Page 73 of 77

Here's another point for LITTLE brother...

Posted: 2018 Mar 29 12:11
by Crux
The cartoon is STUPID.

The Military, is made up of, AMERICANS, who by and large are WITH THE PEOPLE.
The Military, by and LARGE, supports the concept of a FREE, ARMED, CITIZENRY...
The Military, is Not The Enemy, and neither are Patriotic Conservatives BROTHER!

Re: Some Shit Right There

Posted: 2018 Mar 29 14:10
by Wise One
Crux wrote:John Paul Stevens ... is the former Chief Justice.

Nope. Never was.


Re: Leftist are DANGEROUS

Posted: 2018 Mar 29 14:16
by Wise One
Crux wrote:A well armed citizenry is a deterrent to Government Tyranny. It was 250 years ago and it is today.

Nope. I have a joke can of "Tiger Repellent" on the shelf. We have never once seen tigers running around our place.

But I'm not dumb enough to believe that can has anything to do with deterring tigers from North America.


The Leftist Above IS DANGEROUS!!

Posted: 2018 Mar 29 15:21
by Crux
Wise One wrote:
Crux wrote:A well armed citizenry is a deterrent to Government Tyranny. It was 250 years ago and it is today.

Nope. I have a joke can of "Tiger Repellent" on the shelf. We have never once seen tigers running around our place.

crux supports your right to Keep and Bear Tiger Repellent...
crux supports your choice to own or not own tiger repellent.

crux knows the use of said repellent in a confined space will affect you and your loved ones, and could be used against you.
crux knows that the civilian ownership of tiger repellent, even on a massive scale isn't much of a deterrent to gov't tyranny.

crux knows that you, and a number of others on this so-called forum, by your own estimations, SHOULD NOT own firearms...

Re: BANG !

Posted: 2018 Apr 01 02:19
by Cannoneer
I guesss that can of tiger repellent must work. I hven't heard of one single case of a tiger being anywhere near Lexington.

The second amendment works too. Even though it's made up of mostly self serving crooks we haven't had marshal law since the reconstruction.

Re: BANG !

Posted: 2018 Apr 02 17:36
by Coondog
Cannoneer is correct. Small groups of armed populace CAN disrupt government.

It's because of all the problems an armed citizenry can cause a tyrannical government.

The problem with that kind of thinking is there's seldom any thinking involved. I heard for eight years about how tyrannical Obama was. Before that it was Bush. Ironic isn't it. Trump is the craziest SOB imaginable, but hasn't come close to becoming a tyrant. And if he does, you're not going to stop him and neither am I.

And those small groups of armed citizens ready to use their second amendment rights to irritate the government......those are called domestic

Coondog :coffee:

Private ownership of guns is, and has been since 1492, necessary to prevent deer and squirrel populations from becoming dangerously prevalent.
And of course, should we run our of Tiger repellent .............

Re: BANG !

Posted: 2018 Apr 03 07:50
by Cannoneer
I'm sure that You're smarter than that Coondog. An armed citizenry is a deterrent just by being there. When a tyrant sits in the oval office or in congress, and we've had a few. They don't go too far because they know they can't. As a former soldier I'd also like to point out that our military is also made up of people who would not tolorate a tyrant.

Two years before I was born it was legal to own any kind of firearm and some citizens had Thompson sub machineguns and Browning automitc rifles. The vast majority of people shot with those weapons were criminals or law enforcement people. The government decided that law enforcement needed an edge so congress passed a law that in order to have certain weapons a permit and license was required. I personally don't think people need machineguns in order to keep the government in line and I woundn't want the gang bangers to have a bunch of automatic weapons. But machineguns are a lot of fun to shoot.

Re: BANG !

Posted: 2018 Apr 04 20:29
by Coondog
I'm not sure just how smart I am, but I'm beginning to think that maybe we have different points of reference on a number of subjects.
When a tyrant sits in the oval office or in congress, and we've had a few

I'm curious as to who those tyrants are that you perceive we've had and how YOU, personally, intend to exercise YOUR 2nd amendment right.
....our military is also made up of people who would not tolerate a tyrant

So, why not leave it up to them? Who do YOU intend to shoot?

The rest of your argument corresponds with my own. Get a permit......shoot a machine gun. :gun:


Done killin'

Re: BANG !

