|
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/20/12 2:57 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:16:29 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:01:37 -0500, ESAD wrote: BTW - Springfield Mall is almost dead. Most of the stores have closed. Macy's, Penny's, and Target are still open. Do you blame that on the Latino population north of the mall? Are the Latinos, in your opinion, all bad? You call others racist. You're sick. I've several times mentioned MS-13 was active in your immediate area. I never said or implied that all Latinos were gang members. Springfield Mall has been dying for a decade, and a big reason is MS-13 gang activity. Maybe one day while you are out on your clapped out old motorcycle, you'll encounter a few MS-13 members, who will take your bike away from you. The worst elements of DC have moved out to the beltway and beyond because real estate values inside DC have priced them out of the market. PG and Arlington County used to be "Leave it to Beaver" land. PG has become a combat zone and I understand it is not much better on the other side of the bridge. Oh yes it is! You're right about PG county though. That place is a definite mess. Don't know what the problem is. ESAD lives pretty close. Maybe he can explain why PG County is the war zone it is. Actually, **** for brains, you live a lot closer to PG County than I do. What do you think is on the other side of that fancy new bridge that crosses the Potomac from Alexandria? PG County. PG County is, what, about six miles from your house. We're not nearly that close. Besides, while PG County has some bad spots, it is a mostly rural county with some nice areas, and not nearly as congested as Fairfax County, Virginia, where you live and especially your part of that county, which has bumper to bumper traffic on its roads from 5 am to 7 pm weekdays. When we frequented your neighborhood, we saw drug deals going down at least once a week in that Safeway parking lot you can walk to in 15 minutes from your house at the same time the county mounties were looking for cars with expired county stickers in townhouse parking lots. Hell, the best thing in your 'hood, the Greek diner at the bottom of Van Dorn is gone, replaced by another bank. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/20/2012 7:09 PM, Califbill wrote:
JustWait wrote: On 12/20/2012 3:41 PM, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:34:29 -0500, JustWait wrote: So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need a 30 round clip? Since when do we base what we can buy by what we need. Nobody NEEDS a motorcycle. Some might need a motorcycle, but nobody needs a race motorcycle. Just like the former police chief n San Jose California. Since he was a cop, got to carry all the time, but stated no civilian needed a firearm. Max speed limit was 65 in the state, but he drove a top of the line Jaguar. Uh, not really an accurate analogy. We are not asking for equipment or experience to be exclusively for me... But what you folks getting so defensive about is bogus, I consider "because I want it" *is* a legitimate reason to be weighed when considering situation... I am getting the feeling that because of the question you all think I am against your right to bear... well, the ones who really don't read what I have said anyway:) No, we are pointing out the fallacious arguments of no one needs a 30 round feeder. I was talking to a 90 year old lady friend at dinner last night. She pointed out the talking heads did not even bring up mental issues until after the third "expert". Fair enough, but I never said anything near "no one needs a 30 round clip". I was talking to a friend today and he happened to bring out his Chinese SKS with a 30 round clip. It was a pretty "tactical" looking weapon, what really caught my attention was the rounds, how sharp they were. Always thought bullets were more rounded. We were talking about the advantages of a 30 clip and agreed, it's just fun... but really not "necessary" for any legal use of the weapon. He thinks you guys are goofy getting all bent out of shape because I asked the obvious question BTW. Either way, it was interesting to talk so someone who had so much experience, and wasn't all defensive... so I could actually get to the point of my questions. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/20/2012 7:46 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:41:19 -0600, Califbill wrote: iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 12/18/2012 3:45 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:02:46 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading... It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels. Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws. http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son? Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs.... Have we not had Democrat presidents and Democrat controlled congresses since Reagan? What a stupid f'ing comment, Kevin. Who held congress at the time the bill was passed? Republicans, why? The California Legislature was Democrat. The bill was a California bill. Just set the model for the rest of the states. Proof you have no remaining ties whatsoever to the Democratic Party. No self-respecting Democrat ever refers to the party as "Democrat." It's a use fostered by Rush and taken up by Republican stooges. Why did these so called self-respecting Democrat's change from calling themselves Democrats to Democratics? Your source is Wikipedia and it has its own agenda that is contrary to reality. The White House hasn't read your memo. You mean, Wiki is not fair and balanced??? Oh, the heartbreak... |
