Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter ATC1
- Start date
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Wow. you're Completely unhinged. Not only should you be banned, but you should be committed as well.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Yeah, he's completely lost it.
Limp Ditka
Footballguy
Max The best part is, he'll take his shots at everyone and anyone over at :e: and his entire arsenal is..............you guessed it, phallic nicknames and 'you're gay' jokes.Now I'd call him out on the hypocrisy, but Sweeney's already displayed the inability to understand the meaning of the word.
Limp Ditka
Footballguy
Nice delete you ballless little twit.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
I know you have a throbber with my name on it, but you've jumped the gun on thinking you've made a point. I don't have a problem with phallic jokes and gay jokes et al. My post was in reference to a previous exchange between Max and I where he pointed out that my arguments were pathetic, yet his arguments consisted of gay jokes and phallic puns. This recent one was just pointing out, once again, that Max is nothing but a hypocritical blowhard whose tactics are pretty much exactly what he complains about in others. I'm sure all the blood flowing into your unit when you saw my name took too much from your brain and you thought you could waltz on in and make a slam dunk against me. But sadly, the point you think you're making doesn't exist. My comment wasn't meant to decry the use of phallic names or gay jokes. Just that condemnation coming from Max is a hypocritical joke. Back to the drawing board sweetie.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
I was re-writing it sweetheart. Don't let your pants get too tight thinking about me. It says the same thing, just a little clearer for guys like you who are thinking with your crotch and not your head.
Last edited by a moderator:
Limp Ditka
Footballguy
Dear god. You are dimmer than a moonless night
mad sweeney
Footballguy
Enlighten me as to how. The thing you think your slamming me for is based on you thinking I was saying something I wasn't. Not my fault your hard on for me blunts your brain so much you can't figure out what's plain as day.Dear god. You are dimmer than a moonless night
Last edited by a moderator:
Limp Ditka
Footballguy
I guess I underestimated your dimness.Enlighten me as to how. The thing you think your slamming me for, isn't what I was talking about.Dear god. You are dimmer than a moonless night
mad sweeney
Footballguy
No, you're just drunk and in heat and thought you saw something that wasn't there that you could tag me for being a hypocrite about. But I wasn't saying there's anything wrong with phalluc and gay jokes. It was a very specific reference to a previous "discussion" that was just pointing out how Max throws stones from a glass house. But you just jumped on it like you knew what was going on. Sorry sweetie, you're wrong. Calling me dumb a hundred times doesn't make what I said mean what you think it does or want it to.I guess I underestimated your dimness.Enlighten me as to how. The thing you think your slamming me for, isn't what I was talking about.Dear god. You are dimmer than a moonless night
Last edited by a moderator:
Limp Ditka
Footballguy
Hey SweeneySince it seems to be the theme of your manifestos, be a good boy and go find me where I said you have a problem with, or thought something was wrong with said jokes.Please don't post again until you find it.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
Perhaps I'm reading this post wrong then. How am I hypocritical here unless you think I'm calling out a person for using said jokes?Eta: and it STILL doesn't change the fact that you're jumping in on a direct reference to a different conversation.
Last edited by a moderator:
STEADYMOBBIN 22
Footballguy
Sweeney, you're a lunatic.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Sweeney might be the only poster in the last 4 pages who has made any sense whatsoever.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Wow. Certifiable.1) What you perceived from me as a gay joke was just an innocent mistake on my part. I assumed you were a woman, that's why I said you should take it to your boyfriend. You certainly act like a crazy b##ch, though, so it's easy to see how others can mistake you for being a woman.
2) Calling other guys "sweetie" (see above) doesn't help your case convincing others that you're not gay. Again, nothing wrong with that, but if you don't want people mistaking you for being gay, than don't call other guys "sweetie".
3) I thought Sad Weeney was your real name and Mad Sweeney was just a slightly different take on that. Innocent oversight on my part.
4) Seems like you're the one with the phallic obsession (see bolded above). So maybe i was right? In any event, you need to have a serious conversation with yourself and try and find your identity soon. Not trying to make a joke here. I'm serious.
