Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: dtcracer
Page: <<prev 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 40 next>>
Jul 31, 2012 08:59:43   #
liebgard wrote:
micro wrote:
pigpen wrote:
Frank T wrote:
Unfortunately, we don't know what Mitt will do because he's so inconsistent. He's the pro-gun candidate today even though he passed and signed an Assault Weapons Ban in Massachusetts. He's against Obama Care but passed the same bill when it was Romney Care. He's pro-life now but he was pro-choice not to long ago.
I don't think Bain is the issue, I think lack of a spine is his biggest handicap.


Oh please. What about BamBam's stand on gay marriage? He just suddenly had a change of heart 4 months before the election.
quote=Frank T Unfortunately, we don't know what M... (show quote)


To start with it is "Mr President" to you.
Second, If you bothered to listen, his position has been evolvong for years. You probable missed that on Faux News.
quote=pigpen quote=Frank T Unfortunately, we don... (show quote)


He SAID it's been evolving, which can be said easily enough once you decide to change for political reasons.
quote=micro quote=pigpen quote=Frank T Unfortun... (show quote)


Bam Bam is on record in 2004 and 2007-8 opposing gay marriage. Though he supports civil unions, which he stated at the time is not equal to marriage, he stated it was his Christian belief that marriage should be sdanctified between a man and a woman. He also stated it should not be a Federal issue and should be left to each state whether oir not to allow gay marriage. Hew stated at the time that the lesbian/gay issue was just a political distraction to get the voters minds off of the real issue, economics. Now, that he is up for re-election, and economics are a real issue due to the fact his political policy has driven us farther into a recession, he pulls out the gay card. Sound like a hypocrite to me. His view "has been evoloving", depending on which view he thinks will get him the vote. And, Bambam is supporting the UN Small Arms Treaty, which as a world treaty does not require Congress signing off on. It is another way he abuses his power as president to do what he wants to, without the approval of the people. I am sorry, but Bambam does not represent the people, nor does he represent what is best for the people.
Go to
Jul 30, 2012 12:01:36   #
jolly1 wrote:
dtcracer wrote:
Reddog wrote:
Hard to confront an assault rifle with a handgun!


That is poor logic. A handgun can kill just as quickly and accurately as a semi-automatic rifle.



You are absolutely correct. And a woman can handle a handgun much easier and quicker than any kind of rifle in an emergency. I prefer a revolver. In all my years I have never heard of, or read, where someone complained about being shot with a pistol instead of a rifle.

By the way, in the event of an attempted car jacking I would suggest that a handgun would be much handier than a rifle in warding off an attacker.
quote=dtcracer quote=Reddog Hard to confront an ... (show quote)


Agreed. Handguns are more manueverable and are better in close quarters combat situations. As far as women handling a handgun better.... I taught my wife to shoot my Glock .40, she quickly learned where to shoot. No matter where she aimed on the silouhette target, she would hit in the "crotch" area. It was enough to scare me when she had the gun in her hand!!!
Go to
Jul 30, 2012 11:33:25   #
eskiles wrote:
The Police can't protect you from violence. They can only research after the fact unless they happen to be with you at the time of the attack. You are ultimately responsible for your own safety! Do you want to be a victim? We are surrounded by crooks and thugs and sick people, until it is more profitable to be honerable and hard working the crooks and sickos will try to get what they want by force.

