Like Tree279Likes

Thread: 18 Children Dead in CT Mass Shooting

  1. #501
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Who says it will be protracted? You're dreaming.
    No one in this thread is dreaming as much as you are. I wish I could live in your fantasy world.


    The difference being is the US military is fanatical about avoiding casualties to innocent civilians.
    No further proof is needed for my thought process about the military NOT turning their weapons on ordinary civilians
    In this case civilians would be the target enabling the military to lay waste to entire areas without any regard. Again, reread what I wrote. Assuming those leadership had the loyalty of the military to the point where they would turn on the citizenry.
    You're putting the pride and the loyalty in the wrong places. Every soldier I know has pride in our COUNTRY, and pride in the RIGHTS that were bestowed to this country by our founding fathers. It is NOT a blind loyalty to the government, nor pride in a military that would order them to turn their weapons on normal civilians.

    The only way your scenario remotely works is if an outside power is willing to incur the wrath of the US by aiding the guerillas waging the conflict.
    The only way YOUR scenario would work is if an outside power, say fanatical anti-American regimes, are willing to come in and fill the void the military will leave

    Keep dreaming about gun owners being the last stand against tyranny.
    Keep dreaming that the US Military comprised of citizens will turn on non-military citizens. Keep dreaming that gun owners AREN'T the last stand against tyranny. Hopefully one day you'll wake up and have some common sense bestowed upon you
    You should probably just stop posting, because every time you do, you lose a little bit more credibility.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  2. #502
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    You should probably just stop posting, because every time you do, you lose a little bit more credibility.
    WRONG! He hasn't had any credibility in this entire topic. When cornered and proven wrong he diverts.
    RFDACM02 and Chenzo like this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  3. #503
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    This post right here... to quote you, is one of those statements that makes me say to myself "how cute." Either you're so wrapped up in the anti-gun, pro-Obama bulls|-|it, (possible) or you're just trolling (possible).
    Really? Could you point me to where I've advocated eliminating private firearms ownership? Those disagreeing with me keep claiming I'm anti-gun when all I have advocated is limiting magazine capacity and being able to buy a gun at gun show with no paper trail.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    So you're saying that laws are going to be ignored and essentially invalid, but you believe that the US Military will turn on it's citizenry?
    If the tyranny that gun extremists has occurred in our nation they envision then YES, I believe laws would be ignored. In case you don't know much about history, depots and tyrants are not exactly known for following laws that impede their ability to seize and maintain power. Do you need examples? I can cite several. The scenarios I've laid out have stated a qualifier like "assuming" the military has embraced a tyrannical leadership like that envisioned by the wacko extremists who believe they're owning an AR-15 will enable them to confront the modern US military that has nuke subs, fighter planes, and smart bombs. The word "assuming" is a key part of that scenario. Feel free to look it up in a dictionary assuming you read one and understand that words have definitions that most others accept.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Assuming tyranny has taken control of the leadership of our nation to the point where it is exercising that type of oppression over the citizenry, do YOU, not any of your expert friends, not your sister, YOU, truly believe that SOLDIERS, people and CITIZENS of the United States of America, are going to take orders to turn their weapons on fellow citizens? More importantly, when the US Military disbands because of so many deserters refusing to follow asinine orders, who is going to turn their arms on us? Who will Obama bring in then to turn on us?
    I address this in my earlier response.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Unlike my post on the definition of assault weapons, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer with, with a straight answer instead of using your ordinary diversion tactics.
    Done. Twice even.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Oh, it would be. The fact that you as a sell out anti-gunner don't want to admit it shows once again your lack of knowledge on this topic.
    This makes no sense in the context of what I've actually written. Not what you have think you have seen.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-15-2013 at 08:55 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  4. #504
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    You really need to inform yourself on this topic.
    Informed on what topic? I've stated my conditions as to why this is a nonsensical belief that a group of AR-15 owners are going to hold off the modern US military assuming they would be willing to turn on the citizenry.

    But you and Chenzo keep wanting to believe I've written something that implies US military personnel would do such a thing.

