darthtang aw
Active Member
and the gun in her hand.
[VIDEO][/VIDEO]
[VIDEO][/VIDEO]
By the grace of god.......................................
- Thread starter darthtang aw
- Start date
aggiealum
Member
Brother. Someone likes to beat a dead horse to death. Can't argue about homosexuality discrimination in Arizona any longer, so let's drