM
So, the second amendment protects all arms?

Tanks, heavy machine guns, rockets, mortars should be owned by any citizen who can afford them.

That's great, let's turn Texas into some weird version of the tribal controlled region of Pakistan.

"what about a personal nuclear weapon"

Where is this happening?

This is just another example of the typical assine strawman argument that always comes up, whenever zealots (like Bos Mutas) try and take their socialist/commie agenda full retard.

There are other laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the sale of commercial arms.

If you don't like It here, then by all means.... feel free to move back to France Nazi.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-02-2015, 05:46 PM
If you don't like It here. Feel free to move back to France Nazi.

Maybe I will.

You should consider moving to the desert to live with the sand people.

All you'd have to do is make yourself a little browner with a bottle of that bronzer that bodybuidlers use and you'd fit right in.

Think of all the fun you could have firing AK-47s in the air.

Praise God!


http://youtu.be/IJEO3rmefmI

Mjölnir
08-02-2015, 06:11 PM
"what about a personal nuclear weapon"

Oh, like my wife's pot roast?

Mjölnir
08-02-2015, 06:13 PM
.... feel free to move back to France Nazi.

Let's refrain from calling anyone not actually a Nazi a Nazi.

Rainmaker
08-02-2015, 06:40 PM
Let's refrain from calling anyone not actually a Nazi a Nazi.

Ok,..... Rainmaker understands that in a "free country" their are certain things we are not allowed to say.

For example. It seems constantly mocking every Christian over and over again in every thread will be tolerated. But, using the term "Nazi" (even in jest) is verboten.

I'd suspect, that this type of double standard is why the thinner-skinned Sandsjames left.

Now, Rainmaker's not offended in the least and can give as good as he gets....

But, Let's call it both ways Blue. Nomsayin?

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"

Rainmaker
08-02-2015, 07:02 PM
Maybe I will.

You should consider moving to the desert to live with the sand people.

Rainmaker has already lived among the sand people for 42 months. I have a pretty good understanding of what they are and what they are not.


All you'd have to do is make yourself a little browner with a bottle of that bronzer that bodybuidlers use and you'd fit right in.

Rainmaker don't need no bronzer. He has plenty of the Alpine admixture, so he tans very easily. even at 45 years old 6'1" 195 lbs, light eyes, square head. You Nietzsche followers, would probably consider me as an "ubermensch" in your book.


Think of all the fun you could have firing AK-47s in the air.

I don't need to go to the Middle Eastern desert for that. I can go to the Mexican neighborhoods a couple miles down the road on New Years eve, It's a much shorter drive and the girls are prettier and the food is better.


Praise God!

Amen.

Mjölnir
08-02-2015, 08:03 PM
Ok,..... Rainmaker understands that in a "free country" their are certain things we are not allowed to say.

For example. It seems constantly mocking every Christian over and over again in every thread will be tolerated. But, using the term "Nazi" (even in jest) is verboten.

I'd suspect, that this type of double standard is why the thinner-skinned Sandsjames left.

Now, Rainmaker's not offended in the least and can give as good as he gets....

But, Let's call it both ways Blue. Nomsayin?

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"

It is different to say "the left is acting like Nazi's when they do [this]" or "the right is acting like Nazi's when they do [that]". When the mocking is generalized it is not really addressed, as soon as the mocking or 'attacking' is aimed at an individual, that is disruptive and a violation of the Guidelines:


Disruption
You're welcome to voice your opinion here, and it would be a boring place if you didn't. But if you disagree with a comment that's been made, keep it civil. Posts designed to instigate or disrupt discussions or that contain offensive material may be removed, along with other messages posted in response. Please don't use obscene or offensive language, hate speech or engage in personal attacks of other members. Bashing services on branch-specific forums or any forum is not acceptable within our communities. Posts made with the intent to belittle, harass or otherwise disrupt a community will be removed. Repeated instances of such harassment and disruption may result in a revocation of posting privileges.

What Rainmaker needs to understand is that personal attacks are what is verboten, not simply using the term ... based on a couple of years of interaction with Rainmaker, Mjölnir pretty sure Rainmaker intelligent enough to get it, but just playing dumb to try and make a point.

And yes, blue, this is & has been enforced both ways. Just repeated private reminders to folks have been ignored ... this warning is public and I will say the end of the warnings for both Rainmaker & MikeKerriii is nigh, nomsayin?

Bos Mutus
08-02-2015, 10:55 PM
There are other laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the sale of commercial arms


So, you support those laws or what part of "shall not be infringed" do not understand?

Absinthe Anecdote
08-02-2015, 11:08 PM
So, you support those laws or what part of "shall not be infringed" do not understand?

Stop being mean!

He thinks our society would be better if everyone walked around firing guns and believing in God like the sand people.


http://youtu.be/bOdXV5iodzk

garhkal
08-03-2015, 06:21 AM
Yes...what I'm saying is not everyone agrees on the meaning

do you disagree with that?

do you think an American born Muslim should be allowed to import a personally owned nuclear device?

And how in anyone's mind is a portable nuke device considered by anyone as ARMS?? Arms are generally defined as hand held weaponry.


You are getting too caught up in the details...they can be worked out later if the principle is agreed to.

Seeing as how we got the debacle (IMO) of obama care cause too few people DID not bother getting into the details before passing it, i would rather get it done NOW before it becomes law and having to worry about those details later..


Do you think that some people should be barred from owning firearms based on their criminal background and/or domestic abuse history?

Is that constitutional?

Its already legal for removing someone's right to vote if they get convicted.. So why not their right to bear arms?


Long before we even get into the details, again, we'd need to establish whether or not this is even constitutional...then whether it's a good idea.

I'll agree there.


SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

If you don't like it, you can carry your Torie asses back to England.

Since i already stated by most common dictionary definitions of arms, it means FIREARMS/personal/hand held weaponry, how can that ever apply to mortars, bazookas etc..

Absinthe Anecdote
08-03-2015, 02:19 PM
And how in anyone's mind is a portable nuke device considered by anyone as ARMS?? Arms are generally defined as hand held weaponry.


That would be small arms.



Small Arms
Noun

1.
Usually, small arms. a firearm designed to be held in one or both hands while being fired: in the U.S. the term is applied to weapons of a caliber of up to one inch (2.5 cm).

The founding fathers were not trying to envision what society and technology would be like in 2015.

Bos Mutus
08-03-2015, 02:32 PM
And how in anyone's mind is a portable nuke device considered by anyone as ARMS?? Arms are generally defined as hand held weaponry.


So, all this time that Russia and U.S were in an Arms Race...it was only about handguns?

The Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty...was all about handguns?

Give me a break.

Look...the personally owned nuclear device things was not really meant to present a realistic world problem to deal with....it was an obvious extreme example to be use as a mental exercise, to get us all on the same side of the ball...it was supposed to get us talking in a rational direction....because all sane people would agree that allowing individuals to purchase their own nuclear device would be stupid...

Of course, expecting common sense sane people in this forum to have a normal conversation is too much to ask...one will say the 2nd Amendment applies to all weapons no matter what and only a Nazi would try to say otherwise...the other will make up definitions of the word Arms...smh


Since i already stated by most common dictionary definitions of arms, it means FIREARMS/personal/hand held weaponry, how can that ever apply to mortars, bazookas etc..

You need a new dictionary

OKay....so, you are saying there is no right for an individual to own mortars, bazookas, etc...anything over a handgun? Is that your position?...the 2nd amendment applies only to things that can be held in your hand?

So, you do think there should be some govt. limitation on a person owning weapons that are too big to carry in their hand?

What do you think is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?
1. To protect hunting...
2. to allow you to defend yourself against robbers?...
3.or to allow you to stand up to our own govt if it becomes a tyrannical govt.?
4. To allow you to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia to defend the country against enemies

If option 3 or 4, how do you expect to do that with only handguns nowadays?


Seeing as how we got the debacle (IMO) of obama care cause too few people DID not bother getting into the details before passing it, i would rather get it done NOW before it becomes law and having to worry about those details later..

We're not writing laws here...just getting to the concepts.


Its already legal for removing someone's right to vote if they get convicted.. So why not their right to bear arms?

Right...just trying to figure out of you agree with that or not...


I'll agree there.

SomeRandomGuy
08-03-2015, 02:47 PM
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

If you don't like it, you can carry your Torie asses back to England.

Why are you ignoring the rest of the text?


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Specifically what does "well regulated" mean?

UncaRastus
08-03-2015, 03:44 PM
If I am not mistaken, citizens can own larger weapons, but they have to pay a rather large licensing fee to own them.

Rainmaker
08-03-2015, 03:48 PM
Look...the personally owned nuclear device things was not really meant to present a realistic world problem to deal with....it was an obvious extreme example to be use as a mental exercise, to get us all on the same side of the ball...it was supposed to get us talking in a rational direction....because all sane people would agree that allowing individuals to purchase their own nuclear device would be stupid...




Yeah. There are no stupid questions, just stupid people who ask them.

This is what the Liberal "voice of reason" always does...... start out by Asking a retarded question "just to get us talking in a rational direction" and then Present a false argument....That usually goes something like this.......

"Well, you don't have the right to keep and bear a nuke or other indiscriminate weapon of mass destruction, so then the Unalienable absolute right of self-defense must be up to debate."

This type of academic masturbation is usually done by the Self-Righteous, Cosmopolitan types who want to remake the American Republic along the lines of Northern European Socialist countries, that they think only they have lived in and the rest of us Conservahicks (with our sand people God) could never comprehend......

Most of these Highly "educated" Geniuses, Get their livelihood from working in made up Government bureaucratic jobs, that produce nothing of real value and probably couldn't grow a tomato plant in their backyard if their Children's life depended on it.

UncaRastus
08-03-2015, 03:53 PM
Right to bear arms

After the SCOTUS ruled that citizens do have the right to bear arms, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

Bos Mutus
08-03-2015, 03:53 PM
Yeah. There are no stupid questions, just stupid people who ask them.