Okay, I'm done here. We can get back to real topic of the thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
mad sweeney
Footballguy
1 - Sure it was sweetheart, I totally believe you!2 - Not trying to convince anyone of thatWow. Certifiable.1) What you perceived from me as a gay joke was just an innocent mistake on my part. I assumed you were a woman, that's why I said you should take it to your boyfriend. You certainly act like a crazy b##ch, though, so it's easy to see how others can mistake you for being a woman.
2) Calling other guys "sweetie" (see above) doesn't help your case convincing others that you're not gay. Again, nothing wrong with that, but if you don't want people mistaking you for being gay, than don't call other guys "sweetie".
3) I thought Sad Weeney was your real name and Mad Sweeney was just a slightly different take on that. Innocent oversight on my part.
4) Seems like you're the one with the phallic obsession (see bolded above). So maybe i was right? In any event, you need to have a serious conversation with yourself and try and find your identity soon. Not trying to make a joke here. I'm serious.
Okay, I'm done here. We can get back to real topic of the thread.
3 - Sure you did sweetheart, I totally believe you!
4 - Sure your serious sweetkins, I totally believe you! LD has a hard on for me
It's not meant literally.So sorry to have distracted from the topic by posting something about another poster that had nothing to do with the topic. Wait, that was you... Which is pretty much the theme of you trying to tell other posters what to do, how their behavior should be viewed, how lame their arguments are, how they should stick to topic... when you yourself do the same thing(s). An annoying troll pretty much has no legs to stand in to tell someone else they think is an annoying troll should be banned.
STEADYMOBBIN 22
Footballguy
Maybe, but that doesn't make my statement wrong, by any stretch.
timschochet
Footballguy
Um, can we get back to discussing gun control?
Jewell
Footballguy
STEADYMOBBIN 22
Footballguy
Cool shtick.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Sure tim. Do you have anything substantive to offer? I'm all ears. So far, I've seen 150+ pages of bull#### and idiocy.
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
5 digit know nothing
Footballguy
How large of an ATF do you need? 100 employees per state sound good?How large of a budget do you need? How about a million a year?'timschochet said:'Carolina Hustler said:We ARE trying to do something about it. That's what closing the loophole is all about. That's what giving the ATF a larger budget is all about. Stop fighting us and maybe we'll get somewhere.
The size and budget of the ATF has been growing every year since 1973.
Now that states are legalizing pot the War on Drugs is essentially over, perhaps the ATF should reallocate their resources instead of catching pot smokers to enforcing other laws that need attention, you think?
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
Guns with extra handles, or heat guards, or flash suppressors, or folding stocks, and clips that hold 10+ rounds.. aren't "loopholes"90% of the public believes this is all about "assault weapons"..'timschochet said:'Carolina Hustler said:
And going after the guy who tries to buy a gun and has previously been prohibited from buying/possessing a firearm should be the first measure, that's illegal, yet it doesn't seem to be a priority.. putting another law in place, that is practically unenforceable, is silly.. They can't enforce the the more easily enforced laws they have in place now..
If they plan on enforcing the law, I agree, private sales should be background checked as well, but seems like the plan they've been talking about (or at least what I've heard of it in here) isn't simply just adding background checks for private sales.
So, if weapons are to be confiscated at any point in this, I disagree, if the government plans on adding a hefty tax involved with transferring a weapon, that makes owning and transferring weapons prohibitive, I disagree.. The banning of any semi-auto weapons, regardless if the stock, handles, appearance etc.. I disagree.. Banning certain clips has yet to be proven necessary.. I disagree..
mad sweeney
Footballguy
Guns with extra handles, or heat guards, or flash suppressors, or folding stocks, and clips that hold 10+ rounds.. aren't "loopholes"90% of the public believes this is all about "assault weapons"..'timschochet said:'Carolina Hustler said:
And going after the guy who tries to buy a gun and has previously been prohibited from buying/possessing a firearm should be the first measure, that's illegal, yet it doesn't seem to be a priority.. putting another law in place, that is practically unenforceable, is silly.. They can't enforce the the more easily enforced laws they have in place now..
