Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(03-06-2018, 09:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-06-2018, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: The rounds from an AR-15 don't mushroom. There is a video (I looked but couldn't find it) that shows the results of one round fired at a watermelon. The entry hole is small; the entire back side of the watermelon is missing.
A watermelon has a thick/hard shell like exterior surface for a round to penetrate and exit through. A watermelon is a bad example to use but fun or scary to watch the effects of one being hit by a round. Mammals don't have a shell like exterior covering their entire body with the exception of the skull or head area.
The video was made by Armalite or Colt to demo the M-16 as a combat weapon. It showed the difference between an M-14, with standard 762 NATO ammo and an M-16 with 556 NATO ammo. The M-14 made a slightly larger entry hole and the exit hole was about the size of a baseball -- making the point about the M-16's lethality.
Classic-Xer Wrote:The AR-15 would be an OK hunting rifle for open field or sparsely wooded and sparely covered areas. It's light weight, it's very accurate, it doesn't have a lot of kick and it shoots relatively flat as far as it's trajectory. It's not ideal for the area where I hunt deer. The round is legal size .223 for hunting deer or antelope on open plains. I'm looking at purchasing one for hunting coyotes and other larger varmints and to have one around/available for me to use for self defense.
Remember, it produces a round that tumbles, so firing through brush may not get you the results you expect.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(03-06-2018, 10:19 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-06-2018, 02:17 PM)David Horn Wrote: Age discrimination only applies to those of us over 40. It doesn't apply here
You are wrong again. Age discrimination applies to all ages. It definitely applies here and most likely will be used with the civil lawsuits Dick's will be facing.
Find a cite for that. The only cite I could find that applied broadly had to do with education, and that was limited in other ways.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(03-07-2018, 12:14 PM)David Horn Wrote: (03-06-2018, 09:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-06-2018, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: The rounds from an AR-15 don't mushroom. There is a video (I looked but couldn't find it) that shows the results of one round fired at a watermelon. The entry hole is small; the entire back side of the watermelon is missing.
A watermelon has a thick/hard shell like exterior surface for a round to penetrate and exit through. A watermelon is a bad example to use but fun or scary to watch the effects of one being hit by a round. Mammals don't have a shell like exterior covering their entire body with the exception of the skull or head area.
The video was made by Armalite or Colt to demo the M-16 as a combat weapon. It showed the difference between an M-14, with standard 762 NATO ammo and an M-16 with 556 NATO ammo. The M-14 made a slightly larger entry hole and the exit hole was about the size of a baseball -- making the point about the M-16's lethality.
Classic-Xer Wrote:The AR-15 would be an OK hunting rifle for open field or sparsely wooded and sparely covered areas. It's light weight, it's very accurate, it doesn't have a lot of kick and it shoots relatively flat as far as it's trajectory. It's not ideal for the area where I hunt deer. The round is legal size .223 for hunting deer or antelope on open plains. I'm looking at purchasing one for hunting coyotes and other larger varmints and to have one around/available for me to use for self defense.
Remember, it produces a round that tumbles, so firing through brush may not get you the results you expect.
I get it that the round tumbles. I wouldn't use one in brush.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(03-07-2018, 12:19 PM)David Horn Wrote: (03-06-2018, 10:19 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-06-2018, 02:17 PM)David Horn Wrote: Age discrimination only applies to those of us over 40. It doesn't apply here
You are wrong again. Age discrimination applies to all ages. It definitely applies here and most likely will be used with the civil lawsuits Dick's will be facing.
Find a cite for that. The only cite I could find that applied broadly had to do with education, and that was limited in other ways.
The Discrimination Act of 1975. The law is most commonly used in education or other areas associated with federal assistance. I'm telling you, Dicks is going to get hit by civil law suits and age discrimination is going to be used. You seem to forget/ignore that there is a WRITTEN FEDERAL LAW that Dick's is ignoring/breaking by not allowing a certain age group who have the same legal rights as me according to the law of the land. I can still legally purchase an AR-15 at Dick's. I'm not at all concerned about failing a background check.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(03-06-2018, 11:18 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The dog is more likely to 'neutralize' an offender. It is less likely to miss with its fangs and claws -- and dog bites are quite painful. The usual criminal is interested in an easy theft or rape, and a painful dog attack is a good reason to get out of the situation.
Large dogs do not have to be trained to inflict severe pain on a threat to its loved ones. Good behavior that you usually see in a dog is a veneer for an animal still capable of breeding with wolves. Its good behavior is contingent upon others'[ good behavior. Going where the dog belongs but the intruder doesn't turns a strange dog into a brutal predator. Besides, the first indicator that the dog is in striking range is a knockdown or a bad bite. The knockdown is a literal fall, which could be as dangerous as a dog bite.
A domestic dog isn't likely to attack a human unless it's trained to do it or allowed to do it on a regular basis. My dog would sound an alarm and act ferocious until a human moved towards him with a weapon My dog would do his best to scare off an intruder but he lacks the killer instinct to ruthlessly and viciously attack a human. As a general rule, regular folks don't like having dogs like them around people and loved ones. He makes serious noise and acts ferocious but he would most likely not survive a fight with a vicious person who is armed with a bat, a club or a firearm. I would not solely rely on a dog for my defense or the defense of the family. You can, but I'm not going to do it.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
Driving an intruder away is the most satisfying scenario that I can imagine. Minimal risk to the family or person... and the dog. The crook is scared perhaps into defecating in his pants instead of committing a felonious assault (including rape) or burglary. No crook knows which dog has a killer instinct -- and the dog's owner might not know.
A crook must have real dedication to committing a crime to risk a mauling by the top predator in much of the human world. One would need a plan to neutralize the dog, something that people in Special Forces learn as a norm. But most crooks don't have military training. The military doesn't want criminals, people generally not amenable to the discipline of a pure command system.
A dog may be Man's best friend, but he is a criminal's nightmare. Domestication has made the dog predictable enough despite having the usual traits of man-eaters on land. When I describe an animal having power, speed, strength, agility, cunning, voracity, sharp claws and teeth, and great bite force do I refer to a cougar -- or to a dog? Or four 80-pound Dobermans and one 320-pound tiger, as dogs attack as gangs?
If you face an enemy capable of dispatching your dogs before getting to you, then you must have done something to cause something like the Mossad or Seal Team 6 to plan your demise.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 443
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(03-07-2018, 10:08 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Driving an intruder away is the most satisfying scenario that I can imagine. Minimal risk to the family or person... and the dog. The crook is scared perhaps into defecating in his pants instead of committing a felonious assault (including rape) or burglary. No crook knows which dog has a killer instinct -- and the dog's owner might not know.
A crook must have real dedication to committing a crime to risk a mauling by the top predator in much of the human world. One would need a plan to neutralize the dog, something that people in Special Forces learn as a norm. But most crooks don't have military training. The military doesn't want criminals, people generally not amenable to the discipline of a pure command system.
A dog may be Man's best friend, but he is a criminal's nightmare. Domestication has made the dog predictable enough despite having the usual traits of man-eaters on land. When I describe an animal having power, speed, strength, agility, cunning, voracity, sharp claws and teeth, and great bite force do I refer to a cougar -- or to a dog? Or four 80-pound Dobermans and one 320-pound tiger, as dogs attack as gangs?
If you face an enemy capable of dispatching your dogs before getting to you, then you must have done something to cause something like the Mossad or Seal Team 6 to plan your demise.
Pbrower Xers and Millies hate globalist tyranny. Xers and Millies have not granted boomers consent to implement these ideals. The Boomer must respect the law and remain within the bounds of the constitution. Boomers like yourself might have an opinion that a person buying multiple guns is the wrong thing to do, but that is just that, an opinion. The citizen is well within his rights to buy as many guns as he/she likes. The purpose of the state is to enforce the law, not implement a vague "morality".
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(03-07-2018, 05:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-07-2018, 12:19 PM)David Horn Wrote: (03-06-2018, 10:19 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-06-2018, 02:17 PM)David Horn Wrote: Age discrimination only applies to those of us over 40. It doesn't apply here
You are wrong again. Age discrimination applies to all ages. It definitely applies here and most likely will be used with the civil lawsuits Dick's will be facing.
Find a cite for that. The only cite I could find that applied broadly had to do with education, and that was limited in other ways.
The Discrimination Act of 1975. The law is most commonly used in education or other areas associated with federal assistance. I'm telling you, Dicks is going to get hit by civil law suits and age discrimination is going to be used. You seem to forget/ignore that there is a WRITTEN FEDERAL LAW that Dick's is ignoring/breaking by not allowing a certain age group who have the same legal rights as me according to the law of the land. I can still legally purchase an AR-15 at Dick's. I'm not at all concerned about failing a background check.
