Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1067605][IMG]http://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/v/t1.0-9/10176166_658267957555418_7590852180557643114_n.jpg?oh=06568497d5350d629562e37d4707ce8a&oe=53AB8E03[/IMG][/quote]

This is so true. I have known too many people in my life who only respected someone who where either physically stronger or in a position of power over them. These people crawled over steeped on and disrespected anyone they could if there were no repercussions.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

Interesting that very intelligent people would poll this way:

[URL="http://www.triplenine.org/poll/tnss24.htm"]Triple Nine Society Political Survey - Gun Control[/URL]

[IMG]http://www.triplenine.org/images/tnss24.gif[/IMG]

Triple Nine Society Opinion Survey

1. Strong support for gun ownership by citizens; 40.4% 23
2. Keep present laws, but no further restrictions; 14.0% 8
3. Protect the right to bear arms, add more restrictions; 21.1% 12
4. Register firearms 21.1% 12
5. Outlaw the private ownership of firearms 3.5% 2

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[IMG]http://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1.0-9/10171275_470769496356509_420237299_n.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[IMG]http://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/10177902_266901333492240_8653102362042735188_n.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/us/stabbings-franklin-regional-high-school-murrysville.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=US_SSA_20140409&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1388552400000&bicmet=1420088400000&_r=1[/url]


Guns, knives. It doesn't matter. People are going to do bad regardless. It's why restricting does nothing.

Sadly, yes.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Re: Pro-gun article
 

They don't want people having automatic weapons but it's ok for police to have this shit.

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Q1xXXnX.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1067976]They don't want people having automatic weapons but it's ok for police to have this shit.

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Q1xXXnX.jpg[/IMG][/quote]



yup .

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1067978]yup .[/quote]

Not according to your boy O.


[IMG]http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BEBFGGyCYAAvT5q.jpg:large[/IMG]


So let's give the government all the power/weapons and trust them fully. LOL

That's how people are enslaved.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1067902][IMG]http://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/10177902_266901333492240_8653102362042735188_n.jpg[/IMG][/quote]

i admit, this is pretty good but i think there is a clear distinction in gun rights.

Most people like myself think it is perfectly fine to own guns and keep them safely secured in your home, go hunting or (if properly licensed and cleared) have a concealed weapon permit.

Most people like myself do not think it is okay for random guys to walk around walmart with a ar-15 while they "pretend" shop for toilet paper .... or have a handgun by their side at a bar n grill .. or have a loaded hang gun in your car while your loaded on alcohol .. or be able to shoot and kill someone bc you started a fist fight and are losing the fist fight ...

(by "most people" I am guessing and assuming and there is no study at the present time that concludes that I represent "most people")

the NRA would have a lot more supporters if they supported "reasonable" restrictions on 2A rights .... like their own strict constructionist Scalia has opined.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=over the mountain;1068002]Most people like myself think it is perfectly fine to own guns and keep them safely secured in your home, go hunting or (if properly licensed and cleared) have a concealed weapon permit.

[/quote]
<SNIP>

I'd agree, but at some point the more reasonable people will be shouted down by the irrational, loud minority. It happens all the time.

The lowest common denominator is the benchmark these days.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

GiantOne, please explain why Law Enforcement need military grade vehicles?

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1068019]GiantOne, please explain why Law Enforcement need military grade vehicles?[/quote]



How about this reason .:doh:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrLJIMAHSAc"]The Best Shootout Ever! (North Hollywood 1997) - YouTube[/ame]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

Or this ,


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPstj9RvHE0]Deadly Miami Police Shootout, 6 officers Hurt, 2 Suspects Killed - YouTube[/ame]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

or this ....



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB47ITL1StU]Police officer in brutal fight ending with shootout - YouTube[/ame]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

maybe even here ...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cb2UjmF-Rc]Officer in 'fight for life' before shooting - YouTube[/ame]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

and again .


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1gYEG1TzBk][RAW/HQ] Oregon State Police Video Captures Fatal Freeway Shooting - YouTube[/ame]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

None of those situations needed a military grade vehicle to solve.

Good, efficient tactics would suffice.

You are part of the problem, GiantOne. It's possible that you're even paid to post such utter nonsense.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1068088]None of those situations needed a military grade vehicle to solve.

Good, efficient tactics would suffice.