If they plan on enforcing the law, I agree, private sales should be background checked as well, but seems like the plan they've been talking about (or at least what I've heard of it in here) isn't simply just adding background checks for private sales.
So, if weapons are to be confiscated at any point in this, I disagree, if the government plans on adding a hefty tax involved with transferring a weapon, that makes owning and transferring weapons prohibitive, I disagree.. The banning of any semi-auto weapons, regardless if the stock, handles, appearance etc.. I disagree.. Banning certain clips has yet to be proven necessary.. I disagree..
Well, if you say so then it MUST be true! You wouldn't say anything you couldn't back up now, would you?
ichris
Footballguy
Gun owners in NY have one year to decide whether to comply with the new law or become criminals. A law many of them consider an infringement on their second amendment rights. One year to dispose of the weapons they purchased to protect their families. One year, or else! I don't think it's irrational for people facing this decision to feel like they are dealing with a moderate level of tyranny. Are you qualified to conclude that NY SAFE act doesn't violate the Constitution? To me it seems obvious a court will need to make that decision. The state just banned a significant majority of all modern firearm magazines, in common use for lawful purposes. Dismissing their concerns because you disagree could just be a lack of empathy. I don't know. Obviously people learn different lessons from history. Maybe that's why history tends to repeat itself every once in awhile. There are plenty examples where private gun ownership deters tyranny though, and some are actually current events.
Law-Abiding Mexicans Taking Up Illegal Guns
How will more background checks deter prohibited people from lying on background check forms?
The article you linked to was posted one day after a Border Patrol agent was murdered by violent Mexican drug gangs armed with "assault rifles" obtained through the ATF's Fast and Furious operation. Fast and Furious wasn't the ATF's first operation that helped arm violent criminals, apparently there were many operations just like it. It would be beyond irresponsible to NOT slash the part of their budget financing that kind of thing.The ATF is just like any other federal agency, it has a history overstepping the limits of the law. Often times to advance the agenda of the people running the organization. If they were simply interested in enforcing laws they probably wouldn't step on as many toes or face as much criticism from the NRA. Bureaucratic nature produces mission creep, they teach that in Government 101. If the gun control crowd is using the ATF budget to advance an anti-gun agenda then absolutely that part of their budget should be slashed.
When congress is bypassed to create new gun control rules, they run the risk of facing significant criticism for violating the constitution. Due to the Constitutional nature of firearm regulations it's especially important this agency should face a tough level of oversight. It's to protect our rights from any potential abuse of power. That in no way suggests the NRA wants the ATF to ignore perjuries on the Form 4473.
It might be acceptable for you if ideologically driven people are nominated to run the ATF. But I am glad the NRA is there to help "guard against the guardians" of the second amendment.
5 digit know nothing
Footballguy
Anyone catch this gem?
snagged the below from Reddit...
In fairness, let's look at what the Obama Administration memo leaked today does, in fact, say.
Essentially, it says that the President can kill an American citizen if that person:
So that said, when the U.S. government says that it will only target "al-Qaeda", it's being knowingly opaque and vague and is playing on this false notion that al-Qaeda is a strict organization. What are the criteria they're using to determine if somebody is a member of an organization that has no formal membership? If there's video of you shaking hands with Osama bin Laden, are you "al Qaeda"? You see the problem.
2) I plan how I'm going to do it: show up at X's house with a gun and kill them in their sleep.
3) I get in the car and go buy a gun and ammo.
4) I get back in the car and start driving to X's house.
5) I get to X's house and am sitting in my car in front of his house, waiting for him to go to sleep.
6) I see the lights go out, get out of my car and start walking up to X's house.
7) I open X's door, start walking up his stairs, and enter his room
8) With X still asleep, I put the gun to X's head
Now, let's pretend that Informant Y (aptly named) goes to the police and tells them of my plot. At which of those steps above would it be legal for the police to shoot me without trying to arrest me and bring me to court to face charges? The answer is that the police have the power to neutralize "imminent" threats of deadly violence with deadly force.