This is what the Liberal "voice of reason" always does...... start out by Asking a retarded question "just to get us talking in a rational direction" and then Present a false argument....That usually goes something like this.

"Well, you don't have the right to keep and bear a nuke or other indiscriminant weapon of mass destruction, so then the Unalienable absolute right of self-defense must be up to debate."

This type of academic masturbation is usually done by the Self-Righteous, Cosmopolitan types who want to remake the American Republic along the lines of Northern European Socialist countries, that they think only they have lived in and the rest of us Conservahicks (with our sand people God) could never comprehend......

Most of these Highly "educated" Geniuses, Get their livelihood from working in made up Government bureaucratic jobs, that produce nothing of real value and probably couldn't grow a tomato plant in their backyard if their Children's life depended on it.

Blah, blah blah...Rainman no can have rational discussion...blah, blah, blah

Blah, blah, blah...Rainman no have argument, must accuse other of being commie, Nazi, socialist...blah, blah blah

blah, blah, blah...Rainman think education bad...blah, blah blah

UncaRastus
08-03-2015, 04:05 PM
Bos Mutus,

Everybody in here believes that their points of view are the only correct points of view.

Even though sometimes I laugh, and sometimes I groan, while reading the threads in here, I do believe that having personal points of view are much better than to have to believe in Chairman Mao, Comrade Stalin, Hitler, et al., and to parrot their points of view, ad nauseum.

Having everyone in lockstep, all of us spouting off political statements made by whomever the Glorious Leader may be, and to not use our brains to do some rational thinking beyond his/her statements, would be the end of personal freedom.

That would be doubleplusungood thinking.

Bos Mutus
08-03-2015, 04:16 PM
Bos Mutus,

Everybody in here believes that their points of view are the only correct points of view.

Most of the time, we can't even figure out what the points of view are between people throwing out inflammatory accusations


Even though sometimes I laugh, and sometimes I groan, while reading the threads in here, I do believe that having personal points of view are much better than to have to believe in Chairman Mao, Comrade Stalin, Hitler, et al., and to parrot their points of view, ad nauseum.

Having everyone in lockstep, all of us spouting off political statements made by whomever the Glorious Leader may be, and to not use our brains to do some rational thinking beyond his/her statements, would be the end of personal freedom.

That would be doubleplusungood thinking.

I'm not asking anyone to be in lockstep with any leader...not sure what your point is here.

I presented a question for discussion...and got no "rational thinking"...I got..."Stupid question, you're a socialist, you can't grow tomatoes, you probably work for the govt"...that's not even sticking to "their personal point of view"...it's not even a point of view, but it is very typical of nearly every thread.

How that is rational discussion is beyond me...and how I'm insisting everyone parrot some leader is also a mystery...so I have no idea why you directed this post to me.

Rainmaker
08-03-2015, 04:29 PM
Rainman no can have rational discussion...

"do you think an American born Muslim should be allowed to import a personally owned nuclear device?"

You set up an obvious straw man like this and then cry like a passive agressvie emo chick, and start talking about "conservahicks" as soon as you get called out on it.

Oh and BTW, Not only is it an ignorant ass question, it's Racist.

You are always among the first to accuse me of being an "Anti-Semite" and "Racist" anytime you don't get your way. There's a word for people like you.

Hypocrite

noun hyp·o·crite \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\

: a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs

Bos Mutus
08-03-2015, 04:40 PM
"do you think an American born Muslim should be allowed to import a personally owned nuclear device?"

You set up an obvious straw man like this and then cry like a passive agressvie emo chick, and start talking about "conservahicks" as soon as you get called out on it.

Oh and BTW, Not only is it an ignorant ass question, it's Racist.

Good sir, yes, the question was designed to be very obvious to have a common starting point.

We could then go to the other end of the spectrum and say, "Shouldn't a woman who has been robbed and raped in her home every week for the last year be allowed to purchase a .38 to defend herself?

...and we would all say, "Yes, of course." That part didn't seem necessary since no one in here seems to be arguing for a complete ban on all firearms.

Now...we would all be in agreement that somewhere between a .38 and nuclear device...is a line for which weapons could be personally owned on one side, and rightfully forbidden on the other side.

This is called framing an argument...a technique frequently used by attorneys attempting to settle case before trial...they then work on narrowing and narrowing the frame until they can come to an agreement, or at least to demonstrate that we're not all that far off.

Yes, it is designed to "open the debate" or "open the negotiation" Of course...if one side can not even stipulate to the first intentionally obvious frame...then the discussion is nonproductive...because you cringe at the idea of "opening a debate" on the right to bear arms out of fear that someone is gonna take away your guns...you would rather stick to a bumper stick that says "Shall NOT be infringed"...when even you know that the extension of that argument to the obvious extreme is not practical, stupid and "retarded"

It was also intentionally racist to appeal to your racist sensibilities.

However, I take it by your "obvious" comments, that you are in agreement, that a private citizen does not maintain a right to own a personal nuclear device...welcome to the Nazi party you commie pinko fascist.

Now...how do you feel about tanks?


You are always among the first to accuse me of being an "Anti-Semite" and "Racist" anytime you don't get your way. There's a word for people like you.

Hypocrite

noun hyp·o·crite \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\

: a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs

You have the intellectual reasoning of a 2 year old.

I don't think anyone should be able to own a personal nuclear device...I added the Muslim part so you and your friends could understand the dilemma.

yes, it would be racist to forbid a Muslim from owning weapons that white people are allowed to...I usually find that imagining Muslims as having the same rights as white people is an effective tool to get the conservatives to understand the issue.

Good day...isn't it about time to tend to your tomatoes?

UncaRastus
08-03-2015, 04:51 PM
Bos Mutus,

I wrote that as a quick response to you. I should have said that this is for everyone in here. Sorry.

To everyone in here:

There is such a thing known as debate. When such a thing devolves into name calling, etc., then it no longer a debate.

That being said, not everyone in here can hold onto the idea that was formulated as the topic header. Myself included.

If any poster goes off the handle and does not stick to whatever post that they are answering to?

Human nature. A bottle of Jack Daniels. A bit of smokables, which are illegal in many states. Don't do that. Please.. Whatever.

Anyway ... to you, Bos,

Even though it would be nice to have everyone stick to the subject at hand, it doesn't look as if that is ever going to happen, 100% of the time. Some are in here, that would like a straight answer. There are others that come in here, a lot of the time, obfuscating the previous posters point.

There are some that are so stuck on their point of view, that nothing anyone posts is going to convince them otherwise.

What did my Dad say about things not to discuss, while with a group of friends?

"Never discuss politics or religion amongst friends."

He probably stole that from someone else.

Bos Mutus
08-03-2015, 04:54 PM
What did my Dad say about things not to discuss, while with a group of friends?

"Never discuss politics or religion amongst friends."

He probably stole that from someone else.

Your Dad was a wise man...but, that's why I come here to discuss them.

UncaRastus
08-03-2015, 05:05 PM
Bos Mutus,

Rainbows and puppies are not your way of thinking? ;)

Rainmaker
08-03-2015, 05:19 PM
It was also intentionally racist to appeal to your racist sensibilities.


You have the intellectual reasoning of a 2 year old.


I added the Muslim part so you and your friends could understand the dilemma.


I usually find that imagining Muslims as having the same rights as white people is an effective tool to get the conservatives to understand the issue.


isn't it about time to tend to your tomatoes?



Ya mean There's a dilemma Bos? Well, Gawrsh! Golly-gee Wilikers.... Uh Um Uh.....Thanks.....

You know Us "Conserva-hicks" have just a been a hankerin' ta understand....

Now, Who in tarnation is a tryin' to import a personal A-bomb?

Must be those A-Rabic Terrists again??..... Ma' quick get me mah Parker gun!!!

You mean those I-Ranians is going gift another one to ISIS.....Like they did on 9-11?

But, Ma saw on tha TeeVee that the Iranian backed Militias are fightin the ISIS??.....

It's so confusin for us simpleton folk.....We need a helpin' hand from the smart people in tha Fedrall Gubbermint ta keep us safe!

Absinthe Anecdote
08-03-2015, 05:19 PM
History of the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. It was deemed a compromise between Federalists — those who supported the Constitution as it was ratified — and the anti-Federalists — those who supported states having more power. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.

Interpretations of the Second Amendment

Since its ratification, Americans have been arguing over the amendment's meaning and interpretation. One side interprets the amendment to mean it provides for collective rights, while the opposing view is that it provides individual rights.

Those who take the collective side think the amendment gives each state the right to maintain and train formal militia units that can provide protection against an oppressive federal government. They argue the "well regulated militia" clause clearly means the right to bear arms should only be given to these organized groups. They believe this allows for only those in the official militia to carry guns legally, and say the federal government cannot abolish state militias.

Those with the opposite viewpoint believe the amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The individualists believe the amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

Both interpretations have helped shape the country's ongoing gun control debate. Those supporting an individual's right to own a gun, such as the National Rifle Association, argue that the Second Amendment should give all citizens, not just members of a militia, the right to own a gun. Those supporting stricter gun control, like the Brady Campaign, believe the Second Amendment isn't a blank check for anyone to own a gun. They feel that restrictions on firearms, such as who can have them, under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available, are necessary.

http://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html



Is the second amendment talking about individuals or militias?

Face it, this was laid down in 1791, in a time of flint-lock muskets and cannons.

We live in an age were one soldier can deliver more firepower than an entire regiment of Contential soldiers.

Also, our militia system is vastly different than in 1791. Most National Guard units have dual missions, a National mission, and a state-level mission that is usually very focused on things like response to natural disasters and civil unrest.

The Second Amendment is badly outdated.

As far as individual rights to bear arms, it does need to be regulated and controlled.

Where you can and can not carry them also needs to be controlled.

I've heard many in here state that gun free zones are stupid. Maybe, maybe not.

