Jump to content
Null

3rdgen

Verified Member
  • Posts

    4,812
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About 3rdgen

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

3rdgen's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges

2

Reputation

  1. Yes he doesn't seem to understand as the head coach politics is a portion of the job. Glad handing boosters, families, high school coaches, alumni, former players, and general fans is vital for success. That is how you get saban dancing and harbaugh sleeping on a recruit's floor. The game has to be played unfortunately. Especially when your initial product is lacking and you didn't come in with a groundswell of support. Otherwise resources, players, and support evaporate quickly with lack of performance. Thus leaving you open for a long knives event to occur.
  2. I think we still win. The war would have a different course. Many fewer set piece battles like Monmouth and Saratoga more like the Cowpens/King's Mountain. The British would have probably held the coastal ports. But it would have been difficult to hold the interior without massive troop numbers and the scorched earth policy they used in Scotland to break the Jacobites. In the end the value they could derive from the colonies would have been less than the cost of holding it.
  3. Yes, this is very similar to what the Germans did prior to WWII. Reoccupying territory they once held with German minorities. If they were to gobble up large portions of eastern Europe, the Caucasus mountains, the Baltic states, or central Asia it becomes even bigger. Putin sees the weakness and he will push to grab as much as he can while our weakness continues.
  4. Put naval assets in the Black Sea and move more to the Aegean/Med. Freeze all the personal bank accounts of high ranking Russians in the US. Push for Georiga to enter NATO. Push for more LNG export capacity so that we could supply the Europeans in case the Russians cut off the pipelines. Expel their ambassador from the US and recall ours from Moscow.
  5. Hate to hear that about Pops thoughts and prayers go out to him and his family
  6. Take all the time you need Bigbens42. It will be Friday night or Saturday afternoon before I'll be around a computer again to respond.
  7. I think it would be great if we could all make up my own definitions for stuff too. But, the people who do that for a living have spoken on what a tool is take your disagreement up with them. Just because you view your brother as a moron doesn't mean that he is any less worthy of exercising his God given rights. The right to keep and bear arms is very different than the privilege of driving a car. If it wasn't I doubt many of us could pass the test that would be enacted to be able to exercise our freedoms of speech, press, or assembly. Too many people think all tools are toys. Everyday people die from people's recklessness with nail guns, chainsaws, plastic bags, wood chippers, candlesticks, and ropes among a myriad of other tools. The Lord gave us the gift of liberty and freedom see 2 Corinthians 3:17, Galatians 5:1, Galatians 2:4, 1 Corinthians 10:29, James 1:25 and 2 Peter 2:19 among others. Our founders went to war to ensure these liberties. As they said in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”The Bill of Rights records some of these liberties on paper because they knew all too well how governments too often disregard them. It didn't create them. Well I think Sam Colt, Annie Oakley, Herb Parsons, Tom Knapp, or any of the other millions of people who have used guns to feed their families would disagree with you. Without guns we probably don't ever start the revolution. The shots fired at Lexington and Concord occurred because the British came to seize and destroy firearms/ammunition. It was that attempt to seize weapons/ammunition that sparked the shot heard round the world. Guns in the hands of people were tools that kept use independent and expanded our country and our prosperity. The gun was the tool used by Americans to preserve liberty throughout the centuries. That is what made us great. If not for that we would be a more populous Canada. Actually, the Brits were at a fairly large technology disadvantage compared to the American forces as far firearms were concerned. The Brits used mostly smooth bore brown Bess muskets. It favored their linear tactics which required disciplined troops. The Americans were inferior at linear tactics but superior in the unsporting by that day's style of warfare. We hid and fired from cover with rifles using sniping tactics to disrupt British disciplined command and control by killing their officers. The Americans used long rifles in much larger numbers than the 100 Ferguson rifles made by the British. The rifles in the hands Morgan's Riflemen were pivotal in both the Battle of Saratoga and the Battle of Cowpens two of the largest American victories of the entire war. The gun produces nothing but what the person wielding it causes it to produce just like a hammer. Whether that be food or security in the case of the gun both are possible. While a house or a fatality both can come from a hammer. Once again it is the person using the tool not the tool responsible for the acts.
