Front Office Football Central  

Go Back   Front Office Football Central > Main Forums > Off Topic
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Statistics

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-05-2018, 12:58 PM   #501
digamma
Torchbearer
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: On Lake Harriet
Counterpoint: the NRA felt strongly enough to tout it as a corporate partnership for their "5 million" members, even though only 13 had ever used it.
digamma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 01:16 PM   #502
whomario
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
I also find it pretty amazing that you live in a country where lawmakers make such blatantly biased calls out of personal dependencies to their sponsor (taking out the tax break) and this isn't even rate enough to be frontpage news for weeks on end. I mean, democracy has it's challenges everywhere (including here in Germany), but how can you live with that ?

I mean, Delta obviously isn't entitled to a tax break but this seems a pretty blatant abuse of power, no ? But hey, thank god for "freedom".
__________________
“The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes "Awww!”
whomario is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 02:54 PM   #503
Logan
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NYC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post
It seemed like a worthless political statement from Delta.

Go donate free flights to relatives, give money to the families for treatment, donate to mental health, give to the PAC that are anti-gun etc.

Interesting take on "worthless" if you read the article.
Logan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 02:31 PM   #504
RainMaker
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
He's got a point.


RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 05:13 PM   #505
CU Tiger
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Backwoods, SC
He does?
CU Tiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 05:19 PM   #506
Logan
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NYC
Replace Dana Loesch with a Muslim man and there is zero doubt it plays out exactly as he says.
Logan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 05:32 PM   #507
stevew
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
He's actually a paid actor though.
stevew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 05:36 PM   #508
JonInMiddleGA
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker View Post
He's got a point.

What? That he's a clueless sumbitch incapable of rational thought or understanding of the critical nature of 2A?

Hell, I could have predicted that. The lunatic leftist media wouldn't give him a platform otherwise.

His rantings are far more despicable in terms of possible damage to the nation than every school shooter in history combined.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis
JonInMiddleGA is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 05:40 PM   #509
RainMaker
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by CU Tiger View Post
He does?

If a Muslim man representing an organization in the Middle East gave that exact word-for-word advertisement, how do you think that would play out?

Heck, let's see what the reaction would be if someone from the NAACP did that.

Last edited by RainMaker : 03-08-2018 at 05:42 PM.
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 05:42 PM   #510
CU Tiger
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Backwoods, SC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logan View Post
Replace Dana Loesch with a Muslim man and there is zero doubt it plays out exactly as he says.

Sure. Replace a US Citizen that is a quasi-famous known person with a non-citizen of no infamy, and the situation is different.

Its the precise reason why defamation lawsuits dont work for celebs.
CU Tiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 05:44 PM   #511
RainMaker
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA View Post
What? That he's a clueless sumbitch incapable of rational thought or understanding of the critical nature of 2A?

You think some guys with AR-15s can fight a government that spends $700 billion a year on defense. Not sure you should be the one deciding who thinks rationally.
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 05:53 PM   #512
tarcone
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pacific,MO
Yes. If we cant beat them, bow down to them and WELCOME 1984!!!

On another note, and speaking of the 2A. A neighboring school district closed today because a maintenance worker was let go and went on social media talking about his 2A rights and then ran into a couple co-workers at a convenience store and reported he was acting differently.
__________________
The word is Fight! Fight! Fight! For Iowa

FOFC 30 Dollar Challenge Champion-OOTP '15
tarcone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 06:27 PM   #513
larrymcg421
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
I stand for the National Anthem to support our soldiers.

Same Person: I need this AR-15 in case I need to kill our soldiers.
__________________
"If you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you." - Isaac Jaffee, Sports Night

Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added)

Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner
Fictional Character Draft Winner
Television Family Draft Winner
Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner

Last edited by larrymcg421 : 03-08-2018 at 06:27 PM.
larrymcg421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 06:54 PM   #514
CU Tiger
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Backwoods, SC
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker View Post
You think some guys with AR-15s can fight a government that spends $700 billion a year on defense. Not sure you should be the one deciding who thinks rationally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 View Post
I stand for the National Anthem to support our soldiers.

Same Person: I need this AR-15 in case I need to kill our soldiers.


I think the point that these types of posts always forget is this, if the day ever comes again (coal mine wars) where a sitting US President orders a military attack on US Citizens on US soil, not all soldiers will comply. Those tanks, fighter jets, etc. have to have operators. It isnt like an armed brigade would be fighting the entire capability of the US military.

