Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 26 of 35 FirstFirst ... 1623242526272829 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 520 of 689
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
    1,189

    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
    9,651

    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.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  3. #503
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,974

    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
    9,974

    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
    9,651

    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.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  6. #506
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,570

    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
    9,651

    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.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  8. #508
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,019

    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
    9,974

    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
    9,974

    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
    9,974

    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
    9,974

    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
    1,189

    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
    1,189

    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
    10,375

    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
    3,774

    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
    9,974

    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
    9,974

    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."

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