I will say this, if I owned a theater or a night club, I wouldn't want people bringing guns into it.

I'd have no idea if they were properly trained to use the firearm, and even if they were, I still wouldn't want them opening fire at any perceived threats in my dimly lit theater or night club.

You might have the right to own a firearm, but I have the right to refuse you entry into my place of business.

Technology is getting cheap enough for private business owners to install metal detectors and electron scanners to detect ammunition as you walk into the door.

So, all you cowboys and sand people can leave your weapons at home were they belong.

Bos Mutus
08-03-2015, 05:24 PM
Ya mean There's a dilemma Bos? Well, Gawrsh! Golly-gee Wilikers.... Uh Um Uh.....Thanks.....

You know Us "Conserva-hicks" have just a been a hankerin' ta understand....

Now, Who in tarnation is a tryin' to import a personal A-bomb? Must be those A-Rabic Terrists again??..... Ma' quick get me mah Parker gun!!!

You mean those I-Ranians is going gift another one to ISIS.....Like they did on 9-11?

But, Ma saw on tha TeeVee that the Iranian backed Militias are fightin the ISIS??.....

It's so confusin for us simpleton folk.....We need a helpin' hand from the Gubbermint ta keep us safe!

Sounds about right.

Bos Mutus
08-03-2015, 05:35 PM
I've heard many in here state that gun free zones are stupid. Maybe, maybe not.

I will say this, if I owned a theater or a night club, I wouldn't want people bringing guns into it.

I'd have no idea if they were properly trained to use the firearm, and even if they were, I still wouldn't want them opening fire at any perceived threats in my dimly lit theater or night club.

You might have the right to own a firearm, but I have the right to refuse you entry into my place of business..

I would say it's not a good idea for the patrons of a bar to be carrying firearms...and probably a good thing for the bar-owner to be able to say "take that outta here."....but, I'd have no problem with the bartender or security carrying...thus, not a "gun free zone" entirely.

In fact, nowadays, I'd encourage business owners to have a gun on person or premises, I think.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-03-2015, 05:42 PM
Have a look at what everyone carrying guns and enforcing their own brand of justice looks like.


http://youtu.be/TW_syW4SieQ

Not surprisingly they banned carrying firearms in Tombstone.

PS

The Pantera soundtrack on this clip is awesome.

Rainmaker
08-03-2015, 05:58 PM
Have a look at what everyone carrying guns and enforcing their own brand of justice looks like.


http://youtu.be/TW_syW4SieQ

Not surprisingly they banned carrying firearms in Tombstone.

PS

The Pantera soundtrack on this clip is awesome.

I'll be your Huckleberry......Great flick and awesome soundtrack.....


But in Reality...

"How many murders do you suppose these old western towns saw a year? Let's say the bloodiest, gun-slingingest of the famous cattle towns with the cowboys doing quick-draws at high noon every other day. A hundred? More?

How about five? That was the most murders any old-west town saw in any one year. Ever. Most towns averaged about 1.5 murders a year, and not all of those were shooting. You were way more likely to be murdered in Baltimore in 2008 than you were in Tombstone in 1881, the year of the famous gunfight at the OK Corral (body count: three) and the town's most violent year ever."

http://www.cracked.com/article_18487_6-ridiculous-history-myths-you-probably-think-are-true.html

Absinthe Anecdote
08-03-2015, 06:01 PM
I would say it's not a good idea for the patrons of a bar to be carrying firearms...and probably a good thing for the bar-owner to be able to say "take that outta here."....but, I'd have no problem with the bartender or security carrying...thus, not a "gun free zone" entirely.

In fact, nowadays, I'd encourage business owners to have a gun on person or premises, I think.

It depends, guns aren't magic they are only a powerful and deadly tool.

They cease to be a useful tool in the hands of a poorly trained person, and in the hands of a hothead they are a big liability.

As a bar owner you have to think long and hard about arming a member of your staff.

All this talk about diffusing a crime before it happens, or putting a bad guy in their place sounds cool, but what about your bartender fucking up and shooting a young lady at the end of the bar instead of the bad guy.

What about your bartender turning in to a complete asshole just because he has a gun?

Ive seen that phenomena too many times to count. Give some people a gun and it definitely goes to their head and they start acting like assholes.

Rainmaker
08-03-2015, 06:07 PM
What about your bartender turning in to a complete asshole just because he has a gun?

Ive seen that phenomena too many times to count. Give some people a gun and it definitely goes to their head and they start acting like assholes.

Rainmaker's calling Bullshit.....Been in some serious dives and I've never seen this. Never. In-fact the opposite is true.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-03-2015, 06:08 PM
I'll be your Huckleberry......Great flick and awesome soundtrack.....


But in Reality...

"How many murders do you suppose these old western towns saw a year? Let's say the bloodiest, gun-slingingest of the famous cattle towns with the cowboys doing quick-draws at high noon every other day. A hundred? More?

How about five? That was the most murders any old-west town saw in any one year. Ever. Most towns averaged about 1.5 murders a year, and not all of those were shooting. You were way more likely to be murdered in Baltimore in 2008 than you were in Tombstone in 1881, the year of the famous gunfight at the OK Corral (body count: three) and the town's most violent year ever."

http://www.cracked.com/article_18487_6-ridiculous-history-myths-you-probably-think-are-true.html

The overwhelming majority of Baltimore's gun violence is directly tied to armed gangs fighting for control of the drug trade.

Random violence does occur in my city, but you'd be surprised at how nice Baltimore can be.

I'm not sure about murder stats from 1881, let me do some checking.

Bos Mutus
08-03-2015, 06:09 PM
It depends, guns aren't magic they are only a powerful and deadly tool.

They cease to be a useful tool in the hands of a poorly trained person, and in the hands of a hothead they are a big liability.

As a bar owner you have to think long and hard about arming a member of your staff.

All this talk about diffusing a crime before it happens, or putting a bad guy in their place sounds cool, but what about your bartender fucking up and shooting a young lady at the end of the bar instead of the bad guy.

What about your bartender turning in to a complete asshole just because he has a gun?

Ive seen that phenomena too many times to count. Give some people a gun and it definitely goes to their head and they start acting like assholes.

Perhaps...I think this goes to the "what is more likely to happen?" questions that we don't have answers on because there are no honest statistics to look at...everyone studying gun safety/danger has a pre-ordained conclusion they are trying to prove

I used to go to this bar in Virginia...was more of a cigar bar than a drinking bar...but, the owner was also the bartender and he always had a gun on his hip...I kind of liked that about the place.

Rainmaker
08-03-2015, 06:24 PM
The overwhelming majority of Baltimore's gun violence is directly tied to armed gangs fighting for control of the drug trade.

Random violence does occur in my city, but you'd be surprised at how nice Baltimore can be.

I'm not sure about murder stats from 1881, let me do some checking.

+1 Birdland#

Rainmaker's Mother was from Baltimore City. And, We Lived there in 7th and 8th grade (81-83). so, I know exactly how "nice" it can be.

But, agree that the "protests" were not as widespread as it appeared on the Clinton News Network.

It's kind of like when they cover a Hurricane and they show you the same couple of flooded streets over and over, and it looks as if the whole city is a disaster zone.

some areas (Fells point and the Inner harbor) are much improved from what they were back then.

But, the inner ring suburbs which were once tolerable are now progressive shitholes.

still have plenty of family (some are even cops) but, Fortunately, they are farther out in the county. was just there in Nov. last year. most of my family has either already left or are wishing they could get the hell out of there.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-03-2015, 06:26 PM
Rainmaker's calling Bullshit.....Been in some serious dives and I've never seen this. Never. In-fact the opposite is true.

Call bullshit all you want, but some people let that gun go to their head.

I've seen it enough to know that some people aren't suited to acting responsibly with a firearm. They go on a fucking power trip and are way too eager to pull their weapons.

Instead of relying on their talking game to deescalate confrontations, they go straight to the gun and make matters worse.

Do you want me to believe that since you have been in a few dive bars and never seen an asshole with a gun that the problem doesn't exist?

I've seen it with federal agents, CID agents, OSI agents, AF cops, Baltimore cops, and I'm not going to believe for a second that civilians are immune to it.

Are you telling me that if you owned a bar that you wouldn't evaluate the temperament of your staff before deciding to arm them?

Some people aren't cut out for handling high stress situations with guns. Either they are too timid, or too aggressive and both are dangerous. I think the hotheads are more dangerous because they often cause a problem when it could easily be avoided.

SomeRandomGuy
08-03-2015, 06:39 PM
Some people aren't cut out for handling high stress situations with guns. Either they are too timid, or too aggressive and both are dangerous. I think the hotheads are more dangerous because they often cause a problem when it could easily be avoided.

*Cough* George Zimmerman *Cough*

We didn't necessarily know it while he was on trial but George Zimmerman is exactly the kind of person you are speaking of. That's become blatantly obvious after the trial. He has been involved in several domestic disputes and it has become somewhat clear that he feels invincible when he's packing. He's also a hot head and very likely to escalate a situation knowing that he has his trusty gun to back him up.

I still think that acquitting Zimmerman was the right move based on the evidence. With that being said, if he isn't carrying a gun that night I don't think he approaches Trayvon.

Rainmaker
08-03-2015, 06:42 PM
Call bullshit all you want, but some people let that gun go to their head.

I've seen it enough to know that some people aren't suited to acting responsibly with a firearm. They go on a fucking power trip and are way too eager to pull their weapons.

Instead of relying on their talking game to deescalate confrontations, they go straight to the gun and make matters worse.

Do you want me to believe that since you have been in a few dive bars and never seen an asshole with a gun that the problem doesn't exist?

I've seen it with federal agents, CID agents, OSI agents, AF cops, Baltimore cops, and I'm not going to believe for a second that civilians are immune to it.

Are you telling me that if you owned a bar that you wouldn't evaluate the temperament of your staff before deciding to arm them?