Further, I would point you to Vietnam. With all our technogical advantage we couldn't defeat a trained, poorly supplied - yet determined enemy that was concentrated in an area roughly half the size of Texas. How are they going to fair against a force spread across this country?

Quote:
OMG the government has nukes, poor dumb Bubba wants an AR to fight a nuke.

Guess what, the guy releasing that nuke would be sentencing his own family to death in that apocalypse scenario. IOW he wouldnt push the button.


A final point on this path of thought. During the American Revolution only 3% of the colonists supported or took up arms against the Brits. The other 97% were fine to live under that arrangement. It shouldn't be a surprise that "the majority" dont see the need for guns today.

As for me? I am one of that 3%.

Last edited by CU Tiger : 03-08-2018 at 06:56 PM.
CU Tiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 07:09 PM   #515
cuervo72
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Maryland
"A force."

This implies organization and numbers. The question is how do you ramp up to that point? And what would the plan be? I'd assume to be some sort of resistance you'd have to attack/hold some sort of ground, or take over some government facility. It's not as if the army would have to capture every farm, ranch, suburb, etc. I imagine there would be more a Branch Dividian-style standoff.
__________________
Commish - FOFL
FOFL - Bar Harbor Whitecaps
FOBL - Las Vegas Lightning
IHOF - Frederick Red Menace
cuervo72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 07:23 PM   #516
digamma
Torchbearer
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: On Lake Harriet
Quote:
Originally Posted by CU Tiger View Post

A final point on this path of thought. During the American Revolution only 3% of the colonists supported or took up arms against the Brits. The other 97% were fine to live under that arrangement. It shouldn't be a surprise that "the majority" dont see the need for guns today.

As for me? I am one of that 3%.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Most estimates have about 30-45% supporting the revolution, 10-15% loyalists and the rest neutral. The fighting force was likely around 10% or more.

I'll avoid the silly argument about whether a lobbyist group running around telling everyone their time is up is a threat or not, but the 3% claim makes no sense.
digamma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 07:26 PM   #517
tarcone
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pacific,MO
I dont think we are talking something small like a branch-davidian thing. This would be the government imposing their will and subjugating the masses. This type of thing is what the 2A was set up to fight. As CU said, 100% of the military would not be onboard.
And I imagine the leadership of the military that was against the government, if this happened, would have plenty of support from the masses to bear arms against the government.
You would also have pockets of resistance throughout the land. That would perform guerilla warfare against the military.
Counter insurgency is a losing game. It never goes away.

Take guns away from everyome and things just got a lot easier.
__________________
The word is Fight! Fight! Fight! For Iowa

FOFC 30 Dollar Challenge Champion-OOTP '15
tarcone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 07:28 PM   #518
RainMaker
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by CU Tiger View Post
I think the point that these types of posts always forget is this, if the day ever comes again (coal mine wars) where a sitting US President orders a military attack on US Citizens on US soil, not all soldiers will comply. Those tanks, fighter jets, etc. have to have operators. It isnt like an armed brigade would be fighting the entire capability of the US military.

So it sounds like you don't need an AR-15. It sounds like you just need to convince the military to be on your side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CU Tiger View Post
Further, I would point you to Vietnam. With all our technogical advantage we couldn't defeat a trained, poorly supplied - yet determined enemy that was concentrated in an area roughly half the size of Texas. How are they going to fair against a force spread across this country?

We could defeat them if we were willing to accept mass civilian casualties on their side. It wasn't a war of survival for this country unlike your hypothetical civil war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CU Tiger View Post
A final point on this path of thought. During the American Revolution only 3% of the colonists supported or took up arms against the Brits. The other 97% were fine to live under that arrangement. It shouldn't be a surprise that "the majority" dont see the need for guns today.

As for me? I am one of that 3%.

No one is taking arms against the government. Everyone has a smartphone, cable TV, and grocery stores offering 40 varieties of frozen pizza. Heck, half the country doesn't even care enough to vote.

A chunk of the population believed Obama was a secret Muslim agent hellbent on destroying the United States and none of those pussies did anything. It's just talk from guys who were getting doctors notes during Vietnam.

