Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

At Least they'll Never-Ever go for our Guns!


Opie

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

Its amazing how far the understood right to own a gun has been warped. It is now unrecognizable and lacks all common sense or regard for community. The death toll it has beought is staggering. All so gun manufacturers can keep selling more guns. It especially funny in a sad way that these folks think they are going to stand up against a militarized police force or the actual military. You'll never even see the drone that launches the hellfire missile that ends your neighborhood.

I've been saying this for years.  Besides the fact that they choose to let the current administration do anything, and I mean anything, it wants to do without any kind of checks on power. 

If Trump told them guns needed to be handed in....many would just drool and nod yes like they do for everything Trump does.  Everything. Pay off whores, get whores, state of emergency land grabs, inciting violence and covering up the murder of journalist...doesn't matter what he does, they all comply and cheer.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

 

 

I absolutely love the OP’s clear and blatant ignoring of these quotes from his dear leader.   It shows the crystal clear hypocrisy of his point so I don’t blame him. 

Trump supporters understand that he was just talking about taking them away from black people, not real Americans.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

Its amazing how far the understood right to own a gun has been warped. It is now unrecognizable and lacks all common sense or regard for community. The death toll it has beought is staggering. All so gun manufacturers can keep selling more guns. It especially funny in a sad way that these folks think they are going to stand up against a militarized police force or the actual military. You'll never even see the drone that launches the hellfire missile that ends your neighborhood.

Everyone should have hellfire missiles. Second Amendment dammit!!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

only a fool would think gun confiscation isn't the goal 

the goal of who?  I'm sure there are people out there who would love all guns to be confiscated and banned, but I'd bet 90%+ are against that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, The General said:

It is funny usually get a response back. 

I’m an Opie fan in that he typically responds and, to me, is kind of a board version of a Hannity type. Good for entertainment

Wish I could feel the same but I find no entertainment in these talking heads (or their counterparts on the left).  When watching them I can’t help but think about the millions of people watching that believe it’s real news and fall for the BS.  It’s the news equivalent of reality TV.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

only a fool would think gun confiscation isn't the goal 

Let's be a little more specific.  Are we talking all guns?  Are we talking AR type guns?  Are we talking all semi-auto guns?  Are we even talking confiscation at all and actually talking about banning the future sale and manufacturing of certain types of guns?

Who are the real fools here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Everyone should have hellfire missiles. Second Amendment dammit!!

Yep, especially when those on the extreme pro-gun side argue that a gun is just a tool and 100% of the problem is people.  I always reply with let’s legalize bombs, grenades and rocket launchers too then.  The reply is always the same, “yeah but those are different”.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Yep, especially when those on the extreme pro-gun side argue that a gun is just a tool and 100% of the problem is people.  I always reply with let’s legalize bombs, grenades and rocket launchers too then.  The reply is always the same, “yeah but those are different”.  

Oh, so they agree that there IS a line that needs to be drawn as to what is reasonable for the general public to have. Wouldn't know it by all of the pearl-clutching that goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, jomar said:

the goal of who?  I'm sure there are people out there who would love all guns to be confiscated and banned, but I'd bet 90%+ are against that

the goal of the those driving these laws

and since they're the ones passing the laws, they get to decide .... understand this isn't a Democracy, we're not voting on it ......... its the very few elected that vote and Demcorats where they have the power are flexing it to pass anti-gun laws

its what they do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Let's be a little more specific.  Are we talking all guns?  Are we talking AR type guns?  Are we talking all semi-auto guns?  Are we even talking confiscation at all and actually talking about banning the future sale and manufacturing of certain types of guns?

Who are the real fools here?

depends on how the laws are written

that MASS law IIRC would ban my son's turkey hunting shotgun .... the real fools are those who think this is about saving lives of making anywhere safer because its not about that at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

depends on how the laws are written

that MASS law IIRC would ban my son's turkey hunting shotgun .... the real fools are those who think this is about saving lives of making anywhere safer because its not about that at all

What's it about then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Wish I could feel the same but I find no entertainment in these talking heads (or their counterparts on the left).  When watching them I can’t help but think about the millions of people watching that believe it’s real news and fall for the BS.  It’s the news equivalent of reality TV.  

Well there is that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

depends on how the laws are written

that MASS law IIRC would ban my son's turkey hunting shotgun .... the real fools are those who think this is about saving lives of making anywhere safer because its not about that at all

No one is taking your kid’s turkey hunting revolver or whatever.

The original post was some hacky attempt to label all Dems as coming for your guns. It was some mediocre fishing attempt. Definitely not Opies best work, half-hearted IMO.

When it was pointed out that the Trump said aloud “we should take the guns early and ignore the courts” there were crickets.

This is a joke thread for entertainment purposes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

What's it about then?

its knee jerk reactions and its people who do not own guns and are afraid trying to do anything they can out of fear

and it will fail - like the potentially dangerous person in Colorado right now .... banning the sales of handguns to 18 didn't stop her, banning the sales of Ar15's didn't stop her ... she simply chose another weapon right ?

there are literally more people killed with knives and bats and fists every year than rifles ....... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

its knee jerk reactions and its people who do not own guns and are afraid trying to do anything they can out of fear

and it will fail - like the potentially dangerous person in Colorado right now .... banning the sales of handguns to 18 didn't stop her, banning the sales of Ar15's didn't stop her ... she simply chose another weapon right ?

there are literally more people killed with knives and bats and fists every year than rifles ....... 

You literally do not know that so stop using that as if it's a fact.  There is not enough accurate data to prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

 

1 hour ago, Philo Beddoe said:

 

I looked at both of those and you need to look a little further into that data.  We all know what knives are but what are the other cutting instruments it's including with it?  There are also over 4,000 other weapons and firearms not stated.  No one knows how many of those 4,000 could be rifles.

So, if you use some common sense here we can gather that the knife number could actually be lower and the rifle number could be higher if we actually had accurate data.  We do not have accurate data though, so this theory doesn't exactly hold water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hawkeye21 said:

 

 

I looked at both of those and you need to look a little further into that data.  We all know what knives are but what are the other cutting instruments it's including with it?  There are also over 4,000 other weapons and firearms not stated.  No one knows how many of those 4,000 could be rifles.

So, if you use some common sense here we can gather that the knife number could actually be lower and the rifle number could be higher if we actually had accurate data.  We do not have accurate data though, so this theory doesn't exactly hold water.

Sure I get it but even if we assign all 3096 of the "unknown" to rifles which is impossible to do based on the statistics, it would still come out less than the total for knives, hand, blunt objects etc. (3733 vs. 3499). I'll even give you the "other guns" (187 - 3686). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Philo Beddoe said:

Sure I get it but even if we assign all 3096 of the "unknown" to rifles which is impossible to do based on the statistics, it would still come out less than the total for knives, hand, blunt objects etc. (3733 vs. 3499). I'll even give you the "other guns" (187 - 3686). 

The difference is you can't sit up in the 20th floor and kill 58 people and injure over 400 more across the street with a knife.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

The difference is you can't sit up in the 20th floor and kill 58 people and injure over 400 more across the street with a knife.

What if you have a really good arm, are a great shot, and have a bungee system rigged to return the knife, and of course lightening quick reflexes so that when it returns it doesn't pierce your own chest cavity?  Huh, what about that Mr. Man?  Then you can fling it over and over again until you get to those numbers, presuming that the people don't flee because they don't know what's happening since there are no reports from a gun warning them to flee.  Bungee knife, the silent killer.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Philo Beddoe said:

Sure I get it but even if we assign all 3096 of the "unknown" to rifles which is impossible to do based on the statistics, it would still come out less than the total for knives, hand, blunt objects etc. (3733 vs. 3499). I'll even give you the "other guns" (187 - 3686). 

You've just proved my point, it can't really be said accurately because we don't have the data.  You even added in blunt objects with knives and cutting instruments to make there number higher yet.

There is not enough data to use in an argument and to do so is just misleading in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

What if you have a really good arm, are a great shot, and have a bungee system rigged to return the knife, and of course lightening quick reflexes so that when it returns it doesn't pierce your own chest cavity?  Huh, what about that Mr. Man?  Then you can fling it over and over again until you get to those numbers, presuming that the people don't flee because they don't know what's happening since there are no reports from a gun warning them to flee.  Bungee knife, the silent killer.

I would use a boomerang with a really sharp edge on it.  Link could kill a lot of people like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I'd fully support a mandatory buy back program for AR-15 style rifles.   

Yeah I'm former military I dont think civilians need assault style weapons. Every expert in home defense will tell you to get a shotgun. We also dont hunt with assault weapons, well I mean hunters like me, I always used a bolt action rifle ,had a nice 308, or a 12 ga shotgun with slugs. As far as handguns I think a revolver works nicely loved my .41 magnum Ruger Super Blackhawk. Although I always liked my 1911a1 45 which was a single action. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

You've just proved my point, it can't really be said accurately because we don't have the data.  You even added in blunt objects with knives and cutting instruments to make there number higher yet.

There is not enough data to use in an argument and to do so is just misleading in my opinion.

Not really. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you’re arguing over semantics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Philo Beddoe said:

Not really. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you’re arguing over semantics.

Gave me the benefit of the doubt?  If anyone wants to use data to prove a point just make sure it's actually a good comparison.  It's not a good set of data for making an argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Opie said:

Eric Swalwell..."...has called for a ban on "military-style semiautomatic assault weapons" with a buy-back program...the ban would come with criminal consequences for people who did not participate in the buy-back"

At least I'd have a choice!!
Give us your guns or go to jail.

I feel much better about voting Democrat this time!  :excited:

Such is the right of people to go after guns.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Thunderlips said:

So?  it's their right to do that. 

