Joe being Joe
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 14 of 60

Thread:
Joe being Joe

  1. #1
    Marine Organism Forkin' Crazy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Mound, Louisiana
    Posts
    12,743

    Default Joe being Joe

    Idiot!

    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life"

    - - Robert A. Heinlein

  2. Remove Advertisements
    PerformanceBoats.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,512

    Default

    Right from stupid liberal Joe's lips.

    "It is true the vast majority of deaths in America are not a consequence of the use of a assault weapon"

    This statement begs the question why Joe and the rest of the mentally retarded liberals in this country trying to ban them? Yes, liberals have to be mentally ill to draw feelings and opinions they way they do. I bet if we ban liberals, homicides drop by 85%.

    America is the land of equal opportunity, not equal success.
    “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” .. Thomas Jefferson

  4. #3
    The member 1bdhondo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    ca
    Posts
    3,244

    Default

    I don't know much about Joe but I bet deep down he's not even
    Remotely a real liberal. Most likely just the opposite. Sounds like he needs to be the puppit he is and keep his mouth shut he's not very smart. He just about did all but admit
    The ban is a complete crock of shit. Wonder if well see this aired on the liberal
    News..

  5. #4
    SR
    SR is offline
    Cajun Member SR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Laf. Louisiana
    Posts
    1,436

    Thumbs down Horse Shit...

    Fkn BLOW-TARD...Hard to believe that idiot is allowed to speak about firearms at all,I hope he doesn't actually handle firearms..."I'm a sportsman" he said..

  6. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,512

    Default

    If Joe's a sportsman, I wonder who he would do racing boats. I bet he's the kind of guy who never reads the rule book, and would be the first one complaining about everybody cheating.

    America is the land of equal opportunity, not equal success.
    “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” .. Thomas Jefferson

  7. #6
    Just Me snoc653's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Eastern Iowa
    Posts
    4,047

    Default

    While we are busy talking about how lame Joe is, lets put the shoe on the other foot and see if he actually had any talking points that could make sense to a LibTard anti-gun nut (OK, how about to a person who isn't a dedicated gun owner).

    Yes he is a public speaking nightmare, but he said two things that we should focus on in my opinion. What sport shooting requires the use of high capacity magazines? And his, "it takes time to change a magazine, if we can save one more life by it taking the shooter time to change the magazine" arguement. As much as the right hates Joe and as easy as it is to take shots at him for being an idiot, can you mount a viable defense agaisnt these two points? And don't say, I don't have to because our constitution protects my right to do so. That is what they are trying to change and without valid counter points how can we win?

    His shotgun for home defense argument is easy to overcome so I'm not going to ask about that one. We all know that while a shotgun can clear a croud and is a great deterent, it lacks the accuracy to discriminate between targets and could even harm those we are trying to protect as colateral damage when the threat is ingaged.

    This is where we lose the fight in my opinion. We want to take the easy route and point out how stupid Joe is, while the potentiallly valid points that he did make go unanswered. Just like most of the Right locked in on his assinign remarks, most of the left locked in on the points they can defend. If we are not attacking his potentially valid points, then his weak rebutals to our points will stand and they will prevail. I've yet to hear even one mention of why his rebutals were wrong except in the interview. All the personal attacks in the world won't change the few points he did make. That is where the focus should be if we don't want to lose what rights we still have.
    So many projects, so little time

  8. #7
    Blown, OHBA Member Wild Hair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Okmulgee Okla.
    Posts
    2,811

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snoc653 View Post
    While we are busy talking about how lame Joe is, lets put the shoe on the other foot and see if he actually had any talking points that could make sense to a LibTard anti-gun nut (OK, how about to a person who isn't a dedicated gun owner).

    Yes he is a public speaking nightmare, but he said two things that we should focus on in my opinion. What sport shooting requires the use of high capacity magazines? And his, "it takes time to change a magazine, if we can save one more life by it taking the shooter time to change the magazine" arguement. As much as the right hates Joe and as easy as it is to take shots at him for being an idiot, can you mount a viable defense agaisnt these two points? And don't say, I don't have to because our constitution protects my right to do so. That is what they are trying to change and without valid counter points how can we win?

    His shotgun for home defense argument is easy to overcome so I'm not going to ask about that one. We all know that while a shotgun can clear a croud and is a great deterent, it lacks the accuracy to discriminate between targets and could even harm those we are trying to protect as colateral damage when the threat is ingaged.

    This is where we lose the fight in my opinion. We want to take the easy route and point out how stupid Joe is, while the potentiallly valid points that he did make go unanswered. Just like most of the Right locked in on his assinign remarks, most of the left locked in on the points they can defend. If we are not attacking his potentially valid points, then his weak rebutals to our points will stand and they will prevail. I've yet to hear even one mention of why his rebutals were wrong except in the interview. All the personal attacks in the world won't change the few points he did make. That is where the focus should be if we don't want to lose what rights we still have.

    I would put it like this, I would rather have high capacity mags should i have to defend my self from more than one aggressor. that means either thugs or government thugs, both can be heavily armed. Why should I let the very people that I may have to kill tell me how I should be armed.

    FUCK UM
    OHBA GROWTH THROUGH PARTICIPATION
    Built Cheyenne Tuff, With Chevy Stuff.
    well the block is GM any ways


    GOD BLESS AMERICA AND KEEP HER SAFE

    LOCK N LOAD AMERICA, OUR 2nd AMENDMENT
    IS UNDER FIRE


  9. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,512

    Default

    Right off the bat you think there's definition for sport shooting. We'll there's not. How ever one chooses to use their guns can be considered sport shooting. Using a gun to kill someone in combat or in self defense in not sport shooting. Thats is about the closest your going to come for a definition.

    So, the fact that I like to take my AR out to the desert and shoot at a bunch of milk cartons at 100 - 500 yards as fast as I can is sport shooting. It's sport & I enjoy it. I also enjoy shooting skeet. So much so that shooting singles and double gets a little boring at times. I'll have them pull 3 sets of doubles just for the fun of it. That's one in the chamber and 5 in the tube. At the pistol range we like to set up bottles and see who can pop the most in the shortest amount of time with a Ruger 22. Thats a mag of 10. If I had a mini gun, that to would be awesome sport shooting.

    You see for anyone to try to define what sport shooting is is ludicrous. It's what ever you want it to be and it has absolutely noting to do with killing people. Ole Joe has his head firmly placed up his arse as usual. "False Definitions" are how liberals try to crap on anything they can't control.

    America is the land of equal opportunity, not equal success.
    “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” .. Thomas Jefferson

  10. #9
    Marine Organism Forkin' Crazy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Mound, Louisiana
    Posts
    12,743

    Default

    That is right! Sport is something I call fun. I like what a .223 or .308 does to a milk jug full of water during a rapid fire secession! Or shooting floating targets in the bottom of a canal. With a 30 round mag I don't have to change mags so often. I've also used a 30 rnd mag in my 10/22 to hunt squirrel with. Ever hunted squirrel with a .22? If you only have a 10 rnd mag, you'll be reloading while I am shooting. If you think I just can't shoot worth a crap, you have one shot to hit it, then the bastard is on the run and shooting a moving squirrel on a limb with a .22 is quite the challenge! But very fun!!! As is hunting coyote. The larger the mag, the better. Shoot once and they scatter! Ever see the clip of the helicopter in Texas hunting pigs? There's another reason to have high capacity magazines and so called "assault" rifles.

    And like fullup mentioned:
    "It is true the vast majority of deaths in America are not a consequence of the use of a assault weapon"
    that leaves me to believe he is an idiot. He shot himself in the foot but doesn't believe it is his fault.
    I wish I had your hair!
    IDIOT!
    Last edited by Forkin' Crazy; 01-27-2013 at 12:52 PM.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life"

    - - Robert A. Heinlein

  11. #10
    Icy
    Icy is offline
    Boatless Member :( Icy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    AV, CA
    Posts
    3,006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snoc653 View Post
    "it takes time to change a magazine, if we can save one more life by it taking the shooter time to change the magazine" arguement. As much as the right hates Joe and as easy as it is to take shots at him for being an idiot, can you mount a viable defense agaisnt these two points?
    Who's going to do a planned mass killing and show up with 10 round clips? What are you going to do, make being handy illegal when people start making their own box with a spring, floor-plate and follower? What are you going to do about the ones out there already? People breaking laws don't follow laws. It's like a bullet button or fixed magazine with tool requirement. Anyone planning isn't going to follow it!

    And why does the government get to tell me at what capacity I can defend myself? What if 4 guys break into my house? They've had many 4 team burglaries in my area in the past. 10 rounds, for 4 guys if they were trying to KILL me is not enough in a 1v4 environment.

    Edit, I forgot I can call the police, IF i can get to a phone, and they can show up 10 minutes later after they've already sodomized my dead body, took my shit and left.

    According to a recent article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Atlanta police were the slowest to answer high-priority emergency calls among police departments from seven similar-sized cities. The results were part of a survey of police response times. In Atlanta last year it took, on average, 11 minutes and 12 seconds from the time a high-priority 911 call was received until an Atlanta police officer showed up at the scene. The response times reported by the El Paso (Texas) Police Department were only one second quicker than Atlanta’s, with an average of 11 minutes and 11 seconds.
    The Denver Police Department posted a response time of 11 minutes flat. According to the Journal Constitution story, police in Tucson, Ariz., responded, on average, in 10 minutes and 11 second
    Police in Kansas City, Mo., and Oklahoma City posted average response times of less than 10 minutes. In Nashville-Davidson County, police recorded average response times below 9 minutes.

    Response times- city to city
    Last edited by Icy; 01-27-2013 at 03:57 PM.

  12. #11
    Just Me snoc653's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Eastern Iowa
    Posts
    4,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icy View Post
    Who's going to do a planned mass killing and show up with 10 round clips? What are you going to do, make being handy illegal when people start making their own box with a spring, floor-plate and follower? What are you going to do about the ones out there already? People breaking laws don't follow laws. It's like a bullet button or fixed magazine with tool requirement. Anyone planning isn't going to follow it!

    And why does the government get to tell me at what capacity I can defend myself? What if 4 guys break into my house? They've had many 4 team burglaries in my area in the past. 10 rounds, for 4 guys if they were trying to KILL me is not enough in a 1v4 environment.

    Edit, I forgot I can call the police, IF i can get to a phone, and they can show up 10 minutes later after they've already sodomized my dead body, took my shit and left.

    According to a recent article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Atlanta police were the slowest to answer high-priority emergency calls among police departments from seven similar-sized cities. The results were part of a survey of police response times. In Atlanta last year it took, on average, 11 minutes and 12 seconds from the time a high-priority 911 call was received until an Atlanta police officer showed up at the scene. The response times reported by the El Paso (Texas) Police Department were only one second quicker than Atlanta’s, with an average of 11 minutes and 11 seconds.
    The Denver Police Department posted a response time of 11 minutes flat. According to the Journal Constitution story, police in Tucson, Ariz., responded, on average, in 10 minutes and 11 second
    Police in Kansas City, Mo., and Oklahoma City posted average response times of less than 10 minutes. In Nashville-Davidson County, police recorded average response times below 9 minutes.

    Response times- city to city
    And your point is? You start of making Joe's case for him. Per your post, if they have to use 10 round clips they won't do it, so unless they are handy, as you put it, or able to procure illegal magazines, the proposed 10 round limit would stop some from commiting these crimes. Personally I think that is a bunch of Bull. It never stopped anyone in the past.

    This proves my point. If we can't properly debate his points, which should be fairly easy for anyone that thinks about them, we will wind up losing this fight just like we lost the election. The F them attitude will wind up with us being the ones getting screwed. The multiple invader response to his point is good, as is the define sport shooting. We need to overcome his BS with hard facts and logical responses, not emotional outbursts.
    So many projects, so little time

  13. #12
    Icy
    Icy is offline
    Boatless Member :( Icy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    AV, CA
    Posts
    3,006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snoc653 View Post
    And your point is? You start of making Joe's case for him. Per your post, if they have to use 10 round clips they won't do it, so unless they are handy, as you put it, or able to procure illegal magazines, the proposed 10 round limit would stop some from commiting these crimes. Personally I think that is a bunch of Bull. It never stopped anyone in the past.

    This proves my point. If we can't properly debate his points, which should be fairly easy for anyone that thinks about them, we will wind up losing this fight just like we lost the election. The F them attitude will wind up with us being the ones getting screwed. The multiple invader response to his point is good, as is the define sport shooting. We need to overcome his BS with hard facts and logical responses, not emotional outbursts.
    Only if you twist what I wrote and that's what the side will twist all day long. You can twist any point, it's whether or not you let them get away with it.

  14. #13
    Senior Member ICECREAMAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,426

    Default

    Why are you allowing him, or whoever to frame the debate in recreational terms? Show me where in the 2nd amendment it say we have the right to bear arms solely for the purpose of sport? We need to take the fight to Slow Joe and the rest of the liberals trying to continually infringe upon my rights. Why do they get to define how many bullets I'm allowed to keep in my magazine? This is how conservatives always lose these debates, we let them dictate the outline and the rules. We need to start being the aggressor. Just like in sports, if all your focus is on defense, you'll lose a whole lot more than you win.

  15. #14
    Just Me snoc653's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Eastern Iowa
    Posts
    4,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ICECREAMAN View Post
    Why are you allowing him, or whoever to frame the debate in recreational terms? Show me where in the 2nd amendment it say we have the right to bear arms solely for the purpose of sport? We need to take the fight to Slow Joe and the rest of the liberals trying to continually infringe upon my rights. Why do they get to define how many bullets I'm allowed to keep in my magazine? This is how conservatives always lose these debates, we let them dictate the outline and the rules. We need to start being the aggressor. Just like in sports, if all your focus is on defense, you'll lose a whole lot more than you win.
    The main reason to allow them to frame the debate is because it is an easy one to win. The fact that the party that tries to win public support by appearing to be the polite and concerned party open to reasonable discussion, usually wins unless you prove they are not what they claim to be, is normally the reason you would leave it in the frame work they set, but lets go for the easy win.

    The question should be: well if that is what you are after, if I show you the reason why these things you are looking to ban are effective self defense weapons and sporting weapons then you'll drop your pursuit of banning them? Of course he can't agree, which helps point out to the undecideds that yes this is a ploy for a gun grab, pure and simple.

    The right that owns guns know what it is about. The left that wants to take guns know what it is about. It is the middle that needs to know what is really going on, if we want to stop them from doing this stupid crap over and over again. When he says we don't want to infringe on constitutional rights (yes I know he lieing), but there is no reasonable need for these evil things they want to ban, he is trying to paint the left as good guys and the right as the evil gun mongers whom all the people in the middle should be afraid of. Changing the subject doesn't change that mental image he just painted. Going back in context and showing them for what they really are, does.

    We've already seen several plausable reasons to have the things he said there is no need for. There are many more that could be listed. So why change the subject and go back with the old "because it's a constitutional right" fight that they have been walking all over? If we address their comments in kind with reasonable points then the last mental image is that they haven't thought it all the way through. We win. After we win the point at hand, we can then make counter points by asking them, "Where does the constitution say that right is limited to owning strictly sporting weapons anyway?" Again, painting the mental image that they don't even know what they are talking about in the first place.
    So many projects, so little time

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Tags for this Thread

Digg This Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95