    Both of you have made the case as to why you two believe that wouldn't happen. That being the case, the whole idea of pro-gun wackos who believe they need their guns for the sole purpose of repelling tyranny (as quoted from the Founding Fathers by Bull321 and LAFE) is a ridiculous argument. Wouldn't you agree? Or do you still believe I'm discussing something else?

    Once again. Please read what is actually there, and not what you think is there.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-15-2013 at 09:20 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #505
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Informed on what topic? I've stated my conditions as to why this is a nonsensical belief that a group of AR-15 owners are going to hold off the modern US military assuming they would be willing to turn on the citizenry.

    But you and Chenzo keep wanting to believe I've written something that implies US military personnel would do such a thing.

    Both of you have made the case as to why you two believe that wouldn't happen. That being the case, the whole idea of pro-gun wackos who believe they need their guns for the sole purpose of repelling tyranny (as quoted from the Founding Fathers by Bull321 and LAFE) is a ridiculous argument. Wouldn't you agree? Or do you still believe I'm discussing something else.

    It has sure been easy to distract this conversation.
    First of all, the US government has made a practice of hiring mercenaries under the guise of private contractors to do the dirty work in Iraq and Afghanistan that the military can't or won't do. Who is to say that the president wouldn't do the same in a time of unrest. I am sure there are mercs that would gladly take payment in gold, as well as foreign agents that would have no qualms at all about "controlling" a rebellion.

    So besides being anti-gun are you admitting that your whole purpose here has been to be a TROLL? Because it sure sounds like it with your ending comment. Or is that your out instead of admitting your complete and utter ignorance of this topic?
    Chenzo likes this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  6. #506
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Informed on what topic? ...
    Haven't you figured it out yet? If you don't agree with FyredUp, your not informed enough on the topic.

    He is right. His opinion is the correct one. He is the all knowing, most informed one. We should all just simply thank him for bestowing his knowledge and expertise on us and follow his wishes.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  7. #507
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Haven't you figured it out yet? If you don't agree with FyredUp, your not informed enough on the topic.

    He is right. His opinion is the correct one. He is the all knowing, most informed one. We should all just simply thank him for bestowing his knowledge and expertise on us and follow his wishes.
    And you are an arrogant a z z that posts idiotic ramblings about why didn't the Founding Fathers mention women in the Ammendments to the Constitution. Further, why haven't you slammed any of the others that have the same opinion as me?

    Your hero SC can't even properly define the weapons he believes he is talking about and doesn't find a thing wrong with that. Typical knee jerk anti-gun tactics. Did you know that the term "Assault Weapon" was invented by an anti-gun group? It isn't even an official firearms definition of a damn thing.

    Enjoy trying to sound superior when you are as ignorant of the actual facts of this topic as SC is.
    Chenzo likes this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  8. #508
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    This is one of those statements that makes me say to myself, "how cute!"

    Assuming tyranny has taken hold of the leadership of our nation to the point where it is exercising that type of oppression over the citizenry, do you believe they are going to respect that law? Or any other for that matter? More importantly, who is going to enforce it?
    Excuse me, YOU'RE the one that said it. Or didn't you notice I was quoting YOU.

  9. #509
    Forum Member
    bcjack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    This is one of those statements that makes me say to myself, "how cute!"

    Assuming tyranny has taken hold of the leadership of our nation to the point where it is exercising that type of oppression over the citizenry, do you believe they are going to respect that law? Or any other for that matter? More importantly, who is going to enforce it?
    Just as cute as "more gun laws are needed to stop gun crimes"... The criminals don't give a **** about gun laws!!!!