Some people aren't cut out for handling high stress situations with guns. Either they are too timid, or too aggressive and both are dangerous. I think the hotheads are more dangerous because they often cause a problem when it could easily be avoided.


I'd say the problem of law abiding citizens, and gun owners going straight to tilt and acting like a cowboy, is greatly exaggerated by the progressive media (sort of like Toombstone) and that whatever benefits we supposedly get by having strict gun control laws are not worth the risk to public safety.

Baltimore has some of the strictest gun control laws in the Nation and still has one of the highest violent crime rates( just like most other progressively run shithole cities).

Bos Mutus
08-03-2015, 06:46 PM
*Cough* George Zimmerman *Cough*

We didn't necessarily know it while he was on trial but George Zimmerman is exactly the kind of person you are speaking of. That's become blatantly obvious after the trial. He has been involved in several domestic disputes and it has become somewhat clear that he feels invincible when he's packing. He's also a hot head and very likely to escalate a situation knowing that he has his trusty gun to back him up.

+1 That is the first person that came to my mind as well when reading AA's post


I still think that acquitting Zimmerman was the right move based on the evidence. With that being said, if he isn't carrying a gun that night I don't think he approaches Trayvon.

I still think he should've been convicted of something...not murder, but something for instigating and escalation the encounter...I don't think you can pursue, pursue, pursue and then when someone turns around claim you're standing your ground. If he was standing his ground he would've still been in his driveway.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-03-2015, 06:51 PM
I'll be your Huckleberry......Great flick and awesome soundtrack.....


But in Reality...

"How many murders do you suppose these old western towns saw a year? Let's say the bloodiest, gun-slingingest of the famous cattle towns with the cowboys doing quick-draws at high noon every other day. A hundred? More?

How about five? That was the most murders any old-west town saw in any one year. Ever. Most towns averaged about 1.5 murders a year, and not all of those were shooting. You were way more likely to be murdered in Baltimore in 2008 than you were in Tombstone in 1881, the year of the famous gunfight at the OK Corral (body count: three) and the town's most violent year ever."

http://www.cracked.com/article_18487_6-ridiculous-history-myths-you-probably-think-are-true.html

I forgot to mention that most of those Old West towns restricted carrying of guns. They made people check their weapons with the sheriffs office when they entered the town.

As a matter of fact that is what the gunfight at the OK Corral was all about. The Cowboys weren't in compliance with the town ordinance on carrying guns in town. Wyatt Earp and his crew went to disarm them.

So, according to the stats you cited, restricting open carry worked in the Old West.

Rainmaker
08-03-2015, 06:54 PM
+1 That is the first person that came to my mind as well when reading AA's post

I still think he should've been convicted of something...

The stand your ground law was put in place because, the conservahicks of Florida wanted it that way.

Thank God you live in Stockholm, Sweden and not Orlando.

Bos Mutus
08-03-2015, 07:04 PM
The stand your ground law was put in place because, the conservahicks of Florida wanted it that way.

I support standing your ground...I just don't think that's what Zimmerman was doing...he was pursuing.

garhkal
08-03-2015, 07:04 PM
Look...the personally owned nuclear device things was not really meant to present a realistic world problem to deal with....it was an obvious extreme example to be use as a mental exercise, to get us all on the same side of the ball...it was supposed to get us talking in a rational direction....because all sane people would agree that allowing individuals to purchase their own nuclear device would be stupid...


But it is an often used tactic i see (mostly from people on the left in other arguments), to try and get people to 'agree' that some things are not supposed to be personally owned, then they push to get that list bigger and bigger.
Is owning a tank ok. A personal fighter jet (say you bought it when the mil mothballed it)?
Jeep with gun on it (M2 or .30 cal)? Rocket launcher and so on.

While i DO agree, some weapons shouldn't be personally owned, i would rather the law be more open than tighter controlled.


Is the second amendment talking about individuals or militias?

Face it, this was laid down in 1791, in a time of flint-lock muskets and cannons.

We live in an age were one soldier can deliver more firepower than an entire regiment of Contential soldiers.

Also, our militia system is vastly different than in 1791. Most National Guard units have dual missions, a National mission, and a state-level mission that is usually very focused on things like response to natural disasters and civil unrest.

The Second Amendment is badly outdated.


So are a lot of other amendments.. Heck with the internet, imo what can/can't count as expression/speech imo should also be re-looked at, due to the # of sites out there to recruit terrorists, host KKK/Black panther gatherings (Hate groups) etc..


As far as individual rights to bear arms, it does need to be regulated and controlled.


And who get's to decide that? IMO a government who controls what guns its citizens can get, is setting those citizens up for being controlled.


Where you can and can not carry them also needs to be controlled.

I've heard many in here state that gun free zones are stupid. Maybe, maybe not.

I will say this, if I owned a theater or a night club, I wouldn't want people bringing guns into it.


On the gun free zones, since criminals ignore laws anway, all this imo does is prevent law abiding citizens from carrying to defend themselves and others. It paints a big notice "No one here, is carrying to prevent criminals".
As to that last part on night clubs. Would you extend that to off duty cops? Security guards? Licenced CCW holders?


The overwhelming majority of Baltimore's gun violence is directly tied to armed gangs fighting for control of the drug trade.

Random violence does occur in my city, but you'd be surprised at how nice Baltimore can be.


But it does show that its NOT law abiding citizens causing all these deaths, its Illegal gangs doing it. So why cramp down with yet MORE restrictions on the followers of the law?


I'd say the problem of law abiding citizens, and gun owners going straight to tilt and acting like a cowboy, is greatly exaggerated by the progressive media (sort of like Toombstone) and that whatever benefits we supposedly get by having strict gun control laws are not worth the risk to public safety.

Baltimore has some of the strictest gun control laws in the Nation and still has one of the highest violent crime rates( just like most other progressively run shithole cities).

Very true. Just look down south to states like Texas.. They are more open in carrying and allowing CCWs, and they are no where close to the # of deaths per year as other places.

Bos Mutus
08-03-2015, 07:27 PM
But it is an often used tactic i see (mostly from people on the left in other arguments), to try and get people to 'agree' that some things are not supposed to be personally owned,

Yes...that's exactly right...we all agree on that.

I'm not sure why you seem to be portraying this as a bad evil left wing "tactic"...god forbid those evil lefties should try to find common ground...what is "tactic" about trying to get everyone to agree on something?


then they push to get that list bigger and bigger.
Is owning a tank ok. A personal fighter jet (say you bought it when the mil mothballed it)?
Jeep with gun on it (M2 or .30 cal)? Rocket launcher and so on.

Exactly correct...when we get down to where the "agree" turns to "disagree" on that one, is where the debate starts...we'll probably find we're not all that far apart and can have reasonable discourse.

So, yes, this evil tactic I was using was a feeble attempt at finding common ground...funny thing is I'm not even against guns, so we're probably not even very different at all in our opinion of this....


While i DO agree, some weapons shouldn't be personally owned, i would rather the law be more open than tighter controlled.

Okay...so what constitutes "more open" and what constitutes "tighter controlled" is what's left to discuss.

Fighter jet?
Tank?
Anti-aircraft gun?
Mortars?
Rocket-propelled grenade launcher?
Hand grenades?
M-60?
Fully automatic rifle with high capacity magazines?
Fully automatic rifle with low capacity magazines?
Semi-automatic...

A way of looking at this...is which weapons are you comfortable with the bad guys having vs. not having? You can define bad guys anyway you want...but there is no way to prevent the bad guys from getting what the good guy can get.

Rainmaker
08-03-2015, 07:35 PM
I forgot to mention that most of those Old West towns restricted carrying of guns. They made people check their weapons with the sheriffs office when they entered the town.

As a matter of fact that is what the gunfight at the OK Corral was all about. The Cowboys weren't in compliance with the town ordinance on carrying guns in town. Wyatt Earp and his crew went to disarm them.

So, according to the stats you cited, restricting open carry worked in the Old West.

Full disclosure. Rainmaker hasn't brushed up on my Tombstone history. So, All I really know is what I saw in the movie....

Now, Were all the towns people disarmed or just the outsiders that didn't live there and were traveling into the town?

Arizona was not admitted into the Union until 1912....so maybe the "citizens" were not covered under the 2nd amendment to the US constitution? I don't know how it worked in the territories.....

You could be armed outside of town and Since, 99.9% of the population did not live in a town, I guess it makes sense.

As far as i can imagine, you wouldn't go to town unless you were entering a private establishment to conduct business.

Most old west towns had a sheriff and maybe a deputy and didn't have a standing police force.

They also had Lynch mobs, Kangaroo courts, No Communist ACLU lawyers running around trying to defend psycopaths and summary executions...... Sounds like a plan to me!

"Well, in the 19th century Tombstone the town was a "gun free" zone and they had low crime, so gun control works..... Even though it actually doesn't work now here because of gang turf wars over drugs and stuff"

This is right up there with the Bos Mutus " Well The Ayatolla could give sleeper cell ,Muslim , Homegrown ISIS terrorists, Personal Nuclear weapons...... so maybe we need to ban all scary looking rifles just to be on the safe side" argument.

Rainmaker
08-03-2015, 07:39 PM
I support standing your ground...I just don't think that's what Zimmerman was doing...he was pursuing.

He was the neighborhood watch that night in a community that was suffering rampant crime after the housing collapse brought on by bank criminals turned it into a section 8 hell hole.

I guess he should've waited till he got choked out MMA style to defend himself.

IMO Zimmerman exercised extra ordinary restraint. He would've been well within his legal rights to have smoked that turd sooner than he did.

Bos Mutus
08-03-2015, 07:47 PM
He was the neighborhood watch that night in a community that was suffering rampant crime after the housing collapse brought on by bank criminals turned it into a section 8 hell hole.

I guess he should've waited till he got choked out MMA style to defend himself.

IMO Zimmerman should've smoked that turd sooner than he did.

He should've just nuked all of Orlando.

Rainmaker
08-03-2015, 07:49 PM
He should've just nuked all of Orlando.