The Revolutionary War was during an era where civilian weaponry could match military weaponry. You can't compare that to a time when one side has drones, guided missiles and nuclear submarines. Heck, now all it would take is cutting off power and water to an area and waiting them out.
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 07:29 PM   #519
tarcone
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pacific,MO
Here is a by the numbers break down of the revolutionary war. Interesting.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/th...ers-1600199390
__________________
The word is Fight! Fight! Fight! For Iowa

FOFC 30 Dollar Challenge Champion-OOTP '15
tarcone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 07:44 PM   #520
JPhillips
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
Estimates have North Vietnam losing around 5% of the population over the course of the war. In your scenario that would mean 15 million deaths.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers
JPhillips is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 07:46 PM   #521
RainMaker
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by digamma View Post
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Most estimates have about 30-45% supporting the revolution, 10-15% loyalists and the rest neutral. The fighting force was likely around 10% or more.

I'll avoid the silly argument about whether a lobbyist group running around telling everyone their time is up is a threat or not, but the 3% claim makes no sense.

The 3% is a fabricated number that "patriot" groups and gun rights people use. It's based off the fact that 80,000 pension files were made after the war and that accounted to around 3% of the population.

Now this excludes those who fought and died during the war. Those who fought and deserted. It excludes everyone who fought in militias which by estimates had twice as many members as the Continental Army.

You also have the Navy (state and federal), privateers, the Continental Marines, and of course the French (who were incredibly important).

It is of course a bit of irony that the ardent patriots ready to defend against tyranny like their Revolutionary War heroes don't really know much about the Revolutionary War.

Last edited by RainMaker : 03-08-2018 at 07:47 PM.
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 07:46 PM   #522
JPhillips
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 View Post
I stand for the National Anthem to support our soldiers.

Same Person: I need this AR-15 in case I need to kill our soldiers.

Also, too

I support cops

And I'll kill them if I need to.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers
JPhillips is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 08:04 PM   #523
tarcone
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pacific,MO
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips View Post
Also, too

I support cops

And I'll kill them if I need to.
You usually lose when you bring a knife to a gun fight.
__________________
The word is Fight! Fight! Fight! For Iowa

FOFC 30 Dollar Challenge Champion-OOTP '15
tarcone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 08:07 PM   #524
RainMaker
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
These are good books on the Revolutionary War.

Angel in the Whirlwind: The Triumph of the American Revolution

1776

The Radicalism of the American Revolution

Also this Alden book reads a bit more like a textbook but not many people were as knowledgeable about that era as him.

A History Of The American Revolution

It's sad that some of this stuff isn't required reading these days in school. There are so many great books about that important time in history.
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 08:19 PM   #525
RainMaker
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips View Post
Estimates have North Vietnam losing around 5% of the population over the course of the war. In your scenario that would mean 15 million deaths.

If we had taken out the dike system, it would have annihilated North Vietnam. They were off limits though. The North used to set weaponry on top of them because they knew the U.S. wouldn't touch them.

I know it's weird to think about but the U.S. was actually restrained at many points during the war. For the amount of bombs dropped, civilian deaths were not as high as they could have been had the U.S. not been so careful with their targets.
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 08:23 PM   #526
Atocep
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tacoma
95% of the gun people I've met will reference the "ready to take up arms against the "government", but the heart of the issue for nearly every single one of them is they like to shoot guns. It's a hobby. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but a large part of the reason gun debate gets nowhere is the discussions aren't entirely honest. It's attacking a false flag position which means no matter what points are made you aren't going to get anywhere.

If you claim you need guns for home defense then you really don't need more than one. If you claim you keep guns in case you need to rise up against the government then you're delusional. If you like to shoot guns, I get that. It's your thing. It's your hobby. But don't give me the other bullshit as the reason you absolutely must have a stockpile of weapons in your home.
Atocep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 08:30 PM   #527
RainMaker
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atocep View Post
95% of the gun people I've met will reference the "ready to take up arms against the "government", but the heart of the issue for nearly every single one of them is they like to shoot guns. It's a hobby. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but a large part of the reason gun debate gets nowhere is the discussions aren't entirely honest. It's attacking a false flag position which means no matter what points are made you aren't going to get anywhere.

If you claim you need guns for home defense then you really don't need more than one. If you claim you keep guns in case you need to rise up against the government then you're delusional. If you like to shoot guns, I get that. It's your thing. It's your hobby. But don't give me the other bullshit as the reason you absolutely must have a stockpile of weapons in your home.

This is spot-on. Just be honest for why you want them. Nothing wrong with that.