Bill Emmett wrote:
Good set of facts, but you left out one very important one. During the American Revolution, every man who took up arms against the English King, was mostly a hunter. There were some Colonial Troops, but the militia did the hard and dirty fighting, with squirrel rifles. During the battles, not one man realized he was fighting against the most organized professional army in the world. In the U.S. today we consider the Reserve Forces, and National Guard the militia. But, should a enemy of the U.S. attempt to land on our shores, beware, those millions of hunters, with deer rifles, squirrel guns, and pistols will meet them at the shore. Do all you folks realize the U.S. is now invaded by our own lawless citizens. Crime is out of control in every community. Every Law Enforement Orginization is cutting back on budgets for policemen, cars, guns, and even the jails. You cannot count on the police to be there for you when something happens. Just for example, what would YOU do if someone kicked down your door, demanded YOU, your wife and children lie on the floor, and demand money, jewels, anything, with a gun on you and threaten you with death. This has happened here, in my city, New Orleans. It's time to gather your balls, put on your big boy or big girl pants, buy, and learn to use a gun from a qualified instructor, shoot it often, apply and aquire a Concealed Carry Permit for the State you live in, take the courses, and learn what its all about. Pay attention to the instructor, it is not a joke. When you walk out of the CC permit class you will understand the when, and where you can draw your weapon, you will have to qualify with your weapon. Youi will learn about the "Castle Law" and when it applys to you, and your family. Cost, about $300 for a good self protection hand gun, and about $125 for your classes, cheap insurance. Only you can be responsable for your own safety.
Good set of facts, but you left out one very impor... (show quote)
The Police can't protect you from violence. They c... (show quote)


Law Enforcement is reactive, not proctive. It is impossible for the police to prevent violent crime. The police can be a deterrent for crime with a visible, physical presence, but a policeman cannot possibly be everywhere at once, and protect every citizen at all times. If that were possible and practiced, the same anti-gun activists would be screaming that their rights were being violated by "the man". After all, the anti-gun activist are the same anti-police activist that pitch a fit when the police respond to crime and have to use deadly force. They are the same ones (ACLU) who produce videos on how not to co-operate with the police when stopped. They are the ones who want the law to work for everyone, except them. When I was a patrolman I would stop people for speeding, and they would ask "Don't you have real crime to fight?" Then these same people would be the ones filing complaints because teenagers were speeding through their neighborhoods.
Go to
Jul 30, 2012 11:13:13   #
Reddog wrote:
Hard to confront an assault rifle with a handgun!


That is poor logic. A handgun can kill just as quickly and accurately than a semi-automatic rifle.
Go to
Jul 30, 2012 11:02:16   #
frenchcoast wrote:
gsrunyan wrote:
I live in Aurora, CO. Cinema16 is my local theater. My wife and I watched Spiderman in theater 9 (where the gunman struck on Thursday night) just 4 days before.

I think those who want private citizens to have automatic weapons whould someday face up to their neighbors being shot and maimed by one of these devices designed for MILITARY use (remember when the NRA defended the use of automatic weapons against deer because it was inhuman to only wound with a single shot!!??)

Shame on you insensitive louts who defend the right to own automatic weapons.

Glenn Runyan
Aurora, CO
I live in Aurora, CO. Cinema16 is my local theater... (show quote)


Thats pretty good Glenn considering the shooting Occurred on the opening night Sunday.
quote=gsrunyan I live in Aurora, CO. Cinema16 is ... (show quote)


You are ill-informed, the shooting occurred on Thursday night.
Go to
Jul 30, 2012 10:50:11   #
jekbeck60 wrote:
I don't know too much about the subject, but will just say, guns are pretty much illegal in the UK, the people that have them mostly - are the criminals!!!!!!!!!!! and if by chance a 'reasonable citizen' has a gun, and uses it to protect themselves, they can be (probably will be, as far as I can remember) prosecuted?


I have also heard ( I could be wrong) that the specialized police units that are now allowed to be armed, if they get into a shooting incident, the officer will be prosecuted in court, and it is up the court to decide if it was justified or not.
Go to
Jul 30, 2012 10:45:07   #
sueyeisert wrote:
there is no punishment. Not having a machine june or assault rifle is a punishment??? By the way New York city is one of the safest cities in the country.


How can you claim that NYC is one of the safest cities in the country? There were 866 people murdered in NYC in 2010. That is more than 2 murders per day. Do you know how many murders in my home town on 2010? None. There were 75,977 violent crimes committed in NYC in 2010. Less than 100 in my home town. If that is what you call a safe city, I would hate to see one that was not safe in your opinion!
Go to
Jul 30, 2012 10:27:17   #
ole sarg wrote:
Anyone who has or is married knows that one wife is more than enough. I am sure, my wife feels the same about husbands!