Posted: 2018 Apr 04 20:55
by Cannoneer
I'll name a two off the top of my head. Andrew Jackson and U. S. Grant. Grant went pretty far toward being a tyrant during the reconstruction period and so did many in congress.
I do my part by of srpporting the 2nd Amendment by keeping and bearing arms. I hope I never have to use one on a person.
We dont leave it up to the military because that's how the founding fathers set it up and I think they got it right.
Incidentally all of the first ten amendments are rights, not privileges.

I'm adding Abe Lincolin to the mix.
He intentionally sent a fleet to Charleston harbor knowing the Confederate battery's would fire on the fort so he could raise an army to invade the South.
In many cases hiss troops acted like nazis with his blessing.
Those are certainly the acts of a tyrant.

Re: BANG !

Posted: 2018 Apr 08 09:40
by Kevsky
Wise One Stated:
Not so. A huge effect of the proliferation of guns is to cause the instances of "justifiable homicide" to skyrocket

Justifiable homicide have actually remained pretty static even with the increase in gun ownership.

Wise One Stated:
Yes, you can cherry-pick countries that depart from the strong correlation between gun ownership and suicide but that is a deliberate warping of general reality.

Wrong. It is not cherry-picking. It is picking the entire cherry tree.



On a national level, there is no correlation between the rate of suicide and gun ownership.

Wise One Stated:
Yes, you can cherry-pick countries that depart from the strong correlation between gun ownership and suicide but that is a deliberate warping of general reality. But apparently the proclivity to commit suicide has little to do with gun ownership.

Sorry, but you contradict yourself. You state I am cherry-picking countries that depart from the strong correlation between gun ownership and suicide but than state (in your next sentence) that there is no correlation between suicide and gun ownership.

The success rate for attempted suicide, however, is hugely different between suicides by gun and suicides by other means.

And has absolutely no bearing on your argument that more guns cause more deaths or more suicides. I concede that those who are strongly motivated to commit suicide often use a firearm. That does not mean that if there were no firearms, that those persons who are strongly motivated to commit suicide would not attempt to use just a means of suicide just as lethal as firearms. Japan has a fraction of the gun ownership we do but a much higher suicide rate.

The most common method among both genders in Japan was hanging, followed by jumping from a high place. In the United States, it was firearms among both genders, followed by hanging among males and drugs among females.

Wise One Stated:
For those who both owned and used guns in suicide, the outcome is strongly gun ownership dependent.

And that means absolutely nothing. One could live 90 years and have never owned a gun (in fact could have hated the sight of guns) but than that individual could decide to take his life purchase a gun and commit suicide the next day. In the statistics he will be listed as a gun owner committing a firearm related suicide. All it means is that for many who are strongly motivated to commit suicide, the firearm is the preferred choice. It does not mean having more firearms causes more suicides.

Wise One Stated:
While the age adjusted suicide rate is similar between Japan and US, you have a point in highlighting the disparity in gun ownership between the two countries. This needs further examination. (Grasping at straws here, maybe the Japanese are more disciplined and skilled in the use of non-firearms techniques than their American counterparts? Lots of Bruce Lee movies and instruction on the finer technical points of non-firearms hari-kari? Ha!)

No. You are wrong again. Your reasoning is just plain silly. Again, there is no correlation between firearms ownership between the nations of Japan and the U.S. and suicide. I don't believe you need much skill or technique to jump off a bridge or hang one's self.

Although Japan is known for having an above-average suicide rate, according to TELL Lifeline director Vickie Skorji the main cause is the same around the world: “The number one reason behind all suicides whether in Japan or any other country is a mental health problem – typically a mood disorder such as depression.”

TELL has been active in Japan since 1973, and this year partners up with one of Tokyo’s most iconic landmarks for a one-of-a-kind endurance test to mark World Suicide Prevention Day on September 10. In the run-up to the TELL Tokyo Tower Climb, we ask Skorji for more insight into why the numbers are so high in Japan, the latest statistics, and what is being done to create awareness in the country.

Why do you think the suicide rate is so high in Japan?

In Japan, mental illness is still seen as a weakness or failure on the individual’s behalf. This stigma creates the biggest barrier to people discussing their problems or accessing services leaving many exhausted and feeling that they are a burden to everyone, that there is no future or way out, making suicide a very real option. We would never say to a person with cancer or diabetes snap out of it or you are weak, but we expect the person with a mental illness to get better on their own every day.

Wise One Stated:
The graph of changes in rates is irrelevant for several reasons. First, it's misleading apples-to-oranges: firearms growth is total, whereas the homicide rate is per capita. Putting both on a per capita basis would bring the curves closer.

And all your graphs use the same format!!! Even the first graph you posted which you "fabricated" yourself is based on gun deaths per capita in comparison to gun ownership as a percent of population. Hypocrisy much???

Wise One Stated:
Second, it speaks only of homicide, a minority of gun deaths. Our problem is much bigger than homicide alone, much bigger than murder alone, much bigger than accidents alone. Third, it diverts from the real fact ... notwithstanding a decline in gun homicide rate, the correlation between numbers of guns and total gun deaths remains real and strong.

And again you are wrong. Only by lumping all gun deaths (even those with which you even admit have no correlation to firearms ownership) can you attempt to make a case. Your case is misleading and deceptive.

1. Suicides - As I have shown and you have even stated in this forum
the proclivity to commit suicide has little to do with gun ownership
Suicide, which is the largest segment of gun deaths has no correlation to the amount of guns available. People, in the U.S. do use firearms as the number one instrument for committing suicide, but that does not mean that if all guns were removed, suicides would decrease. There are many other countries with far less firearms and equal or higher percentages of suicides.

2. Homicides - There is very little correlation between total homicides (by all means) and gun ownership.


3. Accidental Deaths - Certainly there is a correlation here. But, why pick just firearms. If one is truly concerned about public health and reasons why there are accidental deaths in the U.S. there are much larger areas of concern than the minuscule accidental deaths by firearms. One has to wonder truly about those who push for gun control due to accidental firearms deaths. Are they also as adamant in their zeal with regards to automobile deaths, poisoning deaths, accidental deaths by falls, etc? if not, is the concentration on accidental deaths by firearms just a ploy to further their political agenda against firearms.


4. Justifiable Homicides - anyone who attempts to lump in justifiable homicides in total firearms deaths in any argument against firearms ownership is being deceptive and manipulative with data. Justifiable homicides with a firearm are circumstances where persons legally defend their life and the life of their loved ones. How anyone could lump this category in to total firearms deaths as a means to make an argument against firearm ownership only shows the deceit and manipulation of data by those who oppose gun ownership

Wise One Stated:
The graph on gun murders is mystifying and suspect. It is not referenced in the Wiki article that displays it, and its data source is not referenced either. Especially because the result in nonsensical, this needs to be defended with reference to the original material.

Well here is another graph with more current information and the results are the same. There is no correlation between gun ownership and homicides by state. Now defend why you believe that is nonsensical!


Wise One Stated:
Finally, the graph comparing all accident rates to firearms accident rates is fraudulently diversionary. It's like saying we shouldn't take flu vaccine because the number of influenza deaths is small compared to cancer + circulatory diseases. Moreover, it addresses only the tiny and technically arcane subset called "accidental gun deaths."

No. Again you are wrong. Accidental firearms deaths are but a minuscule percent of total accidental deaths. Those who are truly concerned about accidental deaths in the U.S. have many more important and relevant concerns than firearms. The fact that the zealots against firearms only fight against firearms as a public safety hazard only demonstrates their fanaticism not with public safety but for eliminating firearms. Funny, I never see the anti-gun zealots railing against motorcycles, jet-skis, swimming pools, stairs, household cleaning chemicals, basement houses, access to public swimming areas etc., but expend all their energy on wanting to eliminate firearms as a matter of public safety. It is clear the anti-gun zealot is not concerned about public safety but merely using the public safety aspect in their attempt to eliminate firearms.

Wise One Stated:
This dishonestly diverts attention from the real problem, TOTAL gun deaths from all causes which are directly related to the immediate availability of guns to most of the US population without sensible public safety precautions.

No. You are being disingenuous when you attempt to lump all firearms related deaths into a "Total Gun Deaths" criteria and attempt to use that total to justify your propaganda without analyzing the different components related to firearm deaths. Suicides make up roughly two-thirds of all firearms related deaths and I have shown their is no correlation between firearms ownership and suicides and you stated as much as well, yet this is included in your "Total Gun Deaths" debate. That is deceitful. Allowing justifiable homicides to be counted in "Total Gun Deaths" is also maliciously deceitful. Attempting to make your case that, situations where someone has defended their life or the life of their family or friends from harm with the use of a firearm, should be included in the circumstances to nullify gun ownership is extremely dishonest.


Posted: 2018 Apr 12 22:50
by Crux
The Leftist "Regressives" here, Coondog the fake pro-gunner included, should look at the below graph:

quinnipiac.jpg (41.4 KiB) Viewed 4011 times

They will find themselves in the yellow 33%.