Well, I guess it's possible.... Since, Zimmerman was pretty Semetic looking.....

Rainmaker
08-03-2015, 07:59 PM
Fighter jet?
Tank?
Anti-aircraft gun?
Mortars?
Rocket-propelled grenade launcher?
Hand grenades?
M-60?
Fully automatic rifle with high capacity magazines?
Fully automatic rifle with low capacity magazines?
Semi-automatic...

Yes, yes.....all of the above! Rainmaker wants a "personal B-2 Stealth Bomber" to protect me from Al Qaeda boogeyman that the teevee man says is hiding under the bed...You said you worked FMS can you help me get one? I have Lot's of cash!


but there is no way to prevent the bad guys from getting what the good guy can get.

Disarm the good guy to protect him from bad guys.....Great....This is the Socialst/Neocon agenda in a nutshell.. State > Individual and Safety > Freedom....

Absinthe Anecdote
08-03-2015, 08:00 PM
*Cough* George Zimmerman *Cough*

We didn't necessarily know it while he was on trial but George Zimmerman is exactly the kind of person you are speaking of. That's become blatantly obvious after the trial. He has been involved in several domestic disputes and it has become somewhat clear that he feels invincible when he's packing. He's also a hot head and very likely to escalate a situation knowing that he has his trusty gun to back him up.

I still think that acquitting Zimmerman was the right move based on the evidence. With that being said, if he isn't carrying a gun that night I don't think he approaches Trayvon.

I agree, I think that is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about.

In my old office at DHS we had a number of LEOs from various parts of the country assigned to us on a rotating basis.

Most were normal guys and you'd never know they were carrying weapons unless you were looking for it.

There was a small percentage of them that would always make it a point to adjust their jacket to reveal their weapons. Inside the office or out on interviews they'd make sure that their weapon or badge was visible, it was a plain clothes detail.

They were also the same ones who would start enforcing traffic regulations if we were going to lunch.

No kidding, saw a LVPD cop tell a soccer mom to move her car out of a fire lane at the mall we were going into for lunch.

This guy is on special duty to DHS in DC and feels the need to move people out of fire lanes when we are going to lunch at the mall?

I know that there is a percentage of the population that lets a gun go to their head, it isn't the majority of people, but it is far from being a rarity.

AF cops are horrendous for developing the Deputy Fife syndrome.

Civilian bouncers at bars and dance clubs are notorious for it too! Even if they aren't armed, but just the big muscle bound guy, they can cause far more problems than they solve if they aren't supervised properly.

Rainmaker
08-03-2015, 08:06 PM
Civilian bouncers at bars and dance clubs are notorious for it too! Even if they aren't armed, but just the big muscle bound guy, they can cause far more problems than they solve if they aren't supervised properly.

This is why you should always keep a .38 snub nose hidden in your butthole!

Absinthe Anecdote
08-03-2015, 08:11 PM
This is why you should always keep a .38 snub nose hidden in your butthole!

For what?

So you can be a bigger bad ass than the bouncer, just because you have a gun?

You are proving my point.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-03-2015, 08:13 PM
Disarm the good guy to protect him from bad guys.....Great....This is the Socialst/Neocon agenda in a nutshell.. State > Individual and Safety > Freedom....

This Rush Limbaugh talking point was brought to you by Rainmaker!

Stop denying that you are a ditto head.

Rainmaker
08-03-2015, 08:19 PM
For what?

So you can be a bigger bad ass than the bouncer, just because you have a gun?

You are proving my point.

No, It's so I can exercise my God Given right to defend one's own life (and other's if necessary, in certain circumstances) against an out of control, unsupervised, roided up, tattooed, DHS goon with a God Complex, who's forgotten his constitutional oath, that's moonlighting in his off duty time as a bouncer at the Coyote Ugly....

Bos Mutus
08-03-2015, 08:22 PM
Yes, yes.....all of the above! Rainmaker wants a "personal B-2 Stealth Bomber" to protect me from Al Qaeda boogeyman that the teevee man says is hiding under the bed...You said you worked FMS can you help me get one? I have Lot's of cash!

You have confused me with someone else...I don't even know what FMS stands for and have never worked anywhere with that acronym


Disarm the good guy to protect him from bad guys.....Great....This is the Socialst/Neocon agenda in a nutshell.. State > Individual and Safety > Freedom....

Bottom line is any arms the good guys can get the bad guys can also...most often, there is no way to differentiate the two, and commonly, the bad guy is not even a bad guy until after he commits his crime.

Bumper stickers are not gonna solve this one.

Rainmaker
08-03-2015, 08:26 PM
This Rush Limbaugh talking point was brought to you by Rainmaker!

Stop denying that you are a ditto head.

You must have shares in Bain Capital (clear channel ownership)... Because, You keep saying that...

Rainmaker is always right.....From what you're telling me, It seems sometimes Rush is too.... Guess, I need to start tuning in.

Bos Mutus
08-03-2015, 08:26 PM
No, It's so I can exercise my God Given right to defend one's own life (and other's if necessary, in certain circumstances) against an out of control, unsupervised, roided up, tattooed, DHS goon with a God Complex, who's forgotten his constitutional oath, that's moonlighting in his off duty time as a bouncer at the Coyote Ugly....

Hmmm...a few pages ago some guy named Rainman clamied these people don't exist.

Rainmaker
08-03-2015, 08:30 PM
You have confused me with someone else...I don't even know what FMS stands for and have never worked anywhere with that acronym

Foreign Military Sales. Never mind..



Bumper stickers are not gonna solve this one.

There's nothing to solve. We've got too many liberal "good idea fairies" running around with solutions looking for a problem to solve.

I know what, maybe we should secure the border instead.

Rainmaker
08-03-2015, 08:32 PM
Hmmm...a few pages ago some guy named Rainman clamied these people don't exist.

Where did I do that?

Bos Mutus
08-03-2015, 08:40 PM
Foreign Military Sales. Never mind..

Oh...I did some FMS TDYs while I was active duty...


There's nothing to solve. We've got too many liberal "good idea fairies" running around with solutions looking for a problem to solve.

Liberals are the problem...first they're gonna make it illegal to say bad words...then, they're gonna take your guns...then, their gonna corral you into camps and turn everyone transgender and have them do gay things...it's all right here in our Agenda 21 workbook...arm yourselves, arm yourselves NOW!


I know what, maybe we should secure the border instead.

Another thread sometime

Absinthe Anecdote
08-03-2015, 08:44 PM
Where did I do that?

Post #54 you responded with this when I said that arming some employees at bars could turn them into assholes who cause problems.


Rainmaker's calling Bullshit.....Been in some serious dives and I've never seen this. Never. In-fact the opposite is true.

Some people go cowboy when you give them a gun, it is a real problem. They get drunk with the power they think the gun gives them.

Many concealed carry advocates are so emotional about the issue because they covet the feel off a Glock tucked in their waistband and have daydreams about standing down a group of high school punks. They are ticking time bombs.

Some people get stupid with guns, it is a fact.

Do I need to post more videos of your God fearing sand people friends firing AK-47s at wedding receptions?

Bos Mutus
08-03-2015, 08:48 PM
Where did I do that?

Right about here:


Rainmaker's calling Bullshit.....Been in some serious dives and I've never seen this. Never. In-fact the opposite is true.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-03-2015, 09:04 PM
You must have shares in Bain Capital (clear channel ownership)... Because, You keep saying that...

Rainmaker is always right.....From what you're telling me, It seems sometimes Rush is too.... Guess, I need to start tuning in.

Thanks for admitting that you listen to Rush.

For our readers who don't listen to Rush, "Rush is always right" is a common tag line from the show and Bain Capital is a long time sponsor.

Rainmaker
08-03-2015, 09:08 PM
Post #54 you responded with this when I said that arming some employees at bars could turn them into assholes who cause problems.

yes' I was referring to bartenders with guns. Not Goon bouncers without them.

Usually if the bartender is armed the patrons are less likely to get out of control.

I don't hang out in metrosexual DC bars though so maybe your experience is different.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-03-2015, 09:21 PM
yes' I was referring to bartenders with guns. Not Goon bouncers without them.

Usually if the bartender is armed the patrons are less likely to get out of control.

I don't hang out in metrosexual DC bars though so maybe your experience is different.

Why is that? Because the position of bartender with a gun is magical?

A bartender can go on a power trip just as easily as a bouncer.

Rainmaker
08-03-2015, 09:23 PM
Thanks for admitting that you listen to Rush.

For our readers who don't listen to Rush, "Rush is always right" is a common tag line from the show and Bain Capital is a long time sponsor.

Obviously it went right over your head G-man.

Bain Capital is not a show sponsor, they're a majority Foreign owned asset....... one of ADL of B'nai B'rith's personal favorites. Clear Channel is one of their holdings...Rush works for clear channel.

So no. Rainmaker don't listen to Rush.

We already get bombarded with enough Israel uber alles propaganda as it is, without voluntarily subjecting ourselves to more.

MikeKerriii
08-03-2015, 10:17 PM
He was the neighborhood watch that night in a community that was suffering rampant crime after the housing collapse brought on by bank criminals turned it into a section 8 hell hole.

I guess he should've waited till he got choked out MMA style to defend himself.

IMO Zimmerman exercised extra ordinary restraint. He would've been well within his legal rights to have smoked that turd sooner than he did.

Zimmerman was a self-appointed vigilante, stalking a kid after the police told him not to do so. If he had been sane there would have been no confrontation at all.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-03-2015, 10:30 PM
No, It's so I can exercise my God Given right to defend one's own life (and other's if necessary, in certain circumstances) against an out of control, unsupervised, roided up, tattooed, DHS goon with a God Complex, who's forgotten his constitutional oath, that's moonlighting in his off duty time as a bouncer at the Coyote Ugly....

This post deserves a little more analysis.

What if someone else's God says you don't have that right?

"God Given Rights" are no different than rights bestowed upon you by a government. Both can be snatched away from you by a more powerful group of people.