Have the same gripe with marijuana legalization. You don't have to compile some shoddy studies telling me it cures cancer or whatever, just tell me the truth, you want to get high. It's cool, we all have things we like to do.
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 08:50 PM   #528
tarcone
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pacific,MO
Protection from government is what the 2A is about. Thats the argument.
people want protection. I know people who keep guns, multiple guns, for protection. Its not about the robber coming in at night, its more about the breakdown of society or the guy that wants to run the nation with an iron fist.
Will it happen? probably not. But when there is no definitive answer to it, people sometimes err on the side of owning guns.

I do not own guns. I have used them and dont have problem with them. I believe in back ground checks.

But a gun is a tool. A powerful one for sure. But where is the line? What are we talking about here? Eliminating guns? More strict background checks? And what are we talking about with more strict background checks?
And who do the background checks affect? The guy who wants to lawfully own a gun or the dude who picks up a gun out of the back of a guys trunk?

This really comes down to one thing. Get rid of them or accept that there are risks when you have a culture of guns. And bad shit will happen.
And getting rid of them is the first step in allowing the government do whatever they want.
__________________
The word is Fight! Fight! Fight! For Iowa

FOFC 30 Dollar Challenge Champion-OOTP '15
tarcone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 01:58 AM   #529
thesloppy
Pro Rookie
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: PDX
The zero allowance for the fact that there's been no relevant act of revolution or government suppression in the last 100 years of US history, and/or anything like the kind of calamity y'all are predicting ever having affected the rest of the developed world with much stricter gun control, is what makes it hard for the rest of us to take all the impassioned 2nd amendment rhetoric seriously.

It's hard for me to see the "protect myself from the government" as anything but a euphemism for "protect my stuff from anybody else." The constitutional/historical wrapping give folks a much more noble position to argue from, but at the root of things all I'm hearing is the desire to protect person & possessions from ANYbody else.

....and to me that actually seems like a better argument, or at least a more honest one than the whole hypothetical protection from the government angle, which sounds hollow to me 99% of the time I hear it.
__________________
Last edited by thesloppy : Today at 05:35 PM.

Last edited by thesloppy : 03-09-2018 at 02:08 AM.
thesloppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 03:13 AM   #530
thesloppy
Pro Rookie
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: PDX
For a liberal analog to how hollow 2nd amendment arguments sound to me, I'd offer: a perfectly healthy dude with dreadlocks, a baja shirt, and quilted pants, reeking of patchouli who wants to talk your ear off about the medical properties of marijuana. He has a stance that is perfectly sound...but you're going to be practically insulted if THAT dude insists he's primarily smoking weed for medicinal reasons.

Similarly, I don't so much believe folks are interested in protecting themselves from extended government tyranny more than just protecting them & their shit from whomever may directly threaten it, and extending that threat to government agents isn't so much a primary motivating factor based on the grand constitutional history of our country as much as it's simply naming one of the types of hypothetical people you'd be willing to shoot if they directly threatened you & yours.

Do I believe some of you would shoot government agents who threatened you or your property directly? Absolutely. Do I believe those same particular folk would join a revolutionary force (let alone give a single wet fart) based on someone ELSE'S rights and/or property getting threatened in the exact same manner? Give me a fucking break.
__________________
Last edited by thesloppy : Today at 05:35 PM.

Last edited by thesloppy : 03-09-2018 at 03:27 AM.
thesloppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 07:25 AM   #531
Edward64
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by CU Tiger View Post
Further, I would point you to Vietnam. With all our technogical advantage we couldn't defeat a trained, poorly supplied - yet determined enemy that was concentrated in an area roughly half the size of Texas. How are they going to fair against a force spread across this country?

The government/UN/Illuminati takeover of the US is very low on my list of concerns but agree with Vietnam example (and toss in Afghanistan also).
Edward64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 07:47 AM   #532
Edward64
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atocep View Post
95% of the gun people I've met will reference the "ready to take up arms against the "government", but the heart of the issue for nearly every single one of them is they like to shoot guns. It's a hobby. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but a large part of the reason gun debate gets nowhere is the discussions aren't entirely honest. It's attacking a false flag position which means no matter what points are made you aren't going to get anywhere.

TBF, in my experience, most people (outside of card carrying NRA) will reference the 2A and say they have a right to own weapons but don't think most of them think "ready to take up arms against government". If it includes hunting, I would agree that for most its a hobby (and protection) is the reason.

Quote:
If you claim you need guns for home defense then you really don't need more than one. If you claim you keep guns in case you need to rise up against the government then you're delusional. If you like to shoot guns, I get that. It's your thing. It's your hobby. But don't give me the other bullshit as the reason you absolutely must have a stockpile of weapons in your home.