Amen! Finally, something we can agree on!
Go to
Jul 30, 2012 10:25:29   #
Frank T wrote:
Why do you folks think that Romney is representing his constituency? To me it seems like he's representing his lobbyists or at best, the small far right part of the Republican Party. I'm so looking forward to the Presidential debate. I can't wait to hear how he's going to answer some of the tough questions.


If he were only representing the far right as you allege, then he would never have been pro-abortion or have passed laws banning assault weapons.
Go to
Jul 30, 2012 10:20:43   #
frenchcoast wrote:
berchman wrote:
Cotton11 wrote:
Mike629 wrote:
NRA brainwashing is obviously working. The have effectively created gun zombies and the only way to kill a zombie is with a head shot. God Bless the NRA for saving me from my myopic POV. Kill the Zombies ( Dems) and let`s live !!! WHAT??? Wyatt Earp never took any lead, he must be a God. Yep, stupid and so is owning an assault weapon. This argument will go on `til the last shot is fired.


Why is owning an "assault weapon" stupid?

Randall


In the summer of 1964 when the Harlem riots threatened to spill over to my block on the edge of Harlem, I went to a sporting goods store and bought my first firearm, a 12 gauge, pump action, riot shotgun and loaded it with 00 buckshot. Having steeped myself in Holocaust memoirs, I was determined to fight to the death anyone breaking into my apartment.

The riot did not spill over and years later, after moving to rural Pennsylvania, I took a number of self-defense courses in which I learned that an AR15 semi-automatic rifle (misleadingly called an "assault rifle" by anti-gun propogandists) was a far better home defense weapon than a shotgun. Why? Lighter in weight, almost no recoil, easier to aim, larger capacity of ammo. So, to answer the question of why anyone would need a (misnamed) "assault rifle," the answer is to defend oneself against a home invasion.
quote=Cotton11 quote=Mike629 NRA brainwashing is... (show quote)


One thing to keep in mind when spraying that intruder with that assault rifle AR-15, those shells keep on going, why kill the old couple next door or the child playing in their front yard down the street. Beleave me that rifle shell goes a hell of a lot further than those shotgun pellets.
quote=berchman quote=Cotton11 quote=Mike629 NRA... (show quote)


This statement shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. An AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon, one trigger pull, one bullet. It is not capable of "spraying" bullets as you mentioned. And as for a rifle "shell" going a lot farther than a shotgun pellet, the shell goes straight from the gun to the ground, the bullet goes a lot farther than a shotgun pellet, and has a lot more stopping power ensuring me a better chance of survival against the punk kicking in my door with a semi-automatic rifle hell bent on committing a home invasion.
Go to
Jul 30, 2012 10:15:14   #
sandollor wrote:
Blake wrote:
sandollor wrote:
Mike629 wrote:
I enjoy the "cheeky" remarks and hackneyed "logic". Tell it to the mother who lost her 6 year young daughter, the father searching for his son on his birthday, to find out he was among the dead, on & on. These are not soldiers dying in a combat zone, they`re civilians dying in your home towns , killled by those who are armed better than most frontline troops. I know the slogan " guns don`t kill, people kill" . If you don`t ban the former than perhaps you should ban the latter. ;-)
I enjoy the "cheeky" remarks and hackney... (show quote)


To address the logic Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

People buy fishooks to catch fish. If fishooks did not catch fish, people would not buy them to catch fish. People buy guns to kill people, if guns did not kill people, people would not buy them to kill people.
quote=Mike629 I enjoy the "cheeky" rema... (show quote)


That may be true but there is a flaw to your logic. If I can't use a hook I will use an arrow. If a man wants to kill another he will
quote=sandollor quote=Mike629 I enjoy the "... (show quote)


No flaw in logic. Guns kill people people. If guns did not kill people, people would not use guns to kill people.