Both can be misinterpreted and abused just as easily. Keep your God out of it; besides, if your God gave you the right to carry any weapon it would be a sword or a slingshot, or some other type of Bronze Age weapon that the sand people had.

Now, let's look at your fantasy of taking on a "roided up bouncer." This is an example of the daydreams that concealed carry advocates often have.

You see yourself as a hero who will pull a gun on a bouncer to protect yourself and others from an out-of-control goon.

I wonder how that will play in court after you shoot a bouncer over some squabble in a bar. You are talking about having to justify using deadly force. Better get your story straight and witnesses lined up.

You will probably have to rely on the testimony of other patrons, who were drinking and probably easily opposed by a lawyer.

Plus, you can count on the bouncer and bartender having a few regulars that will testify on their behalf, since it is their home turf.

Carrying a gun into a bar and thinking that you have a God given right to use it is incredibly dumb.

It is a daydream of you having power and being a hero. It isn't practical or realistic.

Rainmaker
08-04-2015, 04:17 AM
"God Given Rights" are no different than rights bestowed upon you by a government. Both can be snatched away from you by a more powerful group of people.

Man, Rainmaker could've swore that Way Back in 1984, some old white guy in High school taught us that The United States of America was the only country in the world, at the time, that began with the premise that our rights come from God and not the King.

Therefore the Government's only role was to secure our God given rights of life and liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. Nothing else.

The Bill of Rights was added because, the Founding Fathers knew that Governments universally tend to infringe on the people's rights.



Both can be misinterpreted and abused just as easily.

Yes, it can be very confusing what the terms mean.

http://www.unalienable.com/unalien.htm


Now, Rainmaker's just a conservahick and not a smart constitutional lawyer from DC (like you and Bos Mutus). So, maybe I'm missing the crux of what the problem is..... But, the law firm of AK, AR, and Colt are on the case.



besides, if your God gave you the right to carry any weapon it would be a sword or a slingshot, or some other type of Bronze Age weapon that the sand people had.

If The Bill of Rights is obsolete and anyone is allowed to kill us, anytime they want, then obviously we need nukes Fellas!....So, I'll make a point to ask Sand God 2.0 for it....


I wonder how that will play in court after you shoot a bouncer over some squabble in a bar. You are talking about having to justify using deadly force. Better get your story straight and witnesses lined up.

Not really sure. But, don't think it's legal anywhere to just shoot people over a squabble....But, I think the saying goes: Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Nomsayin?

Rainmaker
08-04-2015, 04:46 AM
Oh...I did some FMS TDYs while I was active duty...


Amazing isn't it Bos? Rainmaker remembers your BS stories better than you do.

They really need to tighten it up over there at Hasbara Fellowships corporate HQ

Bos Mutus
08-04-2015, 05:55 AM
Amazing isn't it Bos? Rainmaker remembers your BS stories better than you do.

Nothing BS about the story...just didn't place the context when you said "work for FMS"


They really need to tighten it up over there at Hasbara Fellowships corporate HQ

You caught me, but it's too late.

We will stop at nothing short of world domination in our New World Order....bwaah haaa haaaa

garhkal
08-04-2015, 08:24 AM
Yes...that's exactly right...we all agree on that.

I'm not sure why you seem to be portraying this as a bad evil left wing "tactic"...god forbid those evil lefties should try to find common ground...what is "tactic" about trying to get everyone to agree on something?


Cause often (well from how i have seen things) once they get that One consession/agreement, they keep pushing and pushing for more and more..
It seems to me they are never satisfied.



Fighter jet? (if its still got the nose gun and missiles, heck no.)
Anti-aircraft gun?
Mortars?
Rocket-propelled grenade launcher?
Hand grenades?
M-60?
Fully automatic rifle with high capacity magazines?
Fully automatic rifle with low capacity magazines?
Tank (if the main gun is gone/disabled, then i am ok with someone owning one)
Semi-automatic...

A way of looking at this...is which weapons are you comfortable with the bad guys having vs. not having? You can define bad guys anyway you want...but there is no way to prevent the bad guys from getting what the good guy can get.

I bolded the ones i feel should NOT be covered by the 2nd amendment.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-04-2015, 01:27 PM
Man, Rainmaker could've swore that Way Back in 1984, At Fort Hill High School, MD. some old white guy taught us that The United States of America was the only country in the world, at the time, that began with the premise that our rights come from God and not the King.

Therefore the Government's only role was to secure our God given rights of life and liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. Nothing else.

The Bill of Rights was added because, the Founding Fathers knew that Governments universally tend to infringe on the people's rights.



Notice how God isn't doing anything in what you just described. You give him credit and glory for bestowing rights upon you that your fellow humans are paying the all the bills for.

Anyway, back to the what you called your "God given" right to defend yourself.

What makes you think that you should be allowed to walk into a bar with a gun?

Since you are so "Godly" I don't know why you should want to go to bars anyway.

Let's change it to a family style restaurant, like IHOP. So, it is a beautiful Saturday morning and people are out having pancakes with their families.

People have their children in the IHOP and are enjoying pancakes.

Why in the hell do you want to walk into the IHOP with a gun in your pocket?

Bos Mutus
08-04-2015, 02:08 PM
Cause often (well from how i have seen things) once they get that One consession/agreement, they keep pushing and pushing for more and more..
It seems to me they are never satisfied.

like how conservatives keep pushing for more and more abortion restrictions...I mean, why can't they just be satisfied??...less and less govt assistance....less and less labor laws and bus. Regulations....more defense spending...it seems they are never satisfied.

yes, it's an ongoing dynamic process...no one is ever satisfied




I bolded the ones i feel should NOT be covered by the 2nd amendment.

see, we're not far off at all....I'll just wait here for rainman to accuse you of being Stalin's gay lover or something

Absinthe Anecdote
08-04-2015, 02:27 PM
I object to tanks being on that list; I don't care if the main gun is disabled.

I don't want them available to anyone who has the cash.


http://youtu.be/tmFiZoe-7P4

There is a bunch of other wacky stuff on that list too.

Rainmaker
08-04-2015, 03:23 PM
What makes you think that you should be allowed to walk into a bar with a gun?

It's a little complicated....The short answer is.... Because, Jesus and John Locke both said I could.....

The long answer is....

John Locke said Those rights are not conferred on me by my fellow citizens , they are inalienable and therefore can't be transferred or surrendered without my consent (free will).

Jesus said, Consciousness and Self-Awareness would be impossible without free will, and if all that exists is cause and effect, than nothing you would ever do would be a result of your own conscious free will..... this implies that matter and physics gives way to the "will of the soul" that possess a man in his body....... Now, were I come from we Conserva-hicks call that a "spirit".

However, Jesus said to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.

So, when living in the world of Caesar which is the State of Florida (a wholly owned subsidiary of the FED & an affiliate of the City of London Corporation (Crown Corporation) .

The law is somewhat ambiguous and You can't (legally) unless it's a restaurant that serves food (i.e a chilies or something along those lines).

However, for my own safety + that of the other patrons, I usually keep a .38 snubbie in my butthole(no holster) as my backup. -see John Locke

I know, to you behavioral detection analysts at the Stasi, Rainmaker would probably considered something of a contradiction. If you have no ethics, it may seem difficult for you to understand ,that a man can be Fiercely independent and yet remain loyal to the oath that He's sworn.


Since you are so "Godly" I don't know why you should want to go to bars anyway.

"Beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy"



Let's change it to a family style restaurant, like IHOP. So, it is a beautiful Saturday morning and people are out having pancakes with their families.

People have their children in the IHOP and are enjoying pancakes.

Why in the hell do you want to walk into the IHOP with a gun in your pocket?

So, This happened 2 weeks after I left Ft. Hood. If only it had been a "gun free" zone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_shooting

I'd eaten there before... There but for the grace of God go.... Ah nevermind....

Absinthe Anecdote
08-04-2015, 04:46 PM
It's a little complicated....The short answer is.... Because, Jesus and John Locke both said I could.....


No, neither one said that you have a right to walk around with a gun in your pocket.





However, for my own safety + that of the other patrons, I usually keep a .38 snubbie in my butthole(no holster) as my backup. -see John Locke



That is actually a very poor choice of a weapon. About the only thing it has going for it is concealment. It is shitty for many self defense scenarios.

Gun shop owners usually lay down a pretty smooth sales pitch for a .38 snub nose to women and inexperienced shooters.

It takes a lot of practice to master placing accurate shots with that weapon. Especially in a stress environment.

If you ever have to use that thing, you are almost certainly are going to need to place a follow up shot. The sites on a snubbie are hard to pick up visually, remember, you are going to have elevated an pulse, adrenaline will be flowing, and your breathing is going to pick up.

Ever take a combat shooting course? Didn't think so.

Do you even have an idea what your maximum effective range is with that weapon? Didn't think so.

If you pull that thing out to shoot a bad guy in a restaurant full of screaming people, you've got an even chance of shooting some toddler in the head.



So, This happened 2 weeks after I left Ft. Hood. If only it had been a "gun free" zone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_shooting

I'd eaten there before... There but for the grace of God go.... Ah nevermind....

Tell you what hero.

You can carry your snubbie, but if you ever use it and hit someone else in your attempt to be a hero, I say you deserve punishment.

Earlier in the thread you expressed an admiration of the Old West's kangaroo courts and lynch mob justice.

Your punishment will be the following: You will be whipped with a belt by two big black dudes until you start crying. Then they will rape you in the place you keep bragging about carrying your stupid little .38.

Rainmaker
08-04-2015, 06:32 PM
No, neither one said that you have a right to walk around with a gun in your pocket.




That is actually a very poor choice of a weapon. About the only thing it has going for it is concealment. It is shitty for many self defense scenarios.

Gun shop owners usually lay down a pretty smooth sales pitch for a .38 snub nose to women and inexperienced shooters.

It takes a lot of practice to master placing accurate shots with that weapon. Especially in a stress environment.

