jafo's Content - Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
jafo replied to fantasycurse42's topic in The Politics Forum
in a free country you don't need to explain your need to exercise a right. I have a right to own the 3 AR-15s that I have. Whatever I decide to do with them legally is none of anyone's business.
jafo replied to Geezil's topic in The Politics Forum
Had a friend post on Facebook the video of Glenn Beck making this ridiculous point. I haven't seen anyone in here suggest we send weapons to the rebels. And I have no idea how a video of a Syrian rebel (likely from years ago) should have any impact on what's going on now. I think most intelligent people realize it's a pretty messy situation with a lot of variables and no ideal solution. But don't let that stop Beck from using fear to make the issue as black and white as possible. I have no clue about whatever Glenn Beck has going around. I'm referring to a Wolf Blitzer video from CNN a few months back. Edit - Found it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEZUraRor1o
I'm sure by now you've all seen the Syrian rebel that cuts the chest of a dead Syrian army member, pulls out his organs, and starts to eat his heart. And these are the people some of you believe we need to send weapons and support to?
jafo replied to ATC1's topic in Footballguys Free For All
...for career criminals and mental patients that want to shoot somebody.Give us a bill that goes after career criminals and mental patients then. Stop harassing law abiding citizens.
It's a great day for freedom.
It fails to mention how many home invasions are stopped with a gun without shooting anyone. Seems to be more common than lethal methods, and many cases go unreported.
Hell must be getting a bit chilly right now. I have enjoyed solving the world's problems with you. Now, if only the politicians could be as smart as fantasy football nerds. :football:So, we have something both sides agree with in regards to private sales / gunshow loophole - whatever you want to call it - and really very few feel that already legal and available guns should be banned. The magazine capacity seems to be moving in favor of the pro-gun rights side, but not by landslide. We have a couple pro-ban who have crossed over to the "it doesn't matter," but that issue only seems about 60:40. I would be in favor of a non-government controlled "database" or original sales listing with gun owners required to keep FFL approved bills of sale to provide a paper trail of ownership, and identification or driver's license tags on people prevented by law from owning guns. If gun owners conceded this, could we then take the magazine limitation off the table?I'm of the opinion that magazine limitations are worthless. They shouldn't even be on the table. I don't see how anyone can justify this as a means of prevention. There just isn't a significant difference in the outcome between a 6, 10, 15, or 30 round magazine when considering the total shots that can be fired. It would be nice to see Feinstein watch a demonstration of someone shooting and reloading a revolver. Let her count, out loud, how many shots they can fire in 10 minutes. That would be eye opening.I realize there's a whole bunch of gun people who can re-load extremely quickly. I get that. But that doesn't mean that some crazed madman like Jared Loughner is able to do it. The fact is that some of these guys are tackled when they are trying to re-load. Therefore, I think we can make the reasonable assumption that if any of these killers had been forced to re-load after 10 bullets rather than 30 (or whatever the number was) lives would have been saved. That's why I continue to find your denials ultimately unconvincing.They found that the Newtown killer reloaded most of his mags after firing 10-15 rounds out of each one. That didn't seem to slow the killing there.
This time, the North will tank it.If Obama tries this then he becomes a dictator. It would show is is not working for the people and our constitution, but against us. We have a fundamental right and responsibility to stand up and overthrow this type of government.
If Obama tries to pass an executive order banning anything to do with the second amendment, there will be a civil war in this Country.
My linkLooks like others are feeling the same as I do.
Registering the guns did not make banning them "easier." They were banned because the state decided to ban them. Had they never been registered, the state would still have decided to ban them. There is no connection between the two events. Registration is for law enforcement purposes, to fight crime by allowing law enforcement to isolate the illegal transfer and ownership of firearms. It has NOTHING to do with planned confiscation. Obviously there is no way to convince you or other NRA supporters of this, but hopefully the general public is not as paranoid as you guys are, and we will find a way to make this happen.Trolling at its finest right here...
jafo replied to Flying Spaghetti Monster's topic in Footballguys Free For All
Super Meat Boy, The Kid levels. Took me forever to finish.
I'm not sure I have a problem with the news organizations publishing the addresses of gun owners. It lets the criminals know which houses are going to be easy to invade, and which ones will have a gun pointed at them.
