Recruiting Forum Off Topic Thread III

[gainesvol82]

But not with a wood paddle but with

Did someone say WOOD

In the immortal words of Da'Rick Rodgers "bone to bone".

 

[benholt06]

All you've said that I was a right wing gun nut that recites the NRA playbook. I asked you one simple question. What mass shootings involved firearms that were bought through your gun show loop hole (smh) or private sales? I don't know if you've named one. I don't think there are any. I ask again how your proposed more stringent background checks would stop mass shootings?

What you fail to see is it doesn't matter, and the aim isn't to just to stop mass shootings, it's to minimize the number of gun deaths period. If you're telling me no lives could have been saved through simple background checks on private sales, that's unbelievably naïve. It's just the safe and diligent thing to do and to say it shouldn't be a requirement because it doesn't prevent gun violence is a)wrong and b)completely irrelevant.

But just to provide some mitigation to your nonsense about no shootings are preventable, here's a piece from, I know, the media... Now it's not Fox or Drudge or Goebbels but try to keep an open mind. How many mass shootings might have been prevented by stronger gun laws?

I'm not even in favor of much of what's mentioned here but just so we're clear that your premise is all kinds of dumb.

 

[SSVol]

How would you enforce background checks on private sales? If Bubba wants to sell a gun without telling anyone, not sure there is any practical way of enforcing that.

 

[gainesvol82]

How would you enforce background checks on private sales? If Bubba wants to sell a gun without telling anyone, not sure there is any practical way of enforcing that.

No but you can sure as hell give him a big fine if the police ever run that gun's info or if it gets used in crime. Might deter some shady gun sales to people who shouldn't be sold to.

 

[benholt06]

How would you enforce background checks on private sales? If Bubba wants to sell a gun without telling anyone, not sure there is any practical way of enforcing that.

There's no way to on all of them. It's like any other law or regulation, none are 100% effective, you just have to do the best you can. If Bubba was selling to a shady character and later said character was found in possession of the weapon or committed a crime with the weapon that would need to come back on Bubba.

 

[WBO]

As far as I have ever understood the second amendment it was put in place to allow the people to be as well armed as any government position. I.e. fully automatic, tanks.

If you have the money to purchase those items, I believe you should be allowed to buy them. How do you defeat a tyrannical government without being suited the same?

Just the way I always understood the second amendment.

Yeah but where's your support for that position. And no one seems to be addressing the part of the 2nd Amendment I pointed out "A well-regulated militia . . .". It doesn't say any militia, it says "well-regulated" so what does that mean? Everyone that responds is ignoring my basic question. You're trying to act like the precursor statement doesn't exist, but it does, it's part of the text. I just wonder what it means.

You're not going to find much about this issue in the Federalist Papers. One of the reasons being that James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay wrote the Federalists Papers before the Bill of Rights was even passed. But besides that, Madison's main argument (see Federalists Paper 46) was that the standing military should be less than 50,000 men, that's why militias, tied to the states versus the federal government, were so important to the anti-federalists. Madison envisioned 500,000 man strong (in total) state militias versus a very small federal military. I'm afraid the boat has sailed on that one. Hamilton in Federalist Paper 29 talks about what the militias should look like and why they are preferable to a standing federal army. (interestingly enough, one of his arguments was that the nation was too small to dedicate so much of its workforce to full-time military pursuits.)

So it seems to be a lot less about every man should have a gun than it is against a large standing federal army and the basis of power such an army would give the large central government. Like I said, that boat has sailed in the modern world. Imagine what those guys would think if they could see one of today's supercarriers. Or even just a single Abrams tank flying through the Virginia countryside at 30 mph.

By the way, you've got to be kidding when you say that's how you would defeat a tyrannical government. Any home grown militia would be swept aside in minutes if the federal government deployed against it, even with a unit of the National Guard much less a front-line military unit.
Not to mention the cost of trying to outfit your little band of rebels with comparable weaponry.