If you ever have to use that thing, you are almost certainly are going to need to place a follow up shot. The sites on a snubbie are hard to pick up visually, remember, you are going to have elevated an pulse, adrenaline will be flowing, and your breathing is going to pick up.

Ever take a combat shooting course? Didn't think so.

Do you even have an idea what your maximum effective range is with that weapon? Didn't think so.

If you pull that thing out to shoot a bad guy in a restaurant full of screaming people, you've got an even chance of shooting some toddler in the head.



Tell you what hero.

You can carry your snubbie, but if you ever use it and hit someone else in your attempt to be a hero, I say you deserve punishment.

Earlier in the thread you expressed an admiration of the Old West's kangaroo courts and lynch mob justice.

Your punishment will be the following: You will be whipped with a belt by two big black dudes until you start crying. Then they will rape you in the place you keep bragging about carrying your stupid little .38.

You make a lot of assumptions. Never ASSUME.

It has become obvious that your integrity has been debased somewhere along the line..... Because, you are still constantly trying to inflate the "Right Wing extremist meme", while at the same time continuing in making your own racist comments.

There can be no doubt That, this hubris must be a product of the "Exceptional" commercial training... you've received over at DHS-Goebbels 101.

Maybe, as a service to the rest of us wanna bes, You can post up a link were we can sign up to become as squared away as you are. "Hero"....

Anyhow, The whole premise that cops are power lusting psychopaths, so the people need to be disarmed for their own safety is ridiculous.

A society based on lies will always destroy itself....... Just as a man who lives his life based on lies will destroy his own self.

Q: What's the opposite of E.V.I.L?
A: L.I.V.E

As above, so below. Macrocosm to Microcosm

Unfortunately, This will have to be the last time that Rainmaker will discuss his belief in God with you, Because, Although there is much left to discuss.....

You just have not reached a state of awareness (yet) to allow you perceive the reality that something greater than your own self exists.

In parting, as a fellow traveler ( yes even Brother) that's crossed your path on this journey....

Rainmaker would like to offer that Ephesians 6:12 RSV is a true passage worthy of your consideration....

The truth will set you free.

That's about all I have to say on the topic.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-04-2015, 07:12 PM
You make a lot of assumptions. Never ASSUME. It has become obvious that your integrity has been debased somewhere along the line..... Because, you are still constantly trying to inflate the "Right Wing extremist meme", while at the same time continuing in making your Anti-Semetic racist comments.

There's No doubt but, that this hubris must be a product of the "Exceptional" commercial training... you've received over at DHS-Goebbels 101.

Maybe, as a service to the rest of us wanna bes, You can post up a link were we can sign up to become as squared away as you are "Hero"...... Anyhow, The whole premise that cops are power lusting psychopaths, so the people need to be disarmed for their own safety is ridiculous.

A society based on lies will always destroy itself....... Just as a man who lives his life based on lies will destroy his own self.

Q: What's the opposite of E.V.I.L?
A: L.I.V.E

As above, so below. Macrocosm to Microcosm

Unfortunately, This will have to be the last time that Rainmaker will discuss religion with you, Because, Although there is much left to discuss.....
You just have not reached a state of awareness (yet) to allow you perceive the reality that something greater than your own self exists.

In parting, as a fellow traveler ( yes Brother) that's crossed your path on the journey, Rainmaker would like to offer that Ephesians 6:12 RSV is a true passage worthy of your consideration....

The truth will set you free.

That's about all I have to say on the topic.

We were talking guns, at least I was, you started claiming that God gives you the right to carry a gun. Forget religion.

Let's talk about guns, and more specifically your poor choice of a .38 snub nose.

Like I said earlier, that is the gun that is often sold to women and those who don't take the time to learn about weapons.

Your daydreams of taking out a mass shooter in a crowded restaurant with that thing are laughable.

Let's say you are lucky and score a hit with you first shot. Chances are he won't go down immediately; plus, with a mass shooter there is a damn good chance he is wearing body armor.

He turns toward you and opens up! BLAM BLAM BLAM! The Formica tabletop you are hiding behind shudders and high velocity rounds zip and zing past your face.

Somehow he misses you, and you've got to make this next shot!

Can you hit him in the head? People are running and screaming, a fat guy with a mouthful of waffles has just taken a round to the throat behind you and is making a strange mewling sound.

Hurry up! The shooter is coming around the row of booths to get a clearer shot at you... Do you move or do you take your shot now?

How much have you practiced? When was the last time you fired that snubbie?

How many people are behind the shooter? Is that a young mother with a toddler running for the door behind the bad guy?

What if you miss? What do you do? BLAM BLAM BLAM!

Luckily the shooter takes you out and the mother with the toddler escape through the front door.

My advice to you is to think about that stupid little snubbie in your pocket a little more realistically.

Your daydreams of calmly pulling it on some crazie with a with an assault rifle and saving the day are rather childish.

Rainmaker
08-04-2015, 08:24 PM
Obviously, when confronted with an MK Ultra creation on psychotropic meds at the Carmike Theater, We'd all opt for a carbine.... Given the choice, That's the optimal solution IMO.....

Now, The reason Rainmaker carry the .38 snubbie is because, it's the only weapon that he can effectively conceal in his butthole ( pocket holster not required)......

Which, is usually a necessity Because my hands are always full (with carrying popcorn and JuJu beans or just holding on to the Heater's Big Booty).

It's always a delicate balance between concealment and knock down power. NomSayin?

Now, Have you ever actually shot anything (other than a popup target at the Contractor's Training range) with a .38 Cowboy??

Rainmaker Once, saw Uncle Lou take down a charging wild boar with a .38 on a pig hunt at float camp....

It'd probably take down your average DHS , Phony tough guy, moonlighting as a bouncer over at the Metroplexual Coyote Ugly.

Anyhow, You got me mixed up with somebody else. You must see ISIL Right wing Extremist Terrorists lurking in every shadowy corner. Both Foreign and Domestic.

You need a vacation Bucko...... and while you're on it, Maybe, Think over your sworn oath and what you're supposed to really be here for......

Now, Rainmaker's not really a gun nut. But, I can drive nails with a .22 LR at distance... Most all of my long guns have real wood stocks and blued finishes and we've got a .12 Gauge 870 door gun.

But, We're talking about protecting Life, Liberty and Property. Not taking down Rogue SEAL Platoons of the Apocalypse.

Bos Mutus the Bot who formerly worked FMS to the IDF (but suddenly can't remember it) is working on getting us some "personal Nuclear weapons" for that particular scenario.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-04-2015, 09:50 PM
It's always a delicate balance between concealment and knock down power.

Why is concealment such a factor for you? Are you carrying illegal?

If you are not trying to sneak it past someone on the lookout for it, you can find a weapon that is a hell of a lot better.

We were talking about you and your .38 snub nose taking out a mass shooter in a IHOP.

Wrong weapon.

I'm sure some lout at the gun shop gave you the standard sales pitch about reliability and concealment being the strong points for that weapon.

Depending on what type of loads you have in it, it can have some stopping power, but the 38 snub nose is only a better weapon to use if concealment is an absolute must and you are sure that the person you want to shoot is very close.

As a defensive weapon, it is better than nothing, but really a piece of crap. You probably paid too much for it too.

However, you were the one talking using it to slug it out with a nut job wielding an assault rifle at the IHOP.

You'll get cut to pieces once you draw the bad guy's fire with that thing.

If you are dead set on playing Billy Badass, give the 38 to your wife and go shopping for a compact model .45.

There are a number of companies that make .45s specifically designed for concealed carry. They are fitted with night sites to compensate for the short sight radius of the shortened barrel and have recoil systems to help you cope with the stouter recoil.

Most importantly train on the thing regularly or leave it at home.

I recommend the latter unless there is some compelling aspect of your personal life that requires carrying a weapon.

Personally, I think weapons are a hassle to carry and I won't carry one unless I have to.

Read this, you are probably wasting your time carrying that .38 in more ways than one.




Key findings of the 19-page study include the following.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf

Firearm Justifiable Homicides by Private Citizens Occur Rarely

In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides. Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. This ratio does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.


Firearms are Rarely Used in Self-Defense by Victims of Attempted or Completed Violent Crimes

For victims of both attempted and completed violent crimes, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011 in only 0.8 percent of these instances did the intended victim in resistance to a criminal engage in a self-protective behavior that involved a firearm. For the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that there were 29,618,300 victims of attempted or completed violent crimes. During this same five-year period, only 235,700 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used or whether it was fired or not. The number may also include off-duty law enforcement officers who use their firearms in self-defense.


Firearms are Rarely Used in Self-Defense by Victims of Attempted or Completed Property Crimes

For victims of both attempted and completed property crimes, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011 in only 0.1 percent of these instances did the intended victim in resistance to a criminal engage in a self-protective behavior that involved a firearm. For the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that there were 84,495,500 victims of attempted or completed property crimes. During this same five-year period, only 103,000 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used, whether it was fired or not, or whether the use of a gun would even be a legal response to the property crime. And that number as well may also include off-duty law enforcement officers. In comparison, new data from the Department of Justice shows that an average of 232,400 guns were stolen each year from U.S. households from 2005 to 2010.


Total Number of Actual Self-Defense Firearm Uses are Only a Small Fraction of Pro-Gun Claims

According to the NCVS, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700. In comparison, the gun lobby claims that during the same five-year period guns were used 12.5 million times in self-defense (applying to the five-year period the gun lobby’s oft-repeated claim that firearms are used in self-defense 2.5 million times a year).


More than a Third of Persons Shot and Killed in Justifiable Homicides in 2010 Were Known to the Shooter

In 2010, 35.7 percent (82 of 230) of persons killed in a firearm justifiable homicide were known to the shooter, 56.5 percent (130) were strangers, and in 7.8 percent (18) the relationship was unknown.