Violent crime statistics in the U.S. Video
Not surprised to see this thread has turned into name calling. There are some serious internet tough guys in this house.
I feel no one has the right to my take my stuff, whether they try and harm me doesn't change things..I am prepared to stop them. Why let the criminals rule?So you are prepared to murder for petty theft?If someone breaks into my house I am prepared to shoot them if necessary. If I feel my life or my family's life is in danger I would shoot to kill, otherwise a shot to incapacitate them would suffice.
I feel no one has the right to my take my stuff, whether they try and harm me doesn't change things..I am prepared to stop them. Why let the criminals rule?
Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject. These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.The anti gun crowd are delusional if they think more laws are going to stop the people that already break the laws.What about the pro gun people that want to make sure the laws don't enable innocent people to be at unnecessary risk of harm? And as of today, that seems to be just the case.If more laws won't help the situation, we shouldn't entertain them. But we KNOW the current legal set up (among other things) doesn't work. So we must discuss what legal framework / changes would help.I'd have to disagree, the laws we have are working and have been effective for many years now. It's easy to get distracted every time there is another shooting, but if you take a step back and look at the crime rates as a whole, you'll see its improving.Yea..it's easy to get distracted when 20 6 and 7 year olds are shot in cold blood multiple times each.Maybe you need to step back and allow those with cooler heads to have the discussion, until you can get past the emotion of that incident. I understand you are trolling anyways, and I probably shouldn't even waste my time entertaining your little show, but I felt it needed to be said.
Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject. These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.The anti gun crowd are delusional if they think more laws are going to stop the people that already break the laws.What about the pro gun people that want to make sure the laws don't enable innocent people to be at unnecessary risk of harm? And as of today, that seems to be just the case.If more laws won't help the situation, we shouldn't entertain them. But we KNOW the current legal set up (among other things) doesn't work. So we must discuss what legal framework / changes would help.I'd have to disagree, the laws we have are working and have been effective for many years now. It's easy to get distracted every time there is another shooting, but if you take a step back and look at the crime rates as a whole, you'll see its improving.
How does one carry 15, 10 round mags? Where does he have these so he can quickly load these? Authorities said that Lanza was so fast b/c he taped 2 magazines together? So if the authorities say this is why it was so fast, I guess I'll take their word for it. So more magazines, is less ability to tape them together. People on here say they can change a magazine in less than a second, but that would be under ideal conditions. Not running around in chaos. Odds are he'd have to carry around 15 mags in a bag where he would fumble for it. I guarantee any study will show that someone can get off many more bullets, the bigger the clips are. :wall:Slam your head all you want, but we're going to find a way to make these ####ers illegal.Molon labeThese responses are just my point that by being overly stubborn, those who irrationally hold onto the "WE WON'T GIVE AN INCH" approach risk losing a lot more gun ownership rights than if we actually look for a solution that is not based on personal selfish want/need for arms, but an objective approach that better reflects a balanced regulatory framework to prevent more disasters.If a solution is presented that targets the criminals breaking the law I'd be happy to "give an inch". I've already stated I don't have a problem with making private sales at a gun show pass a background check. Banning the size of a magazine or a semi automatic rifle only hurts people that obey the law, so yea I won't give on that one because it has already been proven to not work.A couple thoughts. We both agree on the access question, which is important. Well, we agree in so much that there need to be no loopholes to get around background checks.Personally, I think we need more than background checks - training, registration, ongoing check ups... you show you are responsible in both use and storage you are good to go.Depending upon how successful this can be, then we would not need to entertain banning more weapons / variations (ie mag size etc). That said, if having some weapons out there presents a reality where, even with more regulation, the guns keep getting into the wrong hands, harming innocent people, then we HAVE to look at more stringent / wide ranging bans, because the rights of innocent people to not get killed trumps the general right to own such additional weapons for additional self defense. Basically, if the cons of having the guns out there really outweigh the pros (personal freedom for self defense and ability to arm should a hypothetical over reaching gov't look to usurp the will of the people), then we need to accept wider ranging bans.For me, the more training and regulation we have, the less bans outright will be needed. But again, I think it all has to be on the table at this point.I am 100% for gun training and safety. If someone doesn't know how to use a gun, they are a danger to themselves and those around. I am more concerned about the person who wants to be a mass murdering son of a #####..they are going to use what is available. If he can't get a gun, he is going to turn to a homemade bomb, or some other weapon capable of inflicting massive amounts of damage. At the end of the day, we really need to focus on identifying these people, what the warning signs are, and how to stop them before it happens. I can't say we as a society really know what makes these people tick yet, but we need to.
Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject. These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.The anti gun crowd are delusional if they think more laws are going to stop the people that already break the laws.
How does one carry 15, 10 round mags? Where does he have these so he can quickly load these? Authorities said that Lanza was so fast b/c he taped 2 magazines together? So if the authorities say this is why it was so fast, I guess I'll take their word for it. So more magazines, is less ability to tape them together. People on here say they can change a magazine in less than a second, but that would be under ideal conditions. Not running around in chaos. Odds are he'd have to carry around 15 mags in a bag where he would fumble for it. I guarantee any study will show that someone can get off many more bullets, the bigger the clips are. :wall:Slam your head all you want, but we're going to find a way to make these ####ers illegal.Molon labeThese responses are just my point that by being overly stubborn, those who irrationally hold onto the "WE WON'T GIVE AN INCH" approach risk losing a lot more gun ownership rights than if we actually look for a solution that is not based on personal selfish want/need for arms, but an objective approach that better reflects a balanced regulatory framework to prevent more disasters.If a solution is presented that targets the criminals breaking the law I'd be happy to "give an inch". I've already stated I don't have a problem with making private sales at a gun show pass a background check. Banning the size of a magazine or a semi automatic rifle only hurts people that obey the law, so yea I won't give on that one because it has already been proven to not work.
Magazine sales And this is just one company people. The 30 round mags are here to stay, like them or not. Let alone the millions of magazines already owned. At least the economy is booming.
Good luck Tim. Even if you ban new sales of 30 round magazines, there are few lifetime supplys worth out there that will be pre ban and legal. Its a futile effort. Much more would be gained focusing on criminals than everyday citizens.
jafo's Content - Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
jafo replied to fantasycurse42's topic in The Politics Forum
in a free country you don't need to explain your need to exercise a right. I have a right to own the 3 AR-15s that I have. Whatever I decide to do with them legally is none of anyone's business.
jafo replied to Geezil's topic in The Politics Forum
Had a friend post on Facebook the video of Glenn Beck making this ridiculous point. I haven't seen anyone in here suggest we send weapons to the rebels. And I have no idea how a video of a Syrian rebel (likely from years ago) should have any impact on what's going on now. I think most intelligent people realize it's a pretty messy situation with a lot of variables and no ideal solution. But don't let that stop Beck from using fear to make the issue as black and white as possible. I have no clue about whatever Glenn Beck has going around. I'm referring to a Wolf Blitzer video from CNN a few months back. Edit - Found it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEZUraRor1o
I'm sure by now you've all seen the Syrian rebel that cuts the chest of a dead Syrian army member, pulls out his organs, and starts to eat his heart. And these are the people some of you believe we need to send weapons and support to?
jafo replied to ATC1's topic in Footballguys Free For All
...for career criminals and mental patients that want to shoot somebody.Give us a bill that goes after career criminals and mental patients then. Stop harassing law abiding citizens.
It's a great day for freedom.
It fails to mention how many home invasions are stopped with a gun without shooting anyone. Seems to be more common than lethal methods, and many cases go unreported.