  8. While I am still self debating some issues with the "assualt" type rifles, I think we need to make sure understand the intended purposes of the 2nd amendment. It is not for hunting or sport shooting etc, it was/is to protect ourselves from the government. In the day, the musket was an "assault" weapon; an instrument of war. I believe our founders certainly understood the fear a government would/could have of an armed citizenary. That 1776 assault rifle was a Kentucky or Pennsylvania black powder long rifle. It was used at long range to make widows out of the wives of British officers.during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Ah, come on guys. We live in a country where flame throwers are perfectly legal--I think we all need to get real. If we're going the 2nd Amendment route then I do kind of insist that everyone reads it in its entirety (it's only one sentence...). The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow Americans to keep and bear arms in order to form a "well-regulated militia." This was written at a time when militias were necessary, but we've since created the National Guard for these purposes (I'm just counting down the minutes until someone responds to this with a misunderstood Thomas Jefferson quote...). Aside from constitutional arguments, I also just fail to see any American's need for an assault rifle. I think all firearms are created as tools intended to kill--and I accept that. But assault rifles facilitate murder with such great efficiency that I do beleive--even for law-abiding gun-lovers--that their legality needs to be reexamined. Most assault rifles that I know of are illegal to hunt with (not to mention there's no sport in that) and their capacity is vastly beyond that which is required for personal security. I do understand though that some people simply enjoy firing these weapons in a completely responsible manner. For those people, I think we should have provisions allowing them to continue this hobby but with certain regulations and restrictions. For example, I'd be fine with customers being able to rent fully-automatic weapons for recreational purposes at firing ranges--in my mind this could satisfy gun enthusiasts by allowing them to legally enjoy assault weapons in a controlled environment and to a greater degree than they currently can while also providing better general protection to the public from mass shootings. WDE Why do we need to ban things simply because some people don't think other people need them? I'm open to changing my mind, but I need to see where these things are being used to committ malice on a grand scale. I've never heard of any crime committed with a flame thrower. The only crime I can remember involving assault rifles was a bank robbery in CA; the North Hollywood Shootout (AK-47s). ^That's what I'm getting at, we all need to just be realistic about firearms. And I mentioned flame throwers just to show the extremes of our gun laws--but you're right, I don't think it's likely we're going to see a rash of mass murders committed with flame throwers anytime soon. As far as crimes involving assault rifles, they are far more common than that. Just for a few quick examples, the Newtown shooting was done with an AR-15 http://www.nytimes.c...ll&_r=0 The Columbine shootings involved a TEC-9 assault pistol, hi-point 9mm carbine, and shotguns http://www.vpc.org/s.../wgun990420.htm William Spengler killed multiple firemen on Christmas Eve with an AR-15: http://www.cnn.com/2...oter/index.html The Aurora theater shooting also involved an AR-15: http://www.washingto...eater-shooting/ Ok if we are going to be realistic people kill people not guns, flame throwers, or in the cases below hammers. After all we don't need hammers in 2013. We have drills and good old fashioned rocks for our construction needs. But by all means ban assault hammers if it makes you feel safer. http://stlouis.cbslo...f-pevely-woman/ http://www.sltrib.co...ington.html.csp http://www.wltx.com/...her-with-Hammer http://www.lawdailyr...;ArticleID=1424 http://www.suntimes....her-in-law.html http://www.myfoxtamp...tack-in-seffner False equivalence. Hammers are tools. They were designed to drive nails and hit things. The fact that you can hit people with them is irrelevant. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a tool as a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task. Sounds like a gun to me. Guns were designed to fire projectiles. The fact you can shoot people, animals, paper targets, or old cars with them is irrelevant. It is the person behind the tool that determines what task the tool is used to accomplish. Whether that tool is a gun or a hammer. Guns are not tools. They are weapons. Yes, they accomplish a task. They're designed to maim, kill, hurt, threaten, destroy, damage, hit, etc., etc, ad nauseum. I own guns. They are not tools like a hammer. They are deadly weapons to be treated with the utmost respect, and used with the greatest care and only in the rare (emphasis) but necessary extraordinary situation, hunting, or days at the range. You do not discuss them flippantly. Impressionable people might be listening. An insane person with a knife is one thing. A ignorant (dare I say Stupid?) person with a gun presents the same level of danger. An insane person with a gun is a horrible, but all too common occurrence. One who calls guns tools does not properly respect what he holds and should not be holding it. Tools accomplish constructive things (eg cut that rope, carve that lumber, assemble that gun). A gun pointed at anything is only necessary if you want to destroy it, or kill it. Either way if you're aiming a gun at it, you don't really care if it's intact after a round or two. Don't parrot NRA talking points and expect to come up with your own definitions for words like tool. They aren't open for interpretation. Not sure at all about the NRA reference. I'm not a member of the organization. Again guns are designed to fire projectiles. After all if wasn't for the bullet. Then nobody would fear the gun. Guns in the hands of Americans built this country. They are used by police to maintain its laws. They are used by civilians to equalize the physically weak to the strong. They are used to feed people's families. If I were you I would take my own advice and wouldn't discuss flippantly the destruction of a God given right enshrined in the Bill of Rights by our founders. Impressionable people might be listening. After all an ignorant (dare I say Stupid?) mob whipped up by an agenda driven media and opportunistic politicians presents a level of danger greater than any type of firearm. If you have a problem with the definition then take it up with the Webster people not me. I'm glad you own guns. You probably own a hammer, car, baseball bat, frying pan, or a pocket knife. All of those are tools just like a gun. But all are capable of being used to injure our destroy objects and people. They are all inanimate objects. The responsibility for their use or missuse is squarely on the shoulders of those who wield them. The tools themselves are incapable making that decision.
  9. Thanks for the years Clint. I wish you a happy and successful life after football.
  10. While I am still self debating some issues with the "assualt" type rifles, I think we need to make sure understand the intended purposes of the 2nd amendment. It is not for hunting or sport shooting etc, it was/is to protect ourselves from the government. In the day, the musket was an "assault" weapon; an instrument of war. I believe our founders certainly understood the fear a government would/could have of an armed citizenary. That 1776 assault rifle was a Kentucky or Pennsylvania black powder long rifle. It was used at long range to make widows out of the wives of British officers.during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Ah, come on guys. We live in a country where flame throwers are perfectly legal--I think we all need to get real. If we're going the 2nd Amendment route then I do kind of insist that everyone reads it in its entirety (it's only one sentence...). The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow Americans to keep and bear arms in order to form a "well-regulated militia." This was written at a time when militias were necessary, but we've since created the National Guard for these purposes (I'm just counting down the minutes until someone responds to this with a misunderstood Thomas Jefferson quote...). Aside from constitutional arguments, I also just fail to see any American's need for an assault rifle. I think all firearms are created as tools intended to kill--and I accept that. But assault rifles facilitate murder with such great efficiency that I do beleive--even for law-abiding gun-lovers--that their legality needs to be reexamined. Most assault rifles that I know of are illegal to hunt with (not to mention there's no sport in that) and their capacity is vastly beyond that which is required for personal security. I do understand though that some people simply enjoy firing these weapons in a completely responsible manner. For those people, I think we should have provisions allowing them to continue this hobby but with certain regulations and restrictions. For example, I'd be fine with customers being able to rent fully-automatic weapons for recreational purposes at firing ranges--in my mind this could satisfy gun enthusiasts by allowing them to legally enjoy assault weapons in a controlled environment and to a greater degree than they currently can while also providing better general