It certainly is not the right of anyone to infringe on the rights of anyone else.  These rights weren't granted by the government.  They're supposed to be protected by the government and I totally agree that they should be kept out of the wrong hands.

People have to right not to own a gun....not to take the right to own one away from others.

We are told over an over again that nobody wants to take your guns away yet, a Democratic Candidate for President has stated that he would introduce legislation that would have the government infringe on the right of Americans to own a legal gun of their choice.  He also said that these guns would either be turned in or the owners would face criminal charges.  My only other choice would be that my guns would have to be stored away from me and my home.  A place of the government's choosing.

I would call that, infringing on my rights...something strictly verboten by the US Constitution.

If assault rifles are banned...how far away from a handgun ban are we?  The obvious argument would be that many more people are killed by handguns each year...and we've already banned assault rifles...what else can we do?

We have been told that a gun registry would have nothing to do with the confiscation of those guns but how else would the govt be able to enforce any law that says that those who didn't turn in their guns would be held criminal liable?  They would obviously have to know who owns these guns and where they are. ...something only possible with a gun registry.  And if the guns must be kept in certain locations, how hard would it be just to show up and take them?

If the Democrats want us to believe that nobody wants to take away our guns and we should stop being paranoid , they should stop saying that they want to take our guns away .

Edited by Opie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Opie said:

It certainly is not the right of anyone to infringe on the rights of anyone else.  These rights weren't granted by the government.  They're supposed to be protected by the government and I totally agree that they should be kept out of the wrong hands.

People have to right not to own a gun....not to take the right to own one away from others.

We are told over an over again that nobody wants to take your guns away yet, a Democratic Candidate for President has stated that he would introduce legislation that would have the government infringe on the right of Americans to own a legal gun of their choice.  He also said that these guns would either be turned in or the owners would face criminal charges.  My only other choice would be that my guns would have to be stored away from me and my home.  A place of the government's choosing.

I would call that, infringing on my rights...something strictly verboten by the US Constitution.

If assault rifles are banned...how far away from a handgun ban are we?  The obvious argument would be that many more people are killed by handguns each year...and we've already banned assault rifles...what else can we do?

We have been told that a gun registry would have nothing to do with the confiscation of those guns but how else would the govt be able to enforce any law that says that those who didn't turn in their guns would be held criminal liable?  They would obviously have to know who owns these guns and where they are. ...something only possible with a gun registry.  And if the guns must be kept in certain locations, how hard would it be just to show up and take them?

If the Democrats want us to believe that nobody wants to take away our guns and we should stop being paranoid , they should stop saying that they want to take our guns away .

The position held in the quote above seems like a caricature. You don’t have a right to bear unusual weapons. Why would anyone oppose banning assault rifles, bump stocks, high capacity magazines, et al?

Didn’t District of Columbia v Heller pretty much guarantees an individual’s right to bear keep guns for self defense. That’s been affirmed / strengthened by a couple of SC cases since then. There’s no way to undo that.

Lawyerly guys?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Opie said:

We are told over an over again that nobody wants to take your guns away yet, a Democratic Candidate for President has stated that he would introduce legislation that would have the government infringe on the right of Americans to own a legal gun of their choice. 

Can you please point out to me where in the 2nd Amendment the bolded appears?

Also, right before the bolded, you do write "legal gun".  By law, if what is proposed would pass, the guns in question would not be legal.  Therefore even with your stipulation, there would be no infringing on the right as the gun would be illegal to own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

it doesn't fit your views is what you mean

 

This has nothing to do with my views.  Are you going out of your way to be so dense not to see what I'm saying?  You're using incomplete data to support your view.  I am trying to explain how it's not complete data to use.  I'm not pushing any agenda here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Opie said:

It certainly is not the right of anyone to infringe on the rights of anyone else.  These rights weren't granted by the government.  They're supposed to be protected by the government and I totally agree that they should be kept out of the wrong hands.

People have to right not to own a gun....not to take the right to own one away from others.

We are told over an over again that nobody wants to take your guns away yet, a Democratic Candidate for President has stated that he would introduce legislation that would have the government infringe on the right of Americans to own a legal gun of their choice.  He also said that these guns would either be turned in or the owners would face criminal charges.  My only other choice would be that my guns would have to be stored away from me and my home.  A place of the government's choosing.

I would call that, infringing on my rights...something strictly verboten by the US Constitution.

If assault rifles are banned...how far away from a handgun ban are we?  The obvious argument would be that many more people are killed by handguns each year...and we've already banned assault rifles...what else can we do?

We have been told that a gun registry would have nothing to do with the confiscation of those guns but how else would the govt be able to enforce any law that says that those who didn't turn in their guns would be held criminal liable?  They would obviously have to know who owns these guns and where they are. ...something only possible with a gun registry.  And if the guns must be kept in certain locations, how hard would it be just to show up and take them?

If the Democrats want us to believe that nobody wants to take away our guns and we should stop being paranoid , they should stop saying that they want to take our guns away .

People have a right to try and repeal/amend the 2nd Amendment.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...