So at which point is X in "imminent" harm of danger? If the police catch up to me on my way to the gun shop, should they be allowed to kill me on sight? What about when I pull up to X's house? Clearly they can kill me if they burst into X's bedroom as I put my gun to his head.
According to the U.S., they can kill an American citizen BEFORE #1 above. What do I mean by that? Well, allow me to quote the memo itself, verbatim:
tl;dr The U.S. claims that it will only have the power to kill citizens who are 1) outside the U.S.; 2) are al-Qaeda (or affiliates); 3) are imminent threats to the U.S.; and 4) cannot be captured in a practical way. Those "factors" are far too subjective and vague.
And the gun grabbers think we're paranoid about the powers the government gives itself.
another gem:
snagged the below from Reddit...
In fairness, let's look at what the Obama Administration memo leaked today does, in fact, say.
Essentially, it says that the President can kill an American citizen if that person:
OK. That's easy.
Not easy. What is an "associated group"? For that matter, what is al-Qaeda? The phrase "al-Qaeda" is a term that has become too ubiquitous - a synonym, almost, for "Terrorist", and even more difficult to define. People seem to imagine al-Qaeda as this monolithic group that has a defined hierarchy, has a President, VP of Terrorist Planning, holds annual shareholder meetings and organizes potluck terrorist "meet and greets", etc. Kind of like a "terrorist corporation".In reality, "al-Qaeda" is in fact very loosely structured, and almost refers more to a concept than an actual organization. An information network, perhaps. Think Anonymous, but for people who want to militantly spread Islam in the world, rather than hack computer systems. There's no membership list, you don't get initiated into the group, and you're not under anybody's direct command. Basically, if you're the rare Muslim who has a burning desire to blow something up somewhere in the world, the "al-Qaeda network" is where you might go to get knowledge and, possibly, financing.
So that said, when the U.S. government says that it will only target "al-Qaeda", it's being knowingly opaque and vague and is playing on this false notion that al-Qaeda is a strict organization. What are the criteria they're using to determine if somebody is a member of an organization that has no formal membership? If there's video of you shaking hands with Osama bin Laden, are you "al Qaeda"? You see the problem.
What the hell does this mean? Define imminent. Let's say I'm planning a murder. Let's follow the steps:1) I decide in my mind that I'm going to kill X, and tell Informant Y
2) I plan how I'm going to do it: show up at X's house with a gun and kill them in their sleep.
3) I get in the car and go buy a gun and ammo.
4) I get back in the car and start driving to X's house.
5) I get to X's house and am sitting in my car in front of his house, waiting for him to go to sleep.
6) I see the lights go out, get out of my car and start walking up to X's house.
7) I open X's door, start walking up his stairs, and enter his room
8) With X still asleep, I put the gun to X's head
Now, let's pretend that Informant Y (aptly named) goes to the police and tells them of my plot. At which of those steps above would it be legal for the police to shoot me without trying to arrest me and bring me to court to face charges? The answer is that the police have the power to neutralize "imminent" threats of deadly violence with deadly force.
So at which point is X in "imminent" harm of danger? If the police catch up to me on my way to the gun shop, should they be allowed to kill me on sight? What about when I pull up to X's house? Clearly they can kill me if they burst into X's bedroom as I put my gun to his head.
According to the U.S., they can kill an American citizen BEFORE #1 above. What do I mean by that? Well, allow me to quote the memo itself, verbatim:
In other words, the U.S. definition for "imminent" doesn't even need to have evidence that a plot to cause harm even exists!!! Folks, that doesn't just expand the meaning of the word "imminent", it renders it completely meaningless. That's straight out Orwellian in its obliteration of objective words with objective meanings.Finally:
For starters, let's remember that the U.S. government went into Osama bin-Laden's compound hoping to capture him alive (so they claimed). They did NOT just drop a drone missile on him. This, the most wanted man in the history of the United States, mind you.That said, anybody can see how up in the air and subjective this "factor" is. What does "practical" mean? Who makes that determination? Practical in terms of cost? Risk of harm to U.S. operatives? Risk of harm to foreign military members? Remember, we don't always have to be the ones going in to get these guys. If they're abroad, then the government of the country that they're in can help us, or do it outright.
tl;dr The U.S. claims that it will only have the power to kill citizens who are 1) outside the U.S.; 2) are al-Qaeda (or affiliates); 3) are imminent threats to the U.S.; and 4) cannot be captured in a practical way. Those "factors" are far too subjective and vague.