That's the only one I found as well ... and it's pretty specific in only addressing Federal assistance programs. Civil suits, on the other hand, can be brought for any reason whatsoever. There is a risk in doing so, since the petitioner can be countersued. I'm sure some gun-friendly organization with a freedom-friendly name will find someone who will be a stalking horse and try to win a law suit. Mostly, the point will be to get Dick's to back down and drop the policy. I assume Dick's was prepared for this in advance, and intends to either cave immediately (meaning their ban was wallpaper) or hit back hard. We'll see.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(03-08-2018, 01:58 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: (03-07-2018, 10:08 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Driving an intruder away is the most satisfying scenario that I can imagine. Minimal risk to the family or person... and the dog. The crook is scared perhaps into defecating in his pants instead of committing a felonious assault (including rape) or burglary. No crook knows which dog has a killer instinct -- and the dog's owner might not know.
A crook must have real dedication to committing a crime to risk a mauling by the top predator in much of the human world. One would need a plan to neutralize the dog, something that people in Special Forces learn as a norm. But most crooks don't have military training. The military doesn't want criminals, people generally not amenable to the discipline of a pure command system.
A dog may be Man's best friend, but he is a criminal's nightmare. Domestication has made the dog predictable enough despite having the usual traits of man-eaters on land. When I describe an animal having power, speed, strength, agility, cunning, voracity, sharp claws and teeth, and great bite force do I refer to a cougar -- or to a dog? Or four 80-pound Dobermans and one 320-pound tiger, as dogs attack as gangs?
If you face an enemy capable of dispatching your dogs before getting to you, then you must have done something to cause something like the Mossad or Seal Team 6 to plan your demise.
Pbrower Xers and Millies hate globalist tyranny. Xers and Millies have not granted boomers consent to implement these ideals. The Boomer must respect the law and remain within the bounds of the constitution. Boomers like yourself might have an opinion that a person buying multiple guns is the wrong thing to do, but that is just that, an opinion. The citizen is well within his rights to buy as many guns as he/she likes. The purpose of the state is to enforce the law, not implement a vague "morality".
This Boomer respects the law and insists upon decency in international relations. I'm guessing that China signed off on the American effort to get Osama bin Laden because they had some fear that Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Beijing might have been targets by someone 'inspired' by the 9/11 attacks. The Russians and Chinese didn't complain when Seal Team 6 did the underworld hit on Osama bin Laden.
Many gun owners are legitimate sportspeople for whom their guns are sporting goods in the sense that a bowling ball or skis are tools of their favorite activity. But as a rule, sport hunters are well-behaved people who never commit crimes -- unless the victim is "Bambi". A deer hunter gets often but one shot at a deer, who if spooked will run off and no longer be a target. The deer shot effectively by a deer rifle is to be a trophy or venison, which explains why deer hunters do not want or need an AR 15 or an AK 47. But urban gangs want guns and ammo that will turn a human victim into an irretrievable mess.
The morality is clear: murder is a crime, and certain guns make any would more lethal. One of the victims of Nikolas Cruz who nearly died was hit in his ankle, not a vital organ he came close to bleeding to death.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(03-08-2018, 12:21 PM)David Horn Wrote: That's the only one I found as well ... and it's pretty specific in only addressing Federal assistance programs. Civil suits, on the other hand, can be brought for any reason whatsoever. There is a risk in doing so, since the petitioner can be countersued. I'm sure some gun-friendly organization with a freedom-friendly name will find someone who will be a stalking horse and try to win a law suit. Mostly, the point will be to get Dick's to back down and drop the policy. I assume Dick's was prepared for this in advance, and intends to either cave immediately (meaning their ban was wallpaper) or hit back hard. We'll see.
I'm sure there's a group of lawyers who will eventually represent all legal purchaser's/ legal gun owners that Dick's refuses to sell particular guns to that are legally available for sale in all of their stores. How many people will that be eventually? I don't know but I'm sure it's adding up as we speak and as time continues. Think about it, 2-3 relatively minor refusals a day adds up to around fifty to a hundred illegal refusals per month per store. We'll see who's right within a year or two.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(03-08-2018, 02:40 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: (03-08-2018, 01:58 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: (03-07-2018, 10:08 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Driving an intruder away is the most satisfying scenario that I can imagine. Minimal risk to the family or person... and the dog. The crook is scared perhaps into defecating in his pants instead of committing a felonious assault (including rape) or burglary. No crook knows which dog has a killer instinct -- and the dog's owner might not know.