Respectfully, your statement about not needing more than 1 weapon for home defense protection is not valid. Perfectly okay to have a handgun and a shotgun for protection, why not 2 handguns for husband and wife each etc. I don't know where the line is crossed but would agree if someone was single, had 10 weapons and said it was primarily for home defense protection, that would be strange. There are valid reasons for multiple weapons for home defense protection.

For me, tarcone referenced breakdown of society. My worse case is not government takeover, its another Katrina where you had 5+ days of absolute chaos where there is no effective law enforcement.
Edward64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 09:34 AM   #533
Marc Vaughan
SI Games
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Melbourne, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post
For me, tarcone referenced breakdown of society. My worse case is not government takeover, its another Katrina where you had 5+ days of absolute chaos where there is no effective law enforcement.

I'm more concerned about 'legal' gun owners in that situation than I am anything else - people without guns can be reasoned with far more easily than someone who feels empowered by having a gun in their hand ...

(or put it this way would you feel more confident facing someone down if you both had weapons or if neither of you had them?)

Last edited by Marc Vaughan : 03-09-2018 at 09:36 AM.
Marc Vaughan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 09:53 AM   #534
Edward64
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan View Post
I'm more concerned about 'legal' gun owners in that situation than I am anything else - people without guns can be reasoned with far more easily than someone who feels empowered by having a gun in their hand ...

(or put it this way would you feel more confident facing someone down if you both had weapons or if neither of you had them?)

I don't think I agree with you. I see several scenarios for Homeowner / Non-Homeowner in a Katrina-like scenario.

Here's my take ...
  1. No gun/No gun - even
  2. No gun/No gun - distinct disadvantage for homeowner if there are many non-homeowner people around or if homeowner is female dealing with male
  3. No gun/Gun - distinct disadvantage for homeowner
  4. Gun/No gun - distinct advantage for homeowner
  5. Gun/Gun - advantage for homeowner (assuming inside house)

Hence for a law abiding, trained, legal gun owner the pros definitely outweigh the cons (especially when staying in place).
Edward64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 10:16 AM   #535
JPhillips
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
The "chaos" after Katrina was far less than was initially reported and the worst episode of gun violence may have been cops shooting people trying to cross the Danzinger Bridge.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers
JPhillips is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 10:23 AM   #536
Edward64
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips View Post
The "chaos" after Katrina was far less than was initially reported and the worst episode of gun violence may have been cops shooting people trying to cross the Danzinger Bridge.

I don't agree but I guess its definition of chaos and its relative.

EDIT: I do agree there were exaggerations.

I took your comment to mean there really wasn't that much chaos (and inferring you saying there really isn't need for weapons for protection). This I disagree with.

Last edited by Edward64 : 03-09-2018 at 10:32 AM.
Edward64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 10:43 AM   #537
JPhillips
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
There was much less violence and home looting than reported at the time. Even the stories of the Superdome have been shown to be mostly false.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers
JPhillips is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 10:50 AM   #538
Edward64
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips View Post
There was much less violence and home looting than reported at the time. Even the stories of the Superdome have been shown to be mostly false.

"Less" does not mean home protection was not needed.
Edward64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 11:00 AM   #539
ISiddiqui
General Manager
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by thesloppy View Post
For a liberal analog to how hollow 2nd amendment arguments sound to me, I'd offer: a perfectly healthy dude with dreadlocks, a baja shirt, and quilted pants, reeking of patchouli who wants to talk your ear off about the medical properties of marijuana. He has a stance that is perfectly sound...but you're going to be practically insulted if THAT dude insists he's primarily smoking weed for medicinal reasons.

Similarly, I don't so much believe folks are interested in protecting themselves from extended government tyranny more than just protecting them & their shit from whomever may directly threaten it, and extending that threat to government agents isn't so much a primary motivating factor based on the grand constitutional history of our country as much as it's simply naming one of the types of hypothetical people you'd be willing to shoot if they directly threatened you & yours.

Indeed. I simply don't buy it for a second. People like shooting guns or think they need them to defend their homes/person. I don't believe the vast majority of gun owners own them because of ideas of overthowing a tyrannical government.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages"
-Tennessee Williams
ISiddiqui is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 11:05 AM   #540
Atocep
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tacoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
Indeed. I simply don't buy it for a second. People like shooting guns or think they need them to defend their homes/person. I don't believe the vast majority of gun owners own them because of ideas of overthowing a tyrannical government.