Go to gunbroker.com some time and see how much a Class 3 fully automatic weapon goes for. (If I ever hit the lottery I'm going to get a couple of Class 3's, it's been many years since I was on a firing range with a fully automatic weapon.) About the only guys that can afford those prices in mass are the drug cartels, of course their black market prices are probably quite a bit lower.

 

[Weezer]

What you fail to see is it doesn't matter, and the aim isn't to just to stop mass shootings, it's to minimize the number of gun deaths period. If you're telling me no lives could have been saved through simple background checks on private sales, that's unbelievably naïve. It's just the safe and diligent thing to do and to say it shouldn't be a requirement because it doesn't prevent gun violence is a)wrong and b)completely irrelevant.

But just to provide some mitigation to your nonsense about no shootings are preventable, here's a piece from, I know, the media... Now it's not Fox or Drudge or Goebbels but try to keep an open mind. How many mass shootings might have been prevented by stronger gun laws?

I'm not even in favor of much of what's mentioned here but just so we're clear that your premise is all kinds of dumb.

I think the point most people ignore is that stricter gun laws will have little effect on the criminal element. The effect is on law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong in the first place. I understand and agree that gun violence is out of control, but if you want to make a difference, you need to find a way to create laws that truly strike at that criminal element. The public, in general, does not benefit from laws that make it harder to defend themselves from said criminal element.

 

[Jackcrevol]

I'm more of a perfect ass, long legged, stunning face, exotic accent type of guy myself.

Edit: That was a description of my preference in women, not a description of my looks ya pervs!

my buddy says Linda Carter... alllll day long.

 

[Weezer]

my buddy says Linda Carter... alllll day long.

Black Widow ftw.

Scarlett Johansson, all day, every day, yes plz.

 

[Weezer]

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Here’s How Much Downstate New York Is Skewing the United States’ Coronavirus Numbers

 

[HoleInTheRoof]

A lot of modern day issues being resolved in this thread.

All thanks to the oddly named flu and ensuing quarantine.

 

[Vols4us]

Here’s How Much Downstate New York Is Skewing the United States’ Coronavirus Numbers

Facts. So if they quarantined just the NY/NJ/CT devil's triangle and left the rest of us alone the vast majority our population would not have suffered and trillions in tax dollars would not have been spent. Yeah, there's that.

 

[InVOLuntary]

What you fail to see is it doesn't matter, and the aim isn't to just to stop mass shootings, it's to minimize the number of gun deaths period. If you're telling me no lives could have been saved through simple background checks on private sales, that's unbelievably naïve. It's just the safe and diligent thing to do and to say it shouldn't be a requirement because it doesn't prevent gun violence is a)wrong and b)completely irrelevant.

But just to provide some mitigation to your nonsense about no shootings are preventable, here's a piece from, I know, the media... Now it's not Fox or Drudge or Goebbels but try to keep an open mind. How many mass shootings might have been prevented by stronger gun laws?

I'm not even in favor of much of what's mentioned here but just so we're clear that your premise is all kinds of dumb.

I'm not clicking on your left wing radical communist propaganda. I could post reams of literature that shows much more lives are saved due to gun ownership than are lost but you would poo poo them as radical right wing NRA talking points, so there is no point.

We were discussing mass shootings and that didn't work for you so you shifted the goal post to reducing gun deaths in general. Statistically a huge percentage of gun deaths are suicide and another large percentage of gun deaths are drug/gang related. Do you think these guns are obtained at a gun show? Lol. You're extremely naive if you do.

Again, guns aren't your thing so you're ok with measures to limit other's rights. If you really want to save some lives, go start trying to get the prohibition of alcohol back in play. Your ideas what's dumb here. You haven't a clue.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Yeah but where's your support for that position. And no one seems to be addressing the part of the 2nd Amendment I pointed out "A well-regulated militia . . .". It doesn't say any militia, it says "well-regulated" so what does that mean? Everyone that responds is ignoring my basic question. You're trying to act like the precursor statement doesn't exist, but it does, it's part of the text. I just wonder what it means.