A crook must have real dedication to committing a crime to risk a mauling by the top predator in much of the human world. One would need a plan to neutralize the dog, something that people in Special Forces learn as a norm. But most crooks don't have military training. The military doesn't want criminals, people generally not amenable to the discipline of a pure command system.
A dog may be Man's best friend, but he is a criminal's nightmare. Domestication has made the dog predictable enough despite having the usual traits of man-eaters on land. When I describe an animal having power, speed, strength, agility, cunning, voracity, sharp claws and teeth, and great bite force do I refer to a cougar -- or to a dog? Or four 80-pound Dobermans and one 320-pound tiger, as dogs attack as gangs?
If you face an enemy capable of dispatching your dogs before getting to you, then you must have done something to cause something like the Mossad or Seal Team 6 to plan your demise.
Pbrower Xers and Millies hate globalist tyranny. Xers and Millies have not granted boomers consent to implement these ideals. The Boomer must respect the law and remain within the bounds of the constitution. Boomers like yourself might have an opinion that a person buying multiple guns is the wrong thing to do, but that is just that, an opinion. The citizen is well within his rights to buy as many guns as he/she likes. The purpose of the state is to enforce the law, not implement a vague "morality".
This Boomer respects the law and insists upon decency in international relations. I'm guessing that China signed off on the American effort to get Osama bin Laden because they had some fear that Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Beijing might have been targets by someone 'inspired' by the 9/11 attacks. The Russians and Chinese didn't complain when Seal Team 6 did the underworld hit on Osama bin Laden.
Many gun owners are legitimate sportspeople for whom their guns are sporting goods in the sense that a bowling ball or skis are tools of their favorite activity. But as a rule, sport hunters are well-behaved people who never commit crimes -- unless the victim is "Bambi". A deer hunter gets often but one shot at a deer, who if spooked will run off and no longer be a target. The deer shot effectively by a deer rifle is to be a trophy or venison, which explains why deer hunters do not want or need an AR 15 or an AK 47. But urban gangs want guns and ammo that will turn a human victim into an irretrievable mess.
The morality is clear: murder is a crime, and certain guns make any would more lethal. One of the victims of Nikolas Cruz who nearly died was hit in his ankle, not a vital organ he came close to bleeding to death.
How can you say that you respect law, when you seem to support those who are clearly into ignoring the law and breaking them. I don't support those who support illegal immigration because I respect the law. How many times have I been called a racist because I value law and order and respect the law in general? I'd say a lot.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
Do you never speed? Have you never rolled a stop sign?
Some legal violations are far more severe than others. Remaining in the US at age 30 after having been brought to America as a four-year-old doesn't seem quite as bad as pulling off a bungled robbery in which someone gets killed. Doing 36 in a 35 zone isn't in the same league as driving with a 0.20% BAC. I do not care about the salacious stuff that some porn star can say about the President's sexual antics, but if she heard him tell something that gives solid testimony that Americans got and needed Russian aid in getting elected, then I want that testimony to be tested through efforts to corroborate what she said.
$135K sounds like a huge amount of money for keeping quiet about something not criminal, but it now looks like far too little for what her silence could hide.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(03-08-2018, 05:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-08-2018, 12:21 PM)David Horn Wrote: That's the only one I found as well ... and it's pretty specific in only addressing Federal assistance programs. Civil suits, on the other hand, can be brought for any reason whatsoever. There is a risk in doing so, since the petitioner can be countersued. I'm sure some gun-friendly organization with a freedom-friendly name will find someone who will be a stalking horse and try to win a law suit. Mostly, the point will be to get Dick's to back down and drop the policy. I assume Dick's was prepared for this in advance, and intends to either cave immediately (meaning their ban was wallpaper) or hit back hard. We'll see.
I'm sure there's a group of lawyers who will eventually represent all legal purchaser's/ legal gun owners that Dick's refuses to sell particular guns to that are legally available for sale in all of their stores. How many people will that be eventually? I don't know but I'm sure it's adding up as we speak and as time continues. Think about it, 2-3 relatively minor refusals a day adds up to around fifty to a hundred illegal refusals per month per store. We'll see who's right within a year or two.
