Performance Boats Forum banner

1 - 20 of 60 Posts

·
Marine Organism
Joined
·
12,743 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Idiot!

 

·
Member
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
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%.:happy:
 

·
The member
Joined
·
3,244 Posts
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.. :)sphss
 

·
Cajun Member
Joined
·
1,436 Posts
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..:no:
 

·
Member
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
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.
 

·
Just Me
Joined
·
4,056 Posts
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.
 

·
Blown, OHBA Member
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
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
 

·
Member
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
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.
 

·
Marine Organism
Joined
·
12,743 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
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! :no:
 

·
Boatless Member :(
Joined
·
3,006 Posts
"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
 

·
Just Me
Joined
·
4,056 Posts
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.
 

·
Boatless Member :(
Joined
·
3,006 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,426 Posts
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.
 

·
Just Me
Joined
·
4,056 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,975 Posts
I find it funny that everybody and his bother smack talked Speaker Boehner for folding like a cheap chair, and not one mutha fucker in one of these stupid ass debates will flat come out and tell these asswipes the AR and the magazines are needed to level the field as reasonably possible when the shit hits the fan and Obama's brown shit punks from FEMA hit town in the troop carriers armed to the teeth.
Imagine the founding fathers armed with bow and arrows, knives, clubs, and sling shots. :)sphss They had cannons for Christ sake. Think the King was thrilled about that. TOUGHT SHIT!
Semi auto? large clips? I what to know where my F15 and 16s are!!! Wheres my artillery? Wheres my armored carrier. And they are whining about a semi auto 223 or 308? Give me a break!

Biden is full of shit about the cops being out gunned. The patrol cop? Yeah he is. But every major department in this country is PACKED with more shit that you can believe, and much of it FULLY AUTO, with the right ammo, and plenty of it, and the guys trained to use it!
Add in Obama snot nosed teenaged brown shirts with FEMA, and the deck is pretty well stacked.
They are targeting the ARs because they are doing everything they can to get the country as disarmed as possible without looking like they trashed and shit on the 2nd amendment. The fact that I cannot own a Thompson with a banjo drum already shit on MY 2nd amendment rights in my eyes.
The idea that very shortly they will know if I buy 100 rounds shits on my 2nd amendment rights.
Wait for a choking ammo tax from the ATF SOON! If there is an agency that prides itself if over the top insame taxes, its the ATF. Looked at booze and cig tax lately???? Think they don't see ammo as a SIN, in need of a SIN TAX? One stroke of a pin, and its done!

Why can't SOMEBODY come clean and simply say WHY there is an ammo shortage and escalated rise in AR sales in this country and be truthful about?
NOBODY BUYS AN AR AND 5000 ROUNDS TO TARGET SHOOT OR HUNT! The government KNOWS whats going on, so say it for Christ sake!



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
I don't feel tardy
Joined
·
845 Posts
Why can't SOMEBODY come clean and simply say WHY there is an ammo shortage and esculated rise in AR sales in this country and be truthful about?
NOBODY BUYS AN AR AND 5000 ROUNDS TO TARGET SHOOT OR HUNT! The government KNOWS whats going on, so say it for Christ sake!

Bob,
you and I know the truth and hopefully more and more people will accept the truth. You and I will never be able to convince the SHEEP until they wake up and realize they really don't have shit without the TAX PAYER. Let the shit begin. Yes, this corrupt administration is on a destroy the Constitution mission.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,426 Posts
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.

Sorry snoc, there are no easy wins for the Repubs. They have been tossed more grapefruits the last 5 years and have pretty much wiffed with remarkable regularity. I think the gun control fight is right up our alley because it does cross party lines. Obama's message always preaches to the lowest common denominator, and yet the Republicans always want to be polite and civil in debating. Problem is, since the MSM won't carry their message, they're usually preaching to their own choir. This could be a way to help re-unify the party on a single issue.

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.

I do agree that this should be part of the argument.


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.

This is how a Democrat frames any argument they engage in. Again, I say we need to take the fight to them, not sit back and politely try to reason with them. You will never win a debate with a liberal unless you can demolish there reasoning with truth and logic.



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.