Scarborough gets it right
ESAD wrote:
On 12/20/12 4:23 PM, jps wrote: On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:41:19 -0600, Califbill wrote: iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 12/18/2012 3:45 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:02:46 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading... It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels. Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws. http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son? Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs.... Have we not had Democrat presidents and Democrat controlled congresses since Reagan? What a stupid f'ing comment, Kevin. Who held congress at the time the bill was passed? Republicans, why? The California Legislature was Democrat. The bill was a California bill. Just set the model for the rest of the states. Proof you have no remaining ties whatsoever to the Democratic Party. No self-respecting Democrat ever refers to the party as "Democrat." It's a use fostered by Rush and taken up by Republican stooges. Indeed. It is the Democratic Party, and and individual acolyte is a Democrat and more than one are Democrats. Thus, the California legislature was Democratic, made up mostly of Democrats. And it still is, and still overspending like crazy! |
Scarborough gets it right
JustWait wrote:
On 12/20/2012 7:09 PM, Califbill wrote: JustWait wrote: On 12/20/2012 3:41 PM, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:34:29 -0500, JustWait wrote: So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need a 30 round clip? Since when do we base what we can buy by what we need. Nobody NEEDS a motorcycle. Some might need a motorcycle, but nobody needs a race motorcycle. Just like the former police chief n San Jose California. Since he was a cop, got to carry all the time, but stated no civilian needed a firearm. Max speed limit was 65 in the state, but he drove a top of the line Jaguar. Uh, not really an accurate analogy. We are not asking for equipment or experience to be exclusively for me... But what you folks getting so defensive about is bogus, I consider "because I want it" *is* a legitimate reason to be weighed when considering situation... I am getting the feeling that because of the question you all think I am against your right to bear... well, the ones who really don't read what I have said anyway:) No, we are pointing out the fallacious arguments of no one needs a 30 round feeder. I was talking to a 90 year old lady friend at dinner last night. She pointed out the talking heads did not even bring up mental issues until after the third "expert". Fair enough, but I never said anything near "no one needs a 30 round clip". I was talking to a friend today and he happened to bring out his Chinese SKS with a 30 round clip. It was a pretty "tactical" looking weapon, what really caught my attention was the rounds, how sharp they were. Always thought bullets were more rounded. We were talking about the advantages of a 30 clip and agreed, it's just fun... but really not "necessary" for any legal use of the weapon. He thinks you guys are goofy getting all bent out of shape because I asked the obvious question BTW. Either way, it was interesting to talk so someone who had so much experience, and wasn't all defensive... so I could actually get to the point of my questions. We are, or at least some of us are, trying to get you to think. You go off on a 30 round magazine or greater than 10. Will not stop a massacre. Someone with a 6 shot, sawed off shotgun would probably kill or wound most in a classroom. The problem is most of these mass killers were known to be mentally unbalanced. But nothing was done, or could be really done to or for them. The laws over the years basically say you can decline to be treated and walk out the door, go to Home Depot, buy a couple hundred pounds of fertilizer and make a bomb that kills a lot at the hospital. Then you get an insane defense and treatment. After the fact help. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/20/2012 11:54 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:25:08 -0800, thumper wrote: On 12/19/2012 12:49 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:33:35 -0800, thumper wrote: On 12/18/2012 12:21 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: Fine - do away with 'military style...combat assault rifles with high capacity (not defined) magazines'. How the hell would that stop someone who wanted to kill twenty kids? It might make him a little slower, but not much! Yeah, lets make it as easy as possible. That was kind of a stupid reply. C-4 would make it *very* easy. In fact, I'm wondering why some jihadist hasn't strapped a bomb to her chest and walked into a school cafeteria during lunchtime. Yeah, it wasn't the time for sarcasm. You got my point though. If the goal is to make the killing of 20 kids take 10 seconds longer, then it's a stupid goal! Do you get the point? Look who's being stupid... the goal is to make the potential killing of 20 kids result in less than 20 dead kids. The fewer the better. I don't buy your assertions. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/21/2012 12:26 AM, Califbill wrote:
JustWait wrote: On 12/20/2012 7:09 PM, Califbill wrote: JustWait wrote: On 12/20/2012 3:41 PM, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:34:29 -0500, JustWait wrote: So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need a 30 round clip? Since when do we base what we can buy by what we need. Nobody NEEDS a motorcycle. Some might need a motorcycle, but nobody needs a race motorcycle. Just like the former police chief n San Jose California. Since he was a cop, got to carry all the time, but stated no civilian needed a firearm. Max speed limit was 65 in the state, but he drove a top of the line Jaguar. Uh, not really an accurate analogy. We are not asking for equipment or experience to be exclusively for me... But what you folks getting so defensive about is bogus, I consider "because I want it" *is* a legitimate reason to be weighed when considering situation... I am getting the feeling that because of the question you all think I am against your right to bear... well, the ones who really don't read what I have said anyway:) No, we are pointing out the fallacious arguments of no one needs a 30 round feeder. I was talking to a 90 year old lady friend at dinner last night. She pointed out the talking heads did not even bring up mental issues until after the third "expert". Fair enough, but I never said anything near "no one needs a 30 round clip". I was talking to a friend today and he happened to bring out his Chinese SKS with a 30 round clip. It was a pretty "tactical" looking weapon, what really caught my attention was the rounds, how sharp they were. Always thought bullets were more rounded. We were talking about the advantages of a 30 clip and agreed, it's just fun... but really not "necessary" for any legal use of the weapon. He thinks you guys are goofy getting all bent out of shape because I asked the obvious question BTW. Either way, it was interesting to talk so someone who had so much experience, and wasn't all defensive... so I could actually get to the point of my questions. We are, or at least some of us are, trying to get you to think. I just don't get what you are trying to get me to think about. All I asked was why? Never suggested any kind of control, or prohibition. If you wanted me to "think", I think you would have given me an answer to think about instead of acting like caught little kids... You go off on a 30 round magazine or greater than 10. Will not stop a massacre. And I never said that, I just asked "what if?".... Just trying to get you guys to "think"... LOL! Someone with a 6 shot, sawed off shotgun would probably kill or wound most in a classroom. The problem is most of these mass killers were known to be mentally unbalanced. But nothing was done, or could be really done to or for them. The laws over the years basically say you can decline to be treated and walk out the door, go to Home Depot, buy a couple hundred pounds of fertilizer and make a bomb that kills a lot at the hospital. Then you get an insane defense and treatment. After the fact help. I get it, I get it... I am the one who suggested in another group that Tim McVeigh probably spent less on diesel and fertilizer than this guys mom spent on the four weapons he brought to the school. I just like to ask questions, sometimes non answers tell me more than answers do... and here I have really learned a lot about gun owners, if not about guns. |
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/21/2012 12:40 AM, thumper wrote:
On 12/20/2012 11:54 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:25:08 -0800, thumper wrote: On 12/19/2012 12:49 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:33:35 -0800, thumper wrote: On 12/18/2012 12:21 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: Fine - do away with 'military style...combat assault rifles with high capacity (not defined) magazines'. How the hell would that stop someone who wanted to kill twenty kids? It might make him a little slower, but not much! Yeah, lets make it as easy as possible. That was kind of a stupid reply. C-4 would make it *very* easy. In fact, I'm wondering why some jihadist hasn't strapped a bomb to her chest and walked into a school cafeteria during lunchtime. Yeah, it wasn't the time for sarcasm. You got my point though. If the goal is to make the killing of 20 kids take 10 seconds longer, then it's a stupid goal! Do you get the point? Look who's being stupid... the goal is to make the potential killing of 20 kids result in less than 20 dead kids. The fewer the better. I don't buy your assertions. I don't either... I was talking to a friend tonight and he was showing me his SKS... I asked him what ten seconds meant in the context of a mass shooter, and he actually took the time to "do the math" and agreed with me... "I'll take it"... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com