And the gun grabbers think we're paranoid about the powers the government gives itself.
another gem:
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
What does this even mean? This is where the discussion becomes pointless. There is no such thing as a "moderate level of tyranny." Tyranny is tyranny, and its really offensive to those who have suffered under it to compare NY state gun laws to tyranny. Give me a ####### break.'ichris said:
cstu
Footballguy
You seem bothered by the word tyranny. The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Tyranny. Anyway, here's one definition of tyranny:
It's now considered legal for government officials to kill American citizens and you still have no concern about the abuse of government power?
ichris
Footballguy
No such thing? Offensive? Tyranny isn't binary. It's not on or off. You've heard the phrase, "tyranny of the majority." It was a significant topic of discussion in the debates that defined the founding of the country. Check out Federalist No. 10, by James Madison. If tyranny is tyranny then the majority and minority would see eye to eye, wouldn't they?
So human nature has evolved to make the concept irrelevant. We don't need to worry about government officials sacrificing individual rights for the common good? That's certainly a milestone for humanity.
I'm kind of afraid to ask, but just who are those people that we have just offended?
timschochet
Footballguy
Oh, I don't know. The victims of Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, North Korea, etc. comes to mind. Anyone who has suffered under a real tyranny would laugh and/or be insulted by the use of the term here. Much like the African-American athlete who compares the NFL to slavery and announces, after receiving criticism, that he has been "lynched", it's the height of absurdity.
timschochet
Footballguy
So now you are comparing gun restrictions in New York to James Madison's concerns about individual liberty? Really??? Please note the above highlighted comment. There really isn't anything more to say here.'ichris said:
Sorry, I was thinking US, although I'm sure none of those described will be offended.
Dvorak
Footballguy
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
Nice that you have your own accepted definition of the word tyranny. But I think the rest of us will stick with the real definition k?
timschochet
Footballguy
Well, in terms of the United States, outside of the obvious examples of African-Americans and Native Americans, examples of those who suffered under tyranny would include the victims of the Boston Police Strike, the interned Japanese-Americans, those falsely accused of being Communist during the Red Scare, and anyone who suffered under torture during the Bush administration. It would NOT, under any circumstances, include gun owners inconvenienced by a few more stringent gun laws.
timschochet
Footballguy
The answer is yes. That he would make such a comparison is incredibly shameful.
timschochet
Footballguy
If the "real definition" includes gun restrictions in New York, then no it isn't okay.
That's where I thought you would go. I would doubt many of those dead people are offended either.
timschochet
Footballguy
It's an offense to their memory. That is my firm opinion. It's one thing to complain about your Big Gulp being limited, or restrictions placed on your gun ownership. Perhaps these things are bad policy; that's certainly something we can debate. But when people talk about this stuff as "tyranny", it's shameful. It really is.
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
Well I guess you should change the definition to suit your argument.. carry on..
Just wondering, since the word Tyranny has now taken the place of the word genocide, what does genocide mean?
Last edited by a moderator:
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Tim, consider the source. The people you're "debating" with are so morally and intellectually bankrupt, why the surprise? These guys are Alex Jones on Adderall, when they should be on Thorazine.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Quite the opposite, actually. We're going to make our definition of genocide comport with your treatment of the word tyranny. From now on, genocide will include telling a woman of a different race that she should be on birth control.Well I guess you should change the definition to suit your argument.. carry on..
timschochet
Footballguy
Pretty solid proposal I came across to protect our politicians. We'll eliminate armed guards for the President, Vice President, and their families and instead we'll simply establish gun free zones around them.https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/eliminate-armed-guards-president-vice-president-and-their-families-and-establish-gun-free-zones/6RDGkxLK