protection to the public from mass shootings. WDE Why do we need to ban things simply because some people don't think other people need them? I'm open to changing my mind, but I need to see where these things are being used to committ malice on a grand scale. I've never heard of any crime committed with a flame thrower. The only crime I can remember involving assault rifles was a bank robbery in CA; the North Hollywood Shootout (AK-47s). ^That's what I'm getting at, we all need to just be realistic about firearms. And I mentioned flame throwers just to show the extremes of our gun laws--but you're right, I don't think it's likely we're going to see a rash of mass murders committed with flame throwers anytime soon. As far as crimes involving assault rifles, they are far more common than that. Just for a few quick examples, the Newtown shooting was done with an AR-15 http://www.nytimes.c...ed=all&_r=0 The Columbine shootings involved a TEC-9 assault pistol, hi-point 9mm carbine, and shotguns http://www.vpc.org/s.../wgun990420.htm William Spengler killed multiple firemen on Christmas Eve with an AR-15: http://www.cnn.com/2...oter/index.html The Aurora theater shooting also involved an AR-15: http://www.washingto...eater-shooting/ Ok if we are going to be realistic people kill people not guns, flame throwers, or in the cases below hammers. After all we don't need hammers in 2013. We have drills and good old fashioned rocks for our construction needs. But by all means ban assault hammers if it makes you feel safer. http://stlouis.cbslo...f-pevely-woman/ http://www.sltrib.co...ington.html.csp http://www.wltx.com/...her-with-Hammer http://www.lawdailyr...;ArticleID=1424 http://www.suntimes....her-in-law.html http://www.myfoxtamp...tack-in-seffner False equivalence. Hammers are tools. They were designed to drive nails and hit things. The fact that you can hit people with them is irrelevant. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a tool as a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task. Sounds like a gun to me. Guns were designed to fire projectiles. The fact you can shoot people, animals, paper targets, or old cars with them is irrelevant. It is the person behind the tool that determines what task the tool is used to accomplish. Whether that tool is a gun or a hammer.
  11. While I am still self debating some issues with the "assualt" type rifles, I think we need to make sure understand the intended purposes of the 2nd amendment. It is not for hunting or sport shooting etc, it was/is to protect ourselves from the government. In the day, the musket was an "assault" weapon; an instrument of war. I believe our founders certainly understood the fear a government would/could have of an armed citizenary. That 1776 assault rifle was a Kentucky or Pennsylvania black powder long rifle. It was used at long range to make widows out of the wives of British officers.during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Ah, come on guys. We live in a country where flame throwers are perfectly legal--I think we all need to get real. If we're going the 2nd Amendment route then I do kind of insist that everyone reads it in its entirety (it's only one sentence...). The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow Americans to keep and bear arms in order to form a "well-regulated militia." This was written at a time when militias were necessary, but we've since created the National Guard for these purposes (I'm just counting down the minutes until someone responds to this with a misunderstood Thomas Jefferson quote...). Aside from constitutional arguments, I also just fail to see any American's need for an assault rifle. I think all firearms are created as tools intended to kill--and I accept that. But assault rifles facilitate murder with such great efficiency that I do beleive--even for law-abiding gun-lovers--that their legality needs to be reexamined. Most assault rifles that I know of are illegal to hunt with (not to mention there's no sport in that) and their capacity is vastly beyond that which is required for personal security. I do understand though that some people simply enjoy firing these weapons in a completely responsible manner. For those people, I think we should have provisions allowing them to continue this hobby but with certain regulations and restrictions. For example, I'd be fine with customers being able to rent fully-automatic weapons for recreational purposes at firing ranges--in my mind this could satisfy gun enthusiasts by allowing them to legally enjoy assault weapons in a controlled environment and to a greater degree than they currently can while also providing better general protection to the public from mass shootings. WDE Why do we need to ban things simply because some people don't