Hell must be getting a bit chilly right now. I have enjoyed solving the world's problems with you. Now, if only the politicians could be as smart as fantasy football nerds. :football:So, we have something both sides agree with in regards to private sales / gunshow loophole - whatever you want to call it - and really very few feel that already legal and available guns should be banned. The magazine capacity seems to be moving in favor of the pro-gun rights side, but not by landslide. We have a couple pro-ban who have crossed over to the "it doesn't matter," but that issue only seems about 60:40. I would be in favor of a non-government controlled "database" or original sales listing with gun owners required to keep FFL approved bills of sale to provide a paper trail of ownership, and identification or driver's license tags on people prevented by law from owning guns. If gun owners conceded this, could we then take the magazine limitation off the table?I'm of the opinion that magazine limitations are worthless. They shouldn't even be on the table. I don't see how anyone can justify this as a means of prevention. There just isn't a significant difference in the outcome between a 6, 10, 15, or 30 round magazine when considering the total shots that can be fired. It would be nice to see Feinstein watch a demonstration of someone shooting and reloading a revolver. Let her count, out loud, how many shots they can fire in 10 minutes. That would be eye opening.I realize there's a whole bunch of gun people who can re-load extremely quickly. I get that. But that doesn't mean that some crazed madman like Jared Loughner is able to do it. The fact is that some of these guys are tackled when they are trying to re-load. Therefore, I think we can make the reasonable assumption that if any of these killers had been forced to re-load after 10 bullets rather than 30 (or whatever the number was) lives would have been saved. That's why I continue to find your denials ultimately unconvincing.They found that the Newtown killer reloaded most of his mags after firing 10-15 rounds out of each one. That didn't seem to slow the killing there.
This time, the North will tank it.If Obama tries this then he becomes a dictator. It would show is is not working for the people and our constitution, but against us. We have a fundamental right and responsibility to stand up and overthrow this type of government.
If Obama tries to pass an executive order banning anything to do with the second amendment, there will be a civil war in this Country.
My linkLooks like others are feeling the same as I do.
Registering the guns did not make banning them "easier." They were banned because the state decided to ban them. Had they never been registered, the state would still have decided to ban them. There is no connection between the two events. Registration is for law enforcement purposes, to fight crime by allowing law enforcement to isolate the illegal transfer and ownership of firearms. It has NOTHING to do with planned confiscation. Obviously there is no way to convince you or other NRA supporters of this, but hopefully the general public is not as paranoid as you guys are, and we will find a way to make this happen.Trolling at its finest right here...
jafo replied to Flying Spaghetti Monster's topic in Footballguys Free For All
Super Meat Boy, The Kid levels. Took me forever to finish.
I'm not sure I have a problem with the news organizations publishing the addresses of gun owners. It lets the criminals know which houses are going to be easy to invade, and which ones will have a gun pointed at them.
Violent crime statistics in the U.S. Video
Not surprised to see this thread has turned into name calling. There are some serious internet tough guys in this house.
I feel no one has the right to my take my stuff, whether they try and harm me doesn't change things..I am prepared to stop them. Why let the criminals rule?So you are prepared to murder for petty theft?If someone breaks into my house I am prepared to shoot them if necessary. If I feel my life or my family's life is in danger I would shoot to kill, otherwise a shot to incapacitate them would suffice.
I feel no one has the right to my take my stuff, whether they try and harm me doesn't change things..I am prepared to stop them. Why let the criminals rule?
Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject. These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.The anti gun crowd are delusional if they think more laws are going to stop the people that already break the laws.What about the pro gun people that want to make sure the laws don't enable innocent people to be at unnecessary risk of harm? And as of today, that seems to be just the case.If more laws won't help the situation, we shouldn't entertain them. But we KNOW the current legal set up (among other things) doesn't work. So we must discuss what legal framework / changes would help.I'd have to disagree, the laws we have are working and have been effective for many years now. It's easy to get distracted every time there is another shooting, but if you take a step back and look at the crime rates as a whole, you'll see its improving.Yea..it's easy to get distracted when 20 6 and 7 year olds are shot in cold blood multiple times each.Maybe you need to step back and al
low those with cooler heads to have the discussion, until you can get past the emotion of that incident. I understand you are trolling anyways, and I probably shouldn't even waste my time entertaining your little show, but I felt it needed to be said.
Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject. These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.The anti gun crowd are delusional if they think more laws are going to stop the people that already break the laws.What about the pro gun people that want to make sure the laws don't enable innocent people to be at unnecessary risk of harm? And as of today, that seems to be just the case.If more laws won't help the situation, we shouldn't entertain them. But we KNOW the current legal set up (among other things) doesn't work. So we must discuss what legal framework / changes would help.I'd have to disagree, the laws we have are working and have been effective for many years now. It's easy to get distracted every time there is another shooting, but if you take a step back and look at the crime rates as a whole, you'll see its improving.