    More gun laws will only screw the honest people.
    Last edited by bcjack; 01-16-2013 at 01:51 AM.
    Chenzo likes this.
    everyonegoeshome.com

  10. #510
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    First of all, the US government has made a practice of hiring mercenaries under the guise of private contractors to do the dirty work in Iraq and Afghanistan that the military can't or won't do. Who is to say that the president wouldn't do the same in a time of unrest. I am sure there are mercs that would gladly take payment in gold, as well as foreign agents that would have no qualms at all about "controlling" a rebellion.
    Then that wouldn't be the full might of the US military. Then would it. Which is not the point I made. The only way that compares to the scenario I've put forth is if those contractors have full access to the weaponry and technology of the current military with the authority to use any and all of it. Which would enable them to run through a group of folks armed with AR-15's pretty quickly.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    So besides being anti-gun are you admitting that your whole purpose here has been to be a TROLL? Because it sure sounds like it with your ending comment. Or is that your out instead of admitting your complete and utter ignorance of this topic?
    Once again. Claiming I'm anti-gun based upon your paranoia. Show me where I've advocated eliminating private ownership of firearms. Other than in the recesses of your mind.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-16-2013 at 06:27 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  11. #511
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Haven't you figured it out yet? If you don't agree with FyredUp, your not informed enough on the topic.

    He is right. His opinion is the correct one. He is the all knowing, most informed one. We should all just simply thank him for bestowing his knowledge and expertise on us and follow his wishes.
    Sad but true. Comprehension is not his strong suit.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  12. #512
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsb View Post
    Excuse me, YOU'RE the one that said it. Or didn't you notice I was quoting YOU.
    I did notice you were quoting me.

    Did you notice I used the conditional by using the word "assuming?"

    Reading, it's FUNdamental.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  13. #513
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bcjack View Post
    Just as cute as "more gun laws are needed to stop gun crimes"... The criminals don't give a **** about gun laws!!!!

    More gun laws will only screw the honest people.
    Then let's get rid of speeding laws, since they won't stop people from speeding.
    Let's get rid of DUI laws since they won't stop people from drinking and driving.
    Let's get rid of all drug laws since they won't stop people from using drugs.

    Your logic is we should do nothing since nothing is 100%.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #514
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Then let's get rid of speeding laws, since they won't stop people from speeding.
    Speeding laws don't infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to drive, and pursue their hobbies with cars
    Let's get rid of DUI laws since they won't stop people from drinking and driving.
    DUI laws don't infringe on the rights of the law abiding citizens who enjoy a drink from time to time, but know better than to get behind the wheel when they are drunk
    Let's get rid of all drug laws since they won't stop people from using drugs.
    Irrelevant, since law abiding citizens don't use illegal drugs, because they are law abiding citizens.

    Your logic is we should do nothing since nothing is 100%.
    Your logic is to punish everyone.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  15. #515
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Really? Could you point me to where I've advocated eliminating private firearms ownership? Those disagreeing with me keep claiming I'm anti-gun when all I have advocated is limiting magazine capacity and being able to buy a gun at gun show with no paper trail.
    Look back at your previous posts. You've made it very easy to claim you're anti-gun based on your past posts


    If the tyranny that gun extremists has occurred in our nation they envision then YES, I believe laws would be ignored. In case you don't know much about history, depots and tyrants are not exactly known for following laws that impede their ability to seize and maintain power. Do you need examples? I can cite several. The scenarios I've laid out have stated a qualifier like "assuming" the military has embraced a tyrannical leadership like that envisioned by the wacko extremists who believe they're owning an AR-15 will enable them to confront the modern US military that has nuke subs, fighter planes, and smart bombs. The word "assuming" is a key part of that scenario. Feel free to look it up in a dictionary assuming you read one and understand that words have definitions that most others accept.
    Again, you're "assuming" that the US Military would follow orders to turn guns the citizenry. Sorry, not buying it and don't see it happening. We could have all the nuclear weaponry in the entire world. There still has to be someone smart enough to program the coordinates and launch the missiles.

    I address this in my earlier response.
    Yeah, you did. Pis$ poorly like every other one of your posts in this thread


    Done. Twice even.
    Whatever you say SC.