I suspect that Dick's will get a quick ruling on this. Torts are not criminal law, but there are rules. First, the plaintiffs will have to be certified as a class, or this doesn't work at all. Second, they have to show cause. In other words, you can't just sue for no reason. Third, they will almost certainly try this in Federal Court, where class actins go to die.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
03-10-2018, 01:31 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-10-2018, 03:44 PM by Classic-Xer.)
(03-08-2018, 07:24 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Do you never speed? Have you never rolled a stop sign?
Some legal violations are far more severe than others. Remaining in the US at age 30 after having been brought to America as a four-year-old doesn't seem quite as bad as pulling off a bungled robbery in which someone gets killed. Doing 36 in a 35 zone isn't in the same league as driving with a 0.20% BAC. I do not care about the salacious stuff that some porn star can say about the President's sexual antics, but if she heard him tell something that gives solid testimony that Americans got and needed Russian aid in getting elected, then I want that testimony to be tested through efforts to corroborate what she said.
$135K sounds like a huge amount of money for keeping quiet about something not criminal, but it now looks like far too little for what her silence could hide.
I've been caught for speeding and for driving without a seat belt on. I fully accepted the consequences for breaking those laws and paid the fines. I think 135K sounds about right for the price of controlling gossip these days. Why are blues so into gossip these days? Why are blues so into latching on to gossip and spreading gossip? Why are blues so into forming their opinions and making their decisions based on gossip that one of them received from someone else or one of them simply made up themselves? I don't pay much attention to gossip and the news channels when seem to be more into gossip these days. I don't think Trump needed help from the Russians to get elected.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(03-10-2018, 11:47 AM)David Horn Wrote: (03-08-2018, 05:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-08-2018, 12:21 PM)David Horn Wrote: That's the only one I found as well ... and it's pretty specific in only addressing Federal assistance programs. Civil suits, on the other hand, can be brought for any reason whatsoever. There is a risk in doing so, since the petitioner can be countersued. I'm sure some gun-friendly organization with a freedom-friendly name will find someone who will be a stalking horse and try to win a law suit. Mostly, the point will be to get Dick's to back down and drop the policy. I assume Dick's was prepared for this in advance, and intends to either cave immediately (meaning their ban was wallpaper) or hit back hard. We'll see.
I'm sure there's a group of lawyers who will eventually represent all legal purchaser's/ legal gun owners that Dick's refuses to sell particular guns to that are legally available for sale in all of their stores. How many people will that be eventually? I don't know but I'm sure it's adding up as we speak and as time continues. Think about it, 2-3 relatively minor refusals a day adds up to around fifty to a hundred illegal refusals per month per store. We'll see who's right within a year or two.
I suspect that Dick's will get a quick ruling on this. Torts are not criminal law, but there are rules. First, the plaintiffs will have to be certified as a class, or this doesn't work at all. Second, they have to show cause. In other words, you can't just sue for no reason. Third, they will almost certainly try this in Federal Court, where class actins go to die.
Think about it. I can go into Dick's and purchase an AR-15 ( a legal weapon) right now without any issues or concerns relating to my ability to purchase one legally at Dick's. Do you view all the American adults within the ages of 18-21 ( a classification of adults) as being to immature and as being to irresponsible and as being to irrational or to crazy or to psychopathic to be able to purchase a firearm these days? I don't view all of them that way. I view some of them that way but not all of them. Why do you and a pet group of blue minded business decision makers seem to view all of them that way?
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
It's that more of them are "that way" when they are younger. That's true with drinking as well, and smoking, and driving, running for office, etc. That's why there are age limits. Some younger people can handle things quite well that they are prohibited from doing, but others can't. It's worth it to set these limits, if it saves lives. That's what this is about, and that's what these Y/Z cuspers are saying after their friends were massacred-- even if it means that they themselves could not buy an AR-15 when they get to be 18. They don't want an AR-15; they'd much rather that more young people didn't die because of them.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(03-10-2018, 02:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's that more of them are "that way" when they are younger. That's true with drinking as well, and smoking, and driving, running for office, etc. That's why there are age limits. Some younger people can handle things quite well that they are prohibited from doing, but others can't. It's worth it to set these limits, if it saves lives. That's what this is about, and that's what these Y/Z cuspers are saying after their friends were massacred-- even if it means that they themselves could not buy an AR-15 when they get to be 18. They don't want an AR-15; they'd much rather that more young people didn't die because of them.
How about voting and all other adult activities? How about senior citizens like you and Dave and Nancy P? You and Dave have made a good case for excluding them (yourselves) too. Nancy doesn't seem rational or unbiased enough to be making decisions for me or making decisions that either include me or directly involve me. You don't seem rational enough, educated enough, knowledgeable enough, unbiased enough to be making those kinds of decisions for me either.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(03-08-2018, 02:40 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: (03-08-2018, 01:58 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: (03-07-2018, 10:08 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Driving an intruder away is the most satisfying scenario that I can imagine. Minimal risk to the family or person... and the dog. The crook is scared perhaps into defecating in his pants instead of committing a felonious assault (including rape) or burglary. No crook knows which dog has a killer instinct -- and the dog's owner might not know.
A crook must have real dedication to committing a crime to risk a mauling by the top predator in much of the human world. One would need a plan to neutralize the dog, something that people in Special Forces learn as a norm. But most crooks don't have military training. The military doesn't want criminals, people generally not amenable to the discipline of a pure command system.
A dog may be Man's best friend, but he is a criminal's nightmare. Domestication has made the dog predictable enough despite having the usual traits of man-eaters on land. When I describe an animal having power, speed, strength, agility, cunning, voracity, sharp claws and teeth, and great bite force do I refer to a cougar -- or to a dog? Or four 80-pound Dobermans and one 320-pound tiger, as dogs attack as gangs?
If you face an enemy capable of dispatching your dogs before getting to you, then you must have done something to cause something like the Mossad or Seal Team 6 to plan your demise.
Pbrower Xers and Millies hate globalist tyranny. Xers and Millies have not granted boomers consent to implement these ideals. The Boomer must respect the law and remain within the bounds of the constitution. Boomers like yourself might have an opinion that a person buying multiple guns is the wrong thing to do, but that is just that, an opinion. The citizen is well within his rights to buy as many guns as he/she likes. The purpose of the state is to enforce the law, not implement a vague "morality".
This Boomer respects the law and insists upon decency in international relations. I'm guessing that China signed off on the American effort to get Osama bin Laden because they had some fear that Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Beijing might have been targets by someone 'inspired' by the 9/11 attacks. The Russians and Chinese didn't complain when Seal Team 6 did the underworld hit on Osama bin Laden.
Many gun owners are legitimate sportspeople for whom their guns are sporting goods in the sense that a bowling ball or skis are tools of their favorite activity. But as a rule, sport hunters are well-behaved people who never commit crimes -- unless the victim is "Bambi". A deer hunter gets often but one shot at a deer, who if spooked will run off and no longer be a target. The deer shot effectively by a deer rifle is to be a trophy or venison, which explains why deer hunters do not want or need an AR 15 or an AK 47. But urban gangs want guns and ammo that will turn a human victim into an irretrievable mess.
The morality is clear: murder is a crime, and certain guns make any would more lethal. One of the victims of Nikolas Cruz who nearly died was hit in his ankle, not a vital organ he came close to bleeding to death.
Hint: Arteries of all types, in all locations of the human body are often viewed and often considered to be vital organs.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
03-10-2018, 04:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-10-2018, 04:45 PM by Eric the Green.)
https://youtu.be/6-tlbWJlyf4
Teigan2 days ago
So, that kid would make a better president than Trump, even at his young age.
mrt57rn2 days ago
This is a sharp, well informed young man.
master1820002 days ago
I love that line by Mr. Hogg "...has he ever played a video game?"
Pete V2 days ago
This HS student is more eloquent, sensible and intelligent that all of the Florida lawmakers. We are seeing the worst now with these old swamp creatures in power but he gives me hope for my children's future.
that's some better comments 
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(03-10-2018, 04:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
https://youtu.be/6-tlbWJlyf4
Teigan2 days ago
So, that kid would make a better president than Trump, even at his young age.
mrt57rn2 days ago
This is a sharp, well informed young man.
master1820002 days ago
I love that line by Mr. Hogg "...has he ever played a video game?"
Pete V2 days ago
This HS student is more eloquent, sensible and intelligent that all of the Florida lawmakers. We are seeing the worst now with these old swamp creatures in power but he gives me hope for my children's future.
that's some better comments
I like the kid better than the host. He seems more eloquent, sensible and intelligent than that dickhead.
|