Re: BANG !

Posted: 2018 Apr 13 19:51
by Coondog

That graph shows exactly what I've been trying to pound through your thick skull for years now. There IS NO sincere effort to come and take away your precious. Not going to happen. No way. No how. It would be nice if it were rewritten to clarify that "well regulated militia" part, but that ain't going to happen, either.

All of your arguments premised on taking away your 2nd amendment rights are merely so much horse hockey in a red and yellow basket. All of them. Find another cause! Like curing ignorance.

Coondog :pat:

Hell, I'll join you in that one. :beer:

dog is full of doo doo

Posted: 2018 Apr 13 20:52
by Crux
7 states and various municipalities HAVE ALREADY BANNED "assault" rifles, pistols, shotguns that are semiautomatic....
What is CLEAR to the informed is that the Democrats HAVE attempted to BAN all semiautomatic firearms. :naughty:
The Feinstein Ban, would have been signed by Obama, and would have done EXACTLY THAT. You are being obtuse.

I won this argument with MANY times. FOOL.

You have NO idea how many folks in Rockbridge County alone, DO HUNT deer with AR variant rifles....

Looney Looney Doggie

Posted: 2018 Apr 14 13:26
by Crux
What is Clear from the before posted picture of Coondog (which I share again),
Is that he is an unhinged and unbalanced Regressive, who should not own guns.

weird-guy-with-guns3.jpeg (32.56 KiB) Viewed 4003 times

Re: BANG !

Posted: 2018 Apr 18 17:42
by Coondog
crux says:
7 states and various municipalities HAVE ALREADY BANNED "assault" rifles, pistols, shotguns that are semiautomatic....

So? People in those places have decided they don't want your stupid assault pistols used to kill in their neighborhoods. You can hunt deer with assault shotguns everywhere else. I suggest Montana!

You have NO idea how many folks in Rockbridge County alone, DO HUNT deer with AR variant rifles....

Chalk that up to one more thing I have no Idea about. Don't know and don't care. Maybe the deer care.

What is Clear from the before posted picture of Coondog .....

That picture was taken before I gained a lot of weight, but I still look just as sexy!!!!!

Coondog :tiphat:

My Kind of "Sanctuary" Counties

Posted: 2018 May 09 07:42
by Crux ... ntrol.html

Effingham County, Illinois was the first of what is now 5 counties, and 20 more are set to declare themselves Safe Spaces for the 2nd...

Re: BANG !

Posted: 2018 May 09 14:56
by Wise One
Two points:
  • You don't understand what "sanctuary cities" are. It's a derogatory term applied by righties to local policies not to exceed their authority and take on federal enforcement duties in cases where doing so is questionable. Immigration, notably. Localities are breaking no law when they behave thusly.
  • The proposed action by a few redneck counties in Illinois is really dumb. But worse, it is clearly a violation of law, unlike the case above. I'm gonna chuckle as the rednecks go down.
It's like a county refusing to enforce state laws against murder, or grant state licenses under the law to same sex couples. They go down, fast and hard.


Posted: 2018 May 09 15:09
by Crux
I think you are one. A Pinkneck.

Defined, by me: "One who feigns a cultural affinity for Americana, while upholding decidedly anti-American philosophies, like Central State Planning, Open Borders, Cultural Balkanization, Globalism and the erosion of Sovereignty both national and personal, alternatively called 'Pinkoneck'..."

We will see if these California Sanctuary Cities are unconstitutional....

Re: BANG !

Posted: 2018 May 19 12:27
by Cannoneer
The recent school shooting in Texas was with legal guns that the shooter's father owned. I haven't researched it but I think that has been the case in many of the school shootings.
Along with the right to keep and bare arms a gun owner needs to be responsible for keeping his guns secure.
I think a law that would make the gun owner culpable in a case where his guns were used to murder people would be a good thing.

Re: BANG !

Posted: 2018 May 19 14:36
by Wise One
Cannoneer wrote:I think a law that would make the gun owner culpable in a case where his guns were used to murder people would be a good thing.

Yes. It's hard to find things we agree on, so when it happens I seize the moment with delight. Well done.

And to that I would add the same requirement that we put on other dangerous items, e.g. automobiles, that the owner be obliged under the law to carry liability insurance. Insurance companies add a useful additional layer of security, causing their insured and also manufacturers to adhere to safety standards that they otherwise might ignore. And victims would have an avenue to realize some compensation for injury.