Additional information in the VPC report includes sex, race, relationship, and weapon used in justifiable homicides for 2010 and the five-year period 2006 to 2010. The study also includes justifiable homicides by state for the years 2006 to 2010.

The study concludes, “The idea that firearms are frequently used in self-defense is the primary argument that the gun lobby and firearms industry use to expand the carrying of firearms into an ever-increasing number of public spaces and even to prevent the regulation of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Yet this argument is hollow and the assertions false. When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.”

Rainmaker
08-05-2015, 04:22 AM
Why is concealment such a factor for you? Are you carrying illegal?

Florida is not an "open carry" state.


I'm sure some lout at the gun shop gave you the standard sales pitch about reliability and concealment being the strong points for that weapon.

All The revolvers that the Rainmaker's have were passed down from family members. In fact the colt .38 snub nose I carry was a backup carry of an uncle of mine who walked a beat up there in your hood when you were still playing the dark avenger in your Batman underoos.


Personally, I think weapons are a hassle to carry and I won't carry one unless I have to.

Good for you.


[Read this, you are probably wasting your time carrying that .38 in more ways than one.

Thanks for posting the "independent" report conducted at the request of the Leviathan Federal government by a Liberal "Non Profit" Think tank advocating stricter gun control laws.

What's next?, Oh I know......how bout putting up an objective study conducted by Amnesty International or La Raza telling us how 3rd world illegal Aliens are the engine that drives the economy?


I have a couple of semi auto pistols in various calibers. I happen to prefer Revolvers. Just like 90% of the police forces in America did a generation ago.

Look Sparky, we know you're all tacticool and probably need nite sites on your dick just to take a piss in the dark.

But, It's a personal preference. I don't like wearing holsters.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-05-2015, 05:22 AM
Florida is not an "open carry" state.


That isn't what I was asking about.

My question was, do you care if someone can easily spot the bulge of a weapon or not?

About the only logical reason to rely on something like a .38 snubnose is to avoid it being spotted under your clothes.




All The revolvers that the Rainmaker's have were passed down from family members. In fact the colt .38 snub nose I carry was a backup carry of an uncle of mine who walked a beat up there in your hood when you were still playing the dark avenger in your Batman underoos.

I have a couple of semi auto pistols in various calibers. I happen to prefer Revolvers. Just like 90% of the police forces in America did a generation ago.

But, It's a personal preference. I don't like wearing holsters.

Ok, I have a clearer picture of what is going on. You carry an obsolete weapon because it was a freebie.

You know, there is a damn good reason why all those police departments upgraded from double action revolvers. They were seriously outmatched by modern weapons.

That antique you are carrying probably has an old exposed hammer. If you insist on caring a revolver, loosen the purse strings a little and get a modern revolver with a concealed hammer, so you won't have to worry about it snagging on your clothing.

Yeah, I know you are going to come back with your typical trash talk, but it is pretty clear to me what kind of gun owner you are.

You are more of a danger to yourself with that thing, you'd be better off without it.

I'm hoping this is just part of your trash talking troll persona.

If you do walk around with that thing acting like you talk on this forum, and trouble does cross your path, RIP Rainmaker.

Bos Mutus
08-05-2015, 06:37 AM
Your daydreams of calmly pulling it on some crazie with a with an assault rifle and saving the day are rather childish.

Rainman's real name is Paul Horner, nomsayin'

http://www.miramax.com/subscript/man-quotes-pulp-fiction-stops-robbery/

garhkal
08-05-2015, 09:08 AM
like how conservatives keep pushing for more and more abortion restrictions...I mean, why can't they just be satisfied??...less and less govt assistance....less and less labor laws and bus. Regulations....more defense spending...it seems they are never satisfied.

yes, it's an ongoing dynamic process...no one is ever satisfied


while i agree, both sides do it, i see far more of it from the left, than the right.. Though as a righty myself i am biased there.



see, we're not far off at all....I'll just wait here for rainman to accuse you of being Stalin's gay lover or something

Bring it on!

THough on the tank thing.. Seeing the FILM Tank with James Garner in, makes me want to own one!

Absinthe Anecdote
08-05-2015, 03:21 PM
Rainman's real name is Paul Horner, nomsayin'

http://www.miramax.com/subscript/man-quotes-pulp-fiction-stops-robbery/

I hope the Rainman is just trolling me with all his tough talk about how he is going to step in and thwart criminals with his vintage pistol.

I honestly can't tell when he is joking or being serious.

Hopefully he doesn't hurt anyone or get killed trying to be a hero.

Rainmaker
08-05-2015, 03:24 PM
I hope the Rainman is just trolling me with all his tough talk about how he is going to step in and thwart criminals with his vintage pistol.

I honestly can't tell when he is joking or being serious.

Hopefully he doesn't hurt anyone or get killed trying to be a hero.

Thanks for the safety briefing Nanny Fran ..... Rainmaker, Much Appreciates your non-sequitur......That he's too stupid to be trusted to arm himself, But if he goes ahead and does so anyway (in-spite of your heart felt warnings) than he probably needs to choose a bigger caliber than a .38, as a self-defense round at close range.

I'll Tell you what ....If you're willing to, come down to my property and stand down range about 10 yards and catch lead from my .38 snub nose to the center of mass and keep on coming, than you should definitely be carrying a wallet with the initials B.A.M.F. on it.

Hell, Rainmaker'll even pay your airfare, Buy the Beer and fill that bitch up with Crisp Bennies just to see it.... You know why??? CAUSE, I'M RICH BITCH!!! That's why.

Now, Coming from the guy who thinks we need another half million, newly unionized TSA agents, standing at the door of every private establishment in the country and radiating the proles nutsack's with the Rapiscan , just to keep em safe from some overblown threat of homegrown Al Baghdaddy (cough- cough) terrorist with Personal Nuclear weapons......well....it's falling on deaf ears.

However, Rainmaker's seriously considered your expert, unsolicited, professional advice and Mrs. Rainmaker even tried out sticking a Sig P226 in my butthole last night ( just wouldn't fit right).......So, I'll keep takin my chances with the trusty old Colt Detective Special .... . Rainmaker Out//

Absinthe Anecdote
08-05-2015, 05:04 PM
Thanks for the safety briefing Nanny Fran ..... Rainmaker, Much Appreciates your non-sequitur......That he's too stupid to be trusted to arm himself, But if he goes ahead and does so anyway (in-spite of your heart felt warnings) than he probably needs to choose a bigger caliber than a .38, as a self-defense round at close range.

I'll Tell you what ....If you're willing to, come down to my property and stand down range about 10 yards and catch lead from my .38 snub nose to the center of mass and keep on coming, than you should definitely be carrying a wallet with the initials B.A.M.F. on it.

Hell, Rainmaker'll even pay your airfare, Buy the Beer and fill that bitch up with Crisp Bennies just to see it.... You know why??? CAUSE, I'M RICH BITCH!!! That's why.

Now, Coming from the guy who thinks we need another half million, newly unionized TSA agents, standing at the door of every private establishment in the country and radiating the proles nutsack's with the Rapiscan , just to keep em safe from some overblown threat of homegrown Al Baghdaddy (cough- cough) terrorist with Personal Nuclear weapons......well....it's falling on deaf ears.

However, Rainmaker's seriously considered your expert, unsolicited, professional advice and Mrs. Rainmaker even tried out sticking a Sig P226 in my butthole last night ( just wouldn't fit right).......So, I'll keep takin my chances with the trusty old Colt Detective Special .... . Rainmaker Out//

Nice troll dude... You covered a lot of ground with that one.

I wonder if you'll lure Bos Mutus in with your rich bitch comment?

Thanks for the invite to the Rainmaker compound, but I'll pass. You can spend that money on putting your grand dad's .38 in a shadow box.

Then go out and get yourself a modern version of a .38, lots of good ones on the market these days and they fixed the design flaws of the ones made in the 1950s.

One last thing, I don't work at DHS anymore. The place was one of the most screwed up government operations that I've ever seen.

No more government work for me, I'm fucking off and using my GI Bill right now. I can't see myself ever returning to government work or defense contracting work.

Rainmaker
08-05-2015, 07:07 PM
Nice troll dude...

One last thing, I don't work at DHS anymore. The place was one of the most screwed up government operations that I've ever seen.


Sure you don't G-man.....EYES WIDE OPEN!!!...So, You can just Tell those SOB's to go back to hell were they came from.... because, RAINMAKER won't be cracked by modern algorithms.... AND HE WON'T SIGN ANYTHING!!!

Absinthe Anecdote
08-05-2015, 07:42 PM
Sure you don't G-man.....EYES WIDE OPEN!!!...So, You can just Tell those SOB's to go back to hell were they came from.... because, RAINMAKER won't be cracked by modern algorithms.... AND HE WON'T SIGN ANYTHING!!!

1) You probably aren't interesting enough to be monitored.

2) If you did do something to draw the attention of of the NCTC, it would be the FBI that would crawl up your ass, not DHS.

3) You fuck off on a computer enough that they'd own you entire life history in a matter of minutes.

4) You'll never notice a surveillance team they are that good, and they now have micro drones that are about the size of a wasp that can follow you anywhere.

5) If they want to they can even sprinkle a little dust on you that contains nano drones that will embed into your scalp and transmit full audio and locational data to them.

6) They have a mind reading machine that uses MRI technology, but if the put you into it, you're toast.

Rainmaker
08-05-2015, 07:50 PM
1) You probably aren't interesting enough to be monitored.

2) If you did do something to draw the attention of of the NCTC, it would be the FBI that would crawl up your ass, not DHS.

3) You fuck off on a computer enough that they'd own you entire life history in a matter of minutes.

4) You'll never notice a surveillance team they are that good, and they now have micro drones that are about the size of a wasp that can follow you anywhere.

5) If they want to they can even sprinkle a little dust on you that contains nano drones that will embed into your scalp and transmit full audio and locational data to them.

6) They have a mind reading machine that uses MRI technology, but if the put you into it, you're toast.

7) There is no spoon Neo...