think other people need them? I'm open to changing my mind, but I need to see where these things are being used to committ malice on a grand scale. I've never heard of any crime committed with a flame thrower. The only crime I can remember involving assault rifles was a bank robbery in CA; the North Hollywood Shootout (AK-47s). ^That's what I'm getting at, we all need to just be realistic about firearms. And I mentioned flame throwers just to show the extremes of our gun laws--but you're right, I don't think it's likely we're going to see a rash of mass murders committed with flame throwers anytime soon. As far as crimes involving assault rifles, they are far more common than that. Just for a few quick examples, the Newtown shooting was done with an AR-15 http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0 The Columbine shootings involved a TEC-9 assault pistol, hi-point 9mm carbine, and shotguns http://www.vpc.org/s.../wgun990420.htm William Spengler killed multiple firemen on Christmas Eve with an AR-15: http://www.cnn.com/2...oter/index.html The Aurora theater shooting also involved an AR-15: http://www.washingto...eater-shooting/ Ok if we are going to be realistic people kill people not guns, flame throwers, or in the cases below hammers. After all we don't need hammers in 2013. We have drills and good old fashioned rocks for our construction needs. But by all means ban assault hammers if it makes you feel safer. http://stlouis.cbslo...f-pevely-woman/ http://www.sltrib.co...ington.html.csp http://www.wltx.com/...her-with-Hammer http://www.lawdailyr...&ArticleID=1424 http://www.suntimes....her-in-law.html http://www.myfoxtamp...tack-in-seffner
  12. 6. Charles Whitman- Killed 14 and wounded 32 in Austin, Texas in 1966. Weapons used: 12-gauge shotgun, Remington 700 6mm bolt-action hunting rifle, a .35 caliber pump rifle, a .30 caliber carbine, a 9mm Luger pistol, a Galesi-Brescia .25-caliber pistol and a Smith & Wesson M19 .357 Magnum revolver, a machete, and 3 knives. He killed his mother and wife with the knives before embarking on his shooting spree. He was later found to have a glioblastoma in the hypothalamus. Also he may have been under the influence of amphetamines at the time as they had been prescribed to him. 7. Howard Unruh- killed 13 people (including three children) on September 6, 1949, in Camden, New Jersey. Weapon used: a German Luger Pistol. He was eventually diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.
  13. So when she isn't in power she believes the legislative branch of government is irrelevant?
  14. It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic. Are fully automatic weapons as widely available in this country as semi-automatic weapons? If not, why do you suppose is the main reason? $$$ Sorry, but I don't understand. Please expand. $$$ = They're too expensive. So a auto-capable AR15 costs a great deal more to produce than a semi? I don't think so. To produce? No, to freaking buy. AR15 Semi-auto = $729.99 http://www.cabelas.c...80;cat105522480 AR15 Full Auto = $15,000.00 http://www.gunsameri...3_full_auto.htm So why are they priced so high? Supply versus demand. From what I understand, civilians are not permitted to own fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986. So, that would make supply very low. Exactly. And the reason that supply is so low is because of restrictions/regulations on the availability of automatic weapons. I started this train of questions in response to 3rdgen post regarding the "futility" of stricter regulations. He didn't bother to respond so I appreciate you taking up the task for him Anyway, 3rdgen said: "It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic." My point being that "reality" doesn't "trump logic". Reality can be modified. We were talking about gun show background checks and not the banning of the manufacture of an entire class of weapons. I will still answer your question. The problem with that is that there are 10s of millions more semiautomatic weapons in existence today than full autos in 1986. Even back in the 1930s when the first restrictions were put on full auto weapons most of those weapons weren't bought by the public due. They were stolen from national guard armories by criminals. Even if you ban the production of semiauto weapons today. There are 5-10 million AR style rifles alone already in private hands. That doesn't include AK, m-14, FN FAL, Galil, and at least 100 other semiautomatic weapons of both pistol and rifle calibers. The price will rise but not to the point that full autos command. Once again the reality of supply and demand will still out weigh the feel good logic. So unless you plan confiscation to modify reality the two situations are not a legit comparison to each other.
×
×
  • Create New...