You are part of the problem, GiantOne. It's possible that you're even paid to post such utter nonsense.[/quote]


Paid ,no .I just get a little miffed when someone with out a clue such as yourself acts like the know all and see all about something he hasn't a clue about .If you are really interest in knowing what the problem is ,look at those video's again, then look in a mirror .

You base your opinion on far less than I ever base my opinion, as shown by your posts, which invariably are nothing more than distractions to the point. You should probably not post anymore, but where would the fun be in that?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1068099]Paid ,no .I just get a little miffed when someone with out a clue such as yourself acts like the know all and see all about something he hasn't a clue about .If you are really interest in knowing what the problem is ,look at those video's again, then look in a mirror .[/quote]


If I'm correct, RR has been in the military and my guess is he's familiar with all sorts of armored vehicles and military grade weapons, yet you sit there and say he doesn't have a clue? Interesting.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1068141]If I'm correct, RR has been in the military and my guess is he's familiar with all sorts of armored vehicles and military grade weapons, yet you sit there and say he doesn't have a clue? Interesting.[/quote]

So in not one of your post do you question the intelligence of someone in the profession of what ever you seem to disagree with ,interesting ?

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1068099]Paid ,no .I just get a little miffed when someone with out a clue such as yourself acts like the know all and see all about something he hasn't a clue about .If you are really interest in knowing what the problem is ,look at those video's again, then look in a mirror .[/quote]

so, in the video you posted, where one guy gets out of the car during a traffic stop, and shoots the officer, how would a swat team, or military grade equipment have changed that? Are you suggesting that we now have armored Humvees handling all traffic stops?

Remember to stay on point, you posted a video which you claim shows the need militarized equipment. That is what I am asking you to explain.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

Stop feeding the troll, especially since from what I observe the troll is a woman in her 80's that votes Democrat 100% of the time and parrots everything her party stands for. She is so annoying all of her family has long since disowned her, but some how you guys keep her alive. Ignore her, she will no longer have a purpose to live and will die.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

But she's our gimp.....

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1068148]

Remember to stay on point, you posted a video which you claim shows the need militarized equipment. That is what I am asking you to explain.[/quote]

You don't think extra armor in the car(doors ,panels) would help ,bullet proof glass wouldn't help ?What I do find funny is I must stay on point your teenage buddies do not .

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1068141]If I'm correct, RR has been in the military and my guess is he's familiar with all sorts of armored vehicles and military grade weapons, yet you sit there and say he doesn't have a clue? Interesting.[/quote]


This coming from someone who cries about his fellow workers and post pics of them on the internet so they get in trouble yet we don't know if that pic might have been you ?.As for RR he is an internet BH with no proof other than his say so ,RR and BB both probably still live at home and are 62 ,with food stamps and social security .:joecool:

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Buffalo Bob;1068153]Stop feeding the troll, especially since from what I observe the troll is a woman in her 80's that votes Democrat 100% of the time and parrots everything her party stands for. She is so annoying all of her family has long since disowned her, but some how you guys keep her alive. Ignore her, she will no longer have a purpose to live and will die.[/quote]


I think maybe you should ignore me, 4,656 posts pretty sure I'm not going anywhere .

[QUOTE=Giantone;1068178]You don't think extra armor in the car(doors ,panels) would help ,bullet proof glass wouldn't help ?What I do find funny is I must stay on point your teenage buddies do not .[/QUOTE]

Extra armor would likely weigh down a normal patrol car, reducing effectiveness in traffic stops. Bulletproof glass sure. But neither of those are about the militarization of the police that you said your videos were proved the need for.
The militarization discussed was about ied proof troop carriers, swat team capabilities in small cities (not large ones named LA or New York).

Just showing a video of a cop being shot, while tragic, isn't proof of a need for military urban attack vehicles.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1068193]Extra armor would likely weigh down a normal patrol car, reducing effectiveness in traffic stops. Bulletproof glass sure. But neither of those are about the militarization of the police that you said your videos were proved the need for.
The militarization discussed was about ied proof troop carriers, swat team capabilities in small cities (not large ones named LA or New York).

Just showing a video of a cop being shot, while tragic, isn't proof of a need for military urban attack vehicles.[/quote]

While I respect it ,that is your opinion .I disagree .

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1068205]While I respect it ,that is your opinion .I disagree .[/quote]

Law Enforcement doesn't need to be militarized unless there is a more nefarious purpose to their being militarized.