You're not going to find much about this issue in the Federalist Papers. One of the reasons being that James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay wrote the Federalists Papers before the Bill of Rights was even passed. But besides that, Madison's main argument (see Federalists Paper 46) was that the standing military should be less than 50,000 men, that's why militias, tied to the states versus the federal government, were so important to the anti-federalists. Madison envisioned 500,000 man strong (in total) state militias versus a very small federal military. I'm afraid the boat has sailed on that one. Hamilton in Federalist Paper 29 talks about what the militias should look like and why they are preferable to a standing federal army. (interestingly enough, one of his arguments was that the nation was too small to dedicate so much of its workforce to full-time military pursuits.)

So it seems to be a lot less about every man should have a gun than it is against a large standing federal army and the basis of power such an army would give the large central government. Like I said, that boat has sailed in the modern world. Imagine what those guys would think if they could see one of today's supercarriers. Or even just a single Abrams tank flying through the Virginia countryside at 30 mph.

By the way, you've got to be kidding when you say that's how you would defeat a tyrannical government. Any home grown militia would be swept aside in minutes if the federal government deployed against it, even with a unit of the National Guard much less a front-line military unit.
Not to mention the cost of trying to outfit your little band of rebels with comparable weaponry.

Go to gunbroker.com some time and see how much a Class 3 fully automatic weapon goes for. (If I ever hit the lottery I'm going to get a couple of Class 3's, it's been many years since I was on a firing range with a fully automatic weapon.) About the only guys that can afford those prices in mass are the drug cartels, of course their black market prices are probably quite a bit lower.

Here's some good reading about the 2ND and how court cases and the founding fathers as pertaining to militias.

 

[WBO]

Here's some good reading about the 2ND and how court cases and the founding fathers as pertaining to militias.

You didn't attach your reading references.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Facts. So if they quarantined just the NY/NJ/CT devil's triangle and left the rest of us alone the vast majority our population would not have suffered and trillions in tax dollars would not have been spent. Yeah, there's that.

Yep

 

[OptimusPrimerib]

In the immortal words of Da'Rick Rodgers "bone to bone".

*Markeith Ambles

 

[InVOLuntary]

You didn't attach your reading references.

Oh crap, sorry.

What Is a 'Well Regulated Militia,' Anyway?

 

[Jackcrevol]

*Markeith Ambles

Heather Harrington*

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

#OUAA

 

[bignewt]

View attachment 272292

Team Lynda!

 

[Brillovol]

More than just one study coming out now showing tons of people with antibodies in the hotspots. Chelsea, MA reports only 2% of the population with the Wuhan virus, but a random study of antibodies shows 60 out of 200 had it and never knew it. Add it up and roughly a third (1/3!) of the population has had the thing.

That’s a mortality rate of 0.3% with rudimentary treatment procedures, people.

Take the next few months to formalize treatments, prepare our medical professionals, and then let’s open this dang thing back up completely. Gaining herd immunity is closer to reality than we realize.

I need to be in Neyland with 100k of my closest friends this fall.

Nearly a third of 200 blood samples taken in Chelsea show exposure to coronavirus - The Boston Globe

 

[JacketVol]

More than just one study coming out now showing tons of people with antibodies in the hotspots. Chelsea, MA reports only 2% of the population with the Wuhan virus, but a random study of antibodies shows 60 out of 200 had it and never knew it. Add it up and roughly a third (1/3!) of the population has had the thing.

That’s a mortality rate of 0.3% with rudimentary treatment procedures, people.

Take the next few months to formalize treatments, prepare our medical professionals, and then let’s open this dang thing back up completely. Gaining herd immunity is closer to reality than we realize.

I need to be in Neyland with 100k of my closest friends this fall.

Nearly a third of 200 blood samples taken in Chelsea show exposure to coronavirus - The Boston Globe

Read the article and at the end they say since more are out there infected and may be carriers is even more reason to stay at home 24 hours a day. Sounds like they will use it to shut things down even more.

 

[JacketVol]

Team Lynda!

Those beautiful boobs.