How does one carry 15, 10 round mags? Where does he have these so he can quickly load these? Authorities said that Lanza was so fast b/c he taped 2 magazines together? So if the authorities say this is why it was so fast, I guess I'll take their word for it. So more magazines, is less ability to tape them together. People on here say they can change a magazine in less than a second, but that would be under ideal conditions. Not running around in chaos. Odds are he'd have to carry around 15 mags in a bag where he would fumble for it. I guarantee any study will show that someone can get off many more bullets, the bigger the clips are. :wall:Slam your head all you want, but we're going to find a way to make these ####ers illegal.Molon labeThese responses are just my point that by being overly stubborn, those who irrationally hold onto the "WE WON'T GIVE AN INCH" approach risk losing a lot more gun ownership rights than if we actually look for a solution that is not based on personal selfish want/need for arms, but an objective approach that better reflects a balanced regulatory framework to prevent more disasters.If a solution is presented that targets the criminals breaking the law I'd be happy to "give an inch". I've already stated I don't have a problem with making private sales at a gun show pass a background check. Banning the size of a magazine or a semi automatic rifle only hurts people that obey the law, so yea I won't give on that one because it has already been proven to not work.A couple thoughts. We both agree on the access question, which is important. Well, we agree in so much that there need to be no loopholes to get around background checks.Personally, I think we need more than background checks - training, registration, ongoing check ups... you show you are responsible in both use and storage you are good to go.Depending upon how successful this can be, then we would not need to entertain banning more weapons / variations (ie mag size etc). That said, if having some weapons out there presents a reality where, even with more regulation, the guns keep getting into the wrong hands, harming innocent people, then we HAVE to look at more stringent / wide ranging bans, because the rights of innocent people to not get killed trumps the general right to own such additional weapons for additional self defense. Basically, if the cons of having the guns out there really outweigh the pros (personal freedom for self defense and ability to arm should a hypothetical over reaching gov't look to usurp the will of the people), then we need to accept wider ranging bans.For me, the more training and regulation we have, the less bans outright will be needed. But again, I think it all has to be on the table at this point.I am 100% for gun training and safety. If someone doesn't know how to use a gun, they are a danger to themselves and those around. I am more concerned about the person who wants to be a mass murdering son of a #####..they are going to use what is available. If he can't get a gun, he is going to turn to a homemade bomb, or some other weapon capable of inflicting massive amounts of damage. At the end of the day, we really need to focus on identifying these people, what the warning signs are, and how to stop them before it happens. I can't say we as a society really know what makes these people tick yet, but we need to.
Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject. These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.The anti gun crowd are delusional if they think more laws are going to stop the people that already break the laws.
How does one carry 15, 10 round mags? Where does he have these so he can quickly load these? Authorities said that Lanza was so fast b/c he taped 2 magazines together? So if the authorities say this is why it was so fast, I guess I'll take their word for it. So more magazines, is less ability to tape them together. People on here say they can change a magazine in less than a second, but that would be under ideal conditions. Not running around in chaos. Odds are he'd have to carry around 15 mags in a bag where he would fumble for it. I guarantee any study will show that someone can get off many more bullets, the bigger the clips are. :wall:Slam your head all you want, but we're going to find a way to make these ####ers illegal.Molon labeThese responses are just my point that by being overly stubborn, those who irrationally hold onto the "WE WON'T GIVE AN INCH" approach risk losing a lot more gun ownership rights than if we actually look for a solution that is not based on personal selfish want/need for arms, but an objective approach that better reflects a balanced regulatory framework to prevent more disasters.If a solution is presented that targets the criminals breaking the law I'd be happy to "give an inch". I've already stated I don't have a problem with making private sales at a gun show pass a background check. Banning the size of a magazine or a semi automatic rifle only hurts people that obey the law, so yea I won't give on that one because it has already been proven to not work.
Magazine sales And this is just one company people. The 30 round mags are here to stay, like them or not. Let alone the millions of magazines already owned. At least the economy is booming.
Good luck Tim. Even if you ban new sales of 30 round magazines, there are few lifetime supplys worth out there that will be pre ban and legal. Its a futile effort. Much more would be gained focusing on criminals than everyday citizens.