    This makes no sense in the context of what I've actually written. Not what you have think you have seen.
    Perception is everything, and you've given off in almost every one of your posts here the perception that you're an anti-gunner.
    Be you on the anti-gun wagon or not, however is this plays out will be dangerous for our country. If they take away one right, what's to say they aren't coming for the rest? That right there is why myself, Fyred, and many others are strongly opposed to gun regulation. It limits our ability to LEGALLY participate in our hobbies, and opens the door to a slipper slope of other rights being taken away.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  16. #516
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Then let's get rid of speeding laws, since they won't stop people from speeding.
    Let's get rid of DUI laws since they won't stop people from drinking and driving.
    Let's get rid of all drug laws since they won't stop people from using drugs.

    Your logic is we should do nothing since nothing is 100%.
    The problem is your answer, and the anti-gun crowd's answer is to limit the right of law abiding folks. A ban on any type of weapon will have no ... zero ... nada .... affect on the ability of criminals to get guns. It will only affect those who will use those guns legally. That's the issue.


    In fact, many who want to ban guns don't even have the background to use the correct technical terminolgy to ban specific weapons but instead use sweeping terms. That's problem number 2.

    We'll find out today what the village idiot occupying the White House and his band of anti-gun morons have to say about this issue. I'm sure it will be nothing morte than a request for Congress to ban large quanity clips, which has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the problem and throwing more money WHICH THE COUNTRY DOES NOT HAVE at mental health, as well as few other ticky-tack feel good bull**** measures.

    The fact is none of that is going to do a damn thing to reduce gun volience and will only punish those that have been obeying the law.

    Sig Hiel.
    BULL321 and Chenzo like this.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  17. #517
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Informed on what topic? I've stated my conditions as to why this is a nonsensical belief that a group of AR-15 owners are going to hold off the modern US military assuming they would be willing to turn on the citizenry.
    Yet another irrelvant spins. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution based on their experience and the history available to them. Few people, gun owners or not, truly think the US military and gunowners or any citizens are in for a showdown. This sadly is a few nutjobs giving all of us a bad name. The problem with nutjobs and fanatics of any sort is they seek the spotlight. Regardless of the validity of the thought or idea in the Founding Father's heads in our current world, the Constituion remains and shoiuld not be manipulated to suit an agenda. What's next Speech is Free if it's approved? We already know that not all speech is completely free, there are limitations and restrictions, will the antigun people go after Hollywood and video games with the same fervor? Attack their Constitutional defense?

    While the NRA may speak for millions of gun owners they don't speak for them all, and painting all members of any unorganized group (liberals, gunowners, conservatives, etc) with the same brush is unfair. Now, it's likely normal to paint all members of a membership group as their membership alone indicates they support the goals, missions and policies of the group (always difficult for many/most IAFF members at election time). I for one wish there was a reasonable gun owners group with nearly the organizational background of the NRA so that the majority of us out here, thinking that we can close loopholes and ensure fewer guns are unaccounted for would have a voice that doesn't toss in conspiracy theories and stupid ideas as part of the good ones.

  18. #518
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Then let's get rid of speeding laws, since they won't stop people from speeding.
    Let's get rid of DUI laws since they won't stop people from drinking and driving.
    Let's get rid of all drug laws since they won't stop people from using drugs.

    Your logic is we should do nothing since nothing is 100%.
    Your logic of increasing the number of laws is just as asinine.

    How about we enforce the freaking laws we have, then we can look at filling in the holes. It seems the majority of these incidents are perpetrated by people who had the guns illegally, so obviously someone dropped the enforcement ball. After that, we can look at how James Holmes was able to get guns as a mentally disturbed individual and fill in that little hole.

    It's really quite simple and doesn't involve encroaching on the law-abiding citizen.

  19. #519
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Your logic is to punish everyone.
    No it isn't. Law abiding gun owners will still be able to own guns.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  20. #520
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Look back at your previous posts. You've made it very easy to claim you're anti-gun based on your past posts.
    I can't help that folks read what they want to see.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Again, you're "assuming" that the US Military would follow orders to turn guns the citizenry. Sorry, not buying it and don't see it happening. We could have all the nuclear weaponry in the entire world. There still has to be someone smart enough to program the coordinates and launch the missiles.
    I used the word "assuming" as a conditional argument. You should take a logic course. What's important is that you help put down the argument of gun wackos that they need their guns to protect themselves from their own government via force of arms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Perception is everything, and you've given off in almost every one of your posts here the perception that you're an anti-gunner.
    See first response.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Be you on the anti-gun wagon or not, however is this plays out will be dangerous for our country. If they take away one right, what's to say they aren't coming for the rest? That right there is why myself, Fyred, and many others are strongly opposed to gun regulation. It limits our ability to LEGALLY participate in our hobbies, and opens the door to a slipper slope of other rights being taken away.
    Yawn....the slippery slope argument. I could say that about any set of laws. Yet we as a society manage to function. Also, laws can be repealed. Prohibition being a prime example.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  21. #521
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Yet another irrelvant spins. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution based on their experience and the history available to them. Few people, gun owners or not, truly think the US military and gunowners or any citizens are in for a showdown. This sadly is a few nutjobs giving all of us a bad name. The problem with nutjobs and fanatics of any sort is they seek the spotlight. Regardless of the validity of the thought or idea in the Founding Father's heads in our current world, the Constituion remains and shoiuld not be manipulated to suit an agenda.
    I agree. However, pro-gun enthusiast Alex Jones didn't do gun owners any favors when he went on a tirade on national TV ranting about 1776 coming again if someone comes to take his guns. My point is folks like him use the need to defend themselves from an oppressive government that is using force to take away their freedom(s). Given they would be up against the modern US military (assuming the military would be willing to turn on the citizenry), they would be run over pretty quickly.

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    What's next Speech is Free if it's approved? We already know that not all speech is completely free, there are limitations and restrictions, will the antigun people go after Hollywood and video games with the same fervor? Attack their Constitutional defense?
    I doubt it. Given that other nations have violent movies and violent video games and also have a very low homicide by gun rate.

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Now, it's likely normal to paint all members of a membership group as their membership alone indicates they support the goals, missions and policies of the group (always difficult for many/most IAFF members at election time). I for one wish there was a reasonable gun owners group with nearly the organizational background of the NRA so that the majority of us out here, thinking that we can close loopholes and ensure fewer guns are unaccounted for would have a voice that doesn't toss in conspiracy theories and stupid ideas as part of the good ones.
    Those are all good points and I agree with you. I find it hilarious that many of the pro-gun-nut folks out there are focusing on Obama. The gun issue has never been of much interest to him during his presidency. It's not been any sort of a policy issue of his administration in the least. The only reason now that he is acting is that the American people themselves have become motivated to work on the problem. He's not initiating this interest in gun control laws, he's just following the lead of a large portion of the citizenry. Something a president is supposed to do.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-16-2013 at 11:38 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  22. #522
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The problem is your answer, and the anti-gun crowd's answer is to limit the right of law abiding folks. A ban on any type of weapon will have no ... zero ... nada .... affect on the ability of criminals to get guns. It will only affect those who will use those guns legally. That's the issue.
    Gawd your stupidity continues to shine brightly. What rights am I demanding be limited?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    In fact, many who want to ban guns don't even have the background to use the correct technical terminolgy to ban specific weapons but instead use sweeping terms. That's problem number 2.
    So what? This point is irrelevant. Being an expert in a field's terminology isn't a requirement to make law. You should reread the Constitution you claim to love so much. Be prepared. There are no pictures and they used really big words.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    We'll find out today what the village idiot occupying the White House and his band of anti-gun morons have to say about this issue. I'm sure it will be nothing morte than a request for Congress to ban large quanity clips, which has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the problem and throwing more money WHICH THE COUNTRY DOES NOT HAVE at mental health, as well as few other ticky-tack feel good bull**** measures.
    Ha ha ha. Says a lot about his opponent's capability that he got beat by someone you perceive as a village idiot. You must believe his opponent was even more of an idiot given that Obama beat him.....handily.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The fact is none of that is going to do a damn thing to reduce gun volience and will only punish those that have been obeying the law.
    Other countries would disagree with you. They have models that work. But it would require that people like you read books that have no pictures in them to know that.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Sig Hiel.
    Spellcheck is your friend. Use it. You obviously need it for words larger than at least three letters.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-16-2013 at 12:45 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  23. #523
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Then that wouldn't be the full might of the US military. Then would it. Which is not the point I made. The only way that compares to the scenario I've put forth is if those contractors have full access to the weaponry and technology of the current military with the authority to use any and all of it. Which would enable them to run through a group of folks armed with AR-15's pretty quickly.

    If the President hired mercenaries, "OH WAIT they call them PRIVATE CONTRACTORS," what makes you believe they wouldn't have access to any, and all, weaponry currently in the inventory of the US Military? Hell, Mr Executive order could make it happen with a stroke of his pen, he does have a history of bypassing the legislature when they tell him no.

    Again your lack of any real knowledge on insurgency and guerilla warfare is absolutely laughable. The Russians were driven out of Afghanistan by essentially a Third World bunch of rebels. These rebels did use AK-47s, and other modern small arms, but many of then were armed with surplus WW2 bolt action rifles, and some even had muskets. The Russians had tanks, and airplanes, and nuclear subs, as well as advanced surveilance equipment and still lost. In fact, much of that same technology is still being used to kill US troops after a decade of fighting. Why haven't we utterly wiped them out with all of our technology?

    You fail to see that people defending their homeland will pay a VERY heavy price to protect it. Look back through history, the American Revolution, Viet Nam War, the Afghanies fighting through history against numerous invaders., just to name a few. The American people, at least some of them anyway, will do exactly the same and it will be very costly to whomever wishes to try and conquer us and destroy our freedom.



    Once again. Claiming I'm anti-gun based upon your paranoia. Show me where I've advocated eliminating private ownership of firearms. Other than in the recesses of your mind.

    Before you diverted you ranted on and on about assault rifles, until myself and others here showed you what an completely uninformed buffoon you truly are on the topic of firearms nomenclature.

    You are anti-gun alright and not diversions by you into labeling me and others as paranoid will hide that. You are an appeaser and that Neville, is worse than just admitting you are anti-gun.

    Just admit it...It won't change how anyone here feels about you. But then again the truth isn't the tool of ultra lefties is it?
    Last edited by FyredUp; 01-16-2013 at 03:50 PM.
    Chenzo likes this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  24. #524
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Sad but true. Comprehension is not his strong suit.
    The truth is you have been proven wrong so many times on this topic that you have nothing left but diversion.

    You can't properly identify the firearms you want to control.

    You have absolutely no knowledge of the FFL licensing system and the Class 3 license that DOES in fact allow private ownership of fully automatic firearms if you are willing to do the mountain of paperwork and pay the fees.

    When you realized you were losing you brought in an irrelevant firearms incident and played the race card.

    You claimed the governemt controls how many potato chips you can buy and how you can use them.

    You tried, failing miserably, to draw a comparison between explosives and firearms.

    I have to say your posts on this topic make me smile becuse they are utter nonsense.
    Chenzo likes this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  25. #525
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Yawn....the slippery slope argument. I could say that about any set of laws. Yet we as a society manage to function. Also, laws can be repealed. Prohibition being a prime example.
    Funny you bring prohibition up. How well did banning alcohol work for this country? Oh that's right, it didn't. All you saw with prohibition was a spike in illegal alcohol manufacturing, trafficking, and sales.

    And as far as your so called "slipper slope" argument. Look at history in other countries. It all starts somewhere.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Shooting is West Palm Beach leaves firefighter, gunman dead.
    By SouthFlaHopeful in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 05:54 AM
  2. At least 2 dead in Kansas City mall shooting
    By RspctFrmCalgary in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-30-2007, 11:06 AM
  3. India-At Least 100 children dead
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-16-2004, 05:08 AM
  4. Children that cheered dead Americans
    By Waterboy620 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-12-2003, 05:01 PM
  5. Haysville, KS - 2 children dead
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-22-2002, 03:38 AM

Posting Permissions

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

Log in

Click here to log in or register