Your logic explains people will kill people, thats true. people will kill people with any means available. People use guns to kill people because guns kill people.
quote=Blake quote=sandollor quote=Mike629 I enj... (show quote)


A gun is an inanimate object, and as such is incapable of killing anything. That is paramount to saying my coffee cup kills people. A gun is a TOOL that people use to kill people. However, if that person was determined to kill another person, and no gun was available they would find another means to do so. Knives, axes, crowbars, automobiles, firewood, carpentry tools all can be used to kill people (to name a few). Would you propose a ban on these items?
Go to
Jul 30, 2012 10:10:11   #
Hunter Lou 1947 wrote:
I'm a deer hunter and occasional bird hunter. I have done so since I was 14. I have yet needed more than three shots to take a deer in one shooting. I hunt water fowl and they have a gun plug of a three shot limit on a shot gun. I don't use an assult rifle to hunt deer. I have friends who have hand guns to take wildlife as per DNR rules. If you need a gun to shot more than five rounds for any type of hunting then I think you should not be out in the woods amongst us hunters because you are a danger to our safety. You certainly are not looking out for the other hunter. I believe any assult rifle and clips of more than 5 rounds should be banned on the streets and for hunting. I also believe the protective gear he had should be banned. The use of armor piercing bullets also should be banned. These items are out there only for the purpose to kill innocent people. Where are the rights of people who want restrictions imposed on these items? Come on NRA get your head out of your behind you are going to lose this fight and it will not be with an assult rifle.
I'm a deer hunter and occasional bird hunter. I h... (show quote)


This is a prime example of how criminals will get what they want, whether legal or illegal. Body armor is NOT legal for citizens to own or purchase, as there is no legitimate use for it outside of law enforcement.
Go to
Jul 30, 2012 10:06:48   #
Blake wrote:
sandollor wrote:
Mike629 wrote:
I enjoy the "cheeky" remarks and hackneyed "logic". Tell it to the mother who lost her 6 year young daughter, the father searching for his son on his birthday, to find out he was among the dead, on & on. These are not soldiers dying in a combat zone, they`re civilians dying in your home towns , killled by those who are armed better than most frontline troops. I know the slogan " guns don`t kill, people kill" . If you don`t ban the former than perhaps you should ban the latter. ;-)
I enjoy the "cheeky" remarks and hackney... (show quote)


To address the logic Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

People buy fishooks to catch fish. If fishooks did not catch fish, people would not buy them to catch fish. People buy guns to kill people, if guns did not kill people, people would not buy them to kill people.
quote=Mike629 I enjoy the "cheeky" rema... (show quote)


Your logic is flawed, if fishing hook are made illegal I will use an arrow or a knife. If a man wants to kill another man he will the weapon or tool matters not. I have seen what a pool cue can do to a human being. I rather be shot!!!
quote=sandollor quote=Mike629 I enjoy the "... (show quote)


I was a cop for many years until a job related "incident" left me unable to do the job. I have seen many different "every day" items turned into weapons, and they are usually very messy when they do. One will never forget what a person looks like after being struck in the head with a hammer 20 times. If a person wants to kill another person they will find a way. Outlawing guns will not stop this. All that will do is leave victims defenseless against the criminals who will continue to have guns.
Go to
Jul 30, 2012 09:34:30   #
Do you know how tell when Obama is lying? His lips are moving...
Go to
Jul 30, 2012 09:21:49   #
Danilo wrote:
Frank T wrote:
Unfortunately, we don't know what Mitt will do because he's so inconsistent. He's the pro-gun candidate today even though he passed and signed an Assault Weapons Ban in Massachusetts. He's against Obama Care but passed the same bill when it was Romney Care. He's pro-life now but he was pro-choice not to long ago.
I don't think Bain is the issue, I think lack of a spine is his biggest handicap.


A candidate who responds in an identical fashion to all circumstances would be a candidate to avoid. I'm pleased to see that when Romney was governor of an extremely liberal state, he responded by backing more liberal legislation. I'm represented by a Senator (H. Reid) who is proud to proclaim he "votes his concience". I don't care two whits about his concience! He should be voting the wishes of his constituency, and, in doing so, would have a certain inconsistency.
What's the problem with that, Frank?
quote=Frank T Unfortunately, we don't know what M... (show quote)


I have to agree. After all, politicians are supposed to represent the people in their district, not themselves. And I do believe that Obama has the same issue, he has changed his stance 3 times on gay marriage since running for President four years ago.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 40 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.