People aren't going to ranges to roleplay shooting government agents or soldiers. They're doing what they enjoy.
Atocep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 11:25 AM   #541
Arles
Grey Dog Software
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
If people think millennials are going to take up arms against the government - good luck. In 20 years, I think the 2nd amendment will be interpreted very different than it is today. The reality is that as the population keeps getting older, the gun rights will continue to lessen. I'm pretty middle of the road on guns. I am open to some new ideas but I also wouldn't really favor a gun ban on AR-15s (I'm more focused on the magazine size). I'd be viewed as a massive NRA fanboy compared to most of the kids I know between 16 and 25 in regards to stance on guns. The tide is shifting, whether us old fogies like it or not.
__________________
Developer of Bowl Bound College Football
http://www.greydogsoftware.com

Last edited by Arles : 03-09-2018 at 11:27 AM.
Arles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 12:13 PM   #542
cuervo72
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Maryland
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
Indeed. I simply don't buy it for a second. People like shooting guns or think they need them to defend their homes/person. I don't believe the vast majority of gun owners own them because of ideas of overthowing a tyrannical government.

"I reserve the right to maintain the ability kill [many] people if I feel the need."
__________________
Commish - FOFL
FOFL - Bar Harbor Whitecaps
FOBL - Las Vegas Lightning
IHOF - Frederick Red Menace
cuervo72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 01:16 PM   #543
JPhillips
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post
"Less" does not mean home protection was not needed.

But even in the most complete societal breakdown scenario we experienced, the overwhelming majority of people didn't need guns. If you evacuated you couldn't take them and if you didn't need to evacuate few if any people could get to you. The chaos was mostly limited to stores being looted, not personal property, and having guns at home won't help you protect your flooded store.

That being said, I wouldn't ban handguns or rifles, but the fact is that almost everybody that owns a gun won't ever need to defend themselves with it even under the most dire circumstances.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers
JPhillips is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 01:36 PM   #544
Edward64
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips View Post
But even in the most complete societal breakdown scenario we experienced, the overwhelming majority of people didn't need guns. If you evacuated you couldn't take them and if you didn't need to evacuate few if any people could get to you. The chaos was mostly limited to stores being looted, not personal property, and having guns at home won't help you protect your flooded store.

That being said, I wouldn't ban handguns or rifles, but the fact is that almost everybody that owns a gun won't ever need to defend themselves with it even under the most dire circumstances.

I think we are too far apart here and let's agree to disagree. To me, its pretty simple. No, people should not go about shooting other people unless threatened and in the hands of law abiding citizens, guns helps protect and equalize vs no guns.
Edward64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 01:50 PM   #545
BishopMVP
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Concord, MA/UMass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles View Post
If people think millennials are going to take up arms against the government - good luck.
The disappearance of anti-government militias - just another thing millennials get (erroneously) blamed for!
BishopMVP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 02:02 PM   #546
larrymcg421
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post
I think we are too far apart here and let's agree to disagree. To me, its pretty simple. No, people should not go about shooting other people unless threatened and in the hands of law abiding citizens, guns helps protect and equalize vs no guns.

Considering he said he wouldn't ban rifles and handguns, how does this even make sense as a response to what he said?
__________________
"If you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you." - Isaac Jaffee, Sports Night

Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added)

Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner
Fictional Character Draft Winner
Television Family Draft Winner
Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner
larrymcg421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 02:17 PM   #547
Edward64
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 View Post
Considering he said he wouldn't ban rifles and handguns, how does this even make sense as a response to what he said?

Oh, let's read the first paragraph too.

Quote:
But even in the most complete societal breakdown scenario we experienced, the overwhelming majority of people didn't need guns. If you evacuated you couldn't take them and if you didn't need to evacuate few if any people could get to you. The chaos was mostly limited to stores being looted, not personal property, and having guns at home won't help you protect your flooded store.

Do you agree with this paragraph?
Edward64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 02:27 PM   #548
ISiddiqui
General Manager
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post
Do you agree with this paragraph?

Why wouldn't you agree with that paragraph?
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages"
-Tennessee Williams
ISiddiqui is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 02:31 PM   #549
Edward64
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
Why wouldn't you agree with that paragraph?

I'll be glad to answer the question but would like other commentators to state their opinions also.

Do you agree with the paragraph or undecided?
Edward64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 02:38 PM   #550
CU Tiger
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Backwoods, SC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post

Do you agree with the paragraph


No, but you didnt need me to say that.
CU Tiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:55 PM.



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.