You, GiantOne, from your posts, seem more than happy to have every aspect of your life controlled by others. I am not.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1068193]Extra armor would likely weigh down a normal patrol car, reducing effectiveness in traffic stops. Bulletproof glass sure. But neither of those are about the militarization of the police that you said your videos were proved the need for.
The militarization discussed was about ied proof troop carriers, swat team capabilities in small cities (not large ones named LA or New York).

Just showing a video of a cop being shot, while tragic, isn't proof of a need for military urban attack vehicles.[/quote]

I had a customer years ago who made the occasional armored SUV for dignitaries. The thick steel plating and bullet proof glass add a tremendous amount of weight. The bullet proof glass restricts vision and the extra weight made the thing handle and accelerate like a fully loaded cement truck. The number of people trying to outrun the police would increase tenfold. The cop has to eventually exit the vehicle at some point and be vulnerable anyway.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1068238]Law Enforcement doesn't need to be militarized unless there is a more nefarious purpose to their being militarized.

You, GiantOne, from your posts, seem more than happy to have every aspect of your life controlled by others. I am not.[/quote]

Not every aspect no but I also realize there are some things that are out of my control but then I'm not the one whining and crying about people who do and don't mind it .

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1068238]Law Enforcement doesn't need to be militarized unless there is a more nefarious purpose to their being militarized.
[/quote]





[URL="http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=7Dc9ovR9moq-YM&tbnid=7QM3oGUnMayPKM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fexplore%2Fcops%2F%3Fp%3D7&ei=5uhKU_WfENfNsQTGsILYAQ&bvm=bv.64542518,d.dmQ&psig=AFQjCNFXD0WltbxbQAvBwrTRjeci9-YiQA&ust=1397504296780698"][IMG]https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSqrlLxCkLZRCshpw93V7Y8MyHzerAW_qCpLECLwpd0qkX2rf1KXQ[/IMG][/URL]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1068259][URL="http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=7Dc9ovR9moq-YM&tbnid=7QM3oGUnMayPKM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fexplore%2Fcops%2F%3Fp%3D7&ei=5uhKU_WfENfNsQTGsILYAQ&bvm=bv.64542518,d.dmQ&psig=AFQjCNFXD0WltbxbQAvBwrTRjeci9-YiQA&ust=1397504296780698"][IMG]https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSqrlLxCkLZRCshpw93V7Y8MyHzerAW_qCpLECLwpd0qkX2rf1KXQ[/IMG][/URL][/quote]

That sums your position up perfectly. You're ignorant of the task the police undertake.

Per [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=2&"]SCotUS 2005[/URL], the police have no Constitutional duty to protect. Therefore I undertake my own protection and that of the people I care about.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1068268]That sums your position up perfectly. You're ignorant of the task the police undertake.

Per [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=2&"]SCotUS 2005[/URL], the police have no Constitutional duty to protect. Therefore I undertake my own protection and that of the people I care about.[/quote]


If anyone is ignorant of the position of the Police it would be you .Taking things out of context again but as I have said before you have never let a fact get in the way of one of you lies .

Re: Pro-gun article
 

Please explain, with specifics, how I'm taking things out of context or admit you're a juvenile, reactionary poster with no basis for anything you stand for.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1068398]Please explain, with specifics, how I'm taking things out of context or admit you're a juvenile, reactionary poster with no basis for anything you stand for.[/quote]

LOL , .


[URL="http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=rt4pIcMbZogjbM&tbnid=GwH77t9PPw0BrM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcowbell.typepad.com%2Fforty_deuce%2F2013%2F02%2Ftennis-bullying-robson-marino-abuse.html&ei=rOpMU5bUENWisATRg4CQBQ&bvm=bv.64764171,d.dmQ&psig=AFQjCNGEviiYqnMLMoEMqnVeYbxzU3qu_w&ust=1397635943909074"][IMG]http://cowbell.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83423e30253ef017ee8a4d2b6970d-pi[/IMG][/URL]

No, I didn't think you could.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1068268]That sums your position up perfectly. You're ignorant of the task the police undertake.

Per [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=2&"]SCotUS 2005[/URL], the police have no Constitutional duty to protect. Therefore I undertake my own protection and that of the people I care about.[/quote]

LOL, I see reading comprehension is not you strong point .