Again, I agree this must be a part of the argument that we take too them!
Maybe we are under estimating peoples intelligence a bit. I have talked to a number of people who don't want any part of guns, but are tired of losing more rights. We conservatives can have a multi point argument containing logic, reason, and a constitutional basis, but me personally, I want to see our representatives become aggressive and passionate about defending all our liberties. We can't afford to lose anymore.
 

·
Cajun Member
Joined
·
1,436 Posts
Snoc,I had typed out a solid (IMO) reply but lost it by the time I hit submit(the first day of this thread)...

I agree with most of what has already been said by Icecreaman and Gn7...

The most important reasons to keep our high cap. mags are for self defense of our family,homes and all property...Home invasion on up to our country being invaded substantiates our need for high capacity mags...
 

·
Just Me
Joined
·
4,056 Posts
Snoc,I had typed out a solid (IMO) reply but lost it by the time I hit submit(the first day of this thread)...

I agree with most of what has already been said by Icecreaman and Gn7...

The most important reasons to keep our high cap. mags are for self defense of our family,homes and all property...Home invasion on up to our country being invaded substantiates our need for high capacity mags...
I agree with a lot of what has been said. And yes to a certain degree we need them to protect ourselves from our own government. At what point it will become necisary to go down that road is anyone's guess; if we ever need to actually walk that walk. I recently wrote my state represenative and suggested a bill that would automaticly authorize the governor to use the National Guard to remove any armed force that comes into the state without prior approval from the state legislature. The state has the responsibility to protect it's citizens from any attack or unconstitutional search and siezure. The National Guard is directly under the control of the Governor and as such can execute police actions and arrest any armed agents failing to abide by this law. One thing it would do is stop the IRS bully raids without prior consent from the state. No more Holden witch hunts.

Another reason for the high capacity magazines in both pistols and rifles can be found by viewing videos and reports of police officers putting down dangerous animals. The shear number of rounds fired in order to protect the people can be staggering. And if a trained police officer needs that many rounds to put down a dog, the homeowner trying to protect his family should not have to stop and reload while these beasts could be attacking. (OK, We all know it doesn't take that many rounds to put down a dog, but if they can use that as a justification at the time of the incident, we should be able to use it since it suits our needs too)

Shooting Coyotes is a good one, as anyone that has dealt with a coyote problem should know that you have to try and irradicate the whole pack or they breed and replenish, often times increasing in numbers. We had many a Coyote shoot when I lived in Texas. It was much more fun to be on shooter detail instead of light detail.

I will say that the best part of this thread so far, is that we are engaged in an intelligent conversation without all the bickering and name calling. I enjoy a good debate and even though I strongly disagree with Mr. Biden, I felt we needed to look past his persona (he is an idiot), and counter the points he was trying to score. To me, this is how we strengthen our position. Everyone who has read this thread that leans right, now has more ammo for the debate on gun control. Not that a good FU doesn't fit into the arguement on gun control every now and then, but facts and a good counter go so much farther. I was always taught that gun control was very important. Control your breathing, shoot with both eyes open, squeeze don't pull, and hit your target on the first shot. I'm just not sure how they are going to work all that into a bill?:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,169 Posts
"Lock and load"....

It seems to me there is a compromise available about high capacity magazines... Mere possession of multiple 20+ mags, EMPTY, at home or during transport, shouldn't raise any red flags for the "legal" gun owner... Now if someone, legal or not, is found to be in possession of multiple high capacity mags, LOADED, during transport it SHOULD raise several red flags for law enforcement.... Why is this guy/girl loaded for bear in his vehicle??? Sure, there are laws to prevent loaded weapons in vehicles in many states, (some of which are based on Fish and Game laws to prevent poaching), but to throw in a sentencing enhancement based on the number of bullets "ready to go" might at least slow down the nutjob in the school/mall/park parking lot while he readies the assault.... Hell, even multiple 10 round clips, LOADED in transit, should throw up those same red flags.... While I am aware that a Military member, trained over endless hours, could reload magazines quite quickly, not that many nutjobs actually train at magazine loading/reloading..... Would it have made any difference at the recent tragedies? Maybe not, but we'll never know......
Ray
 
1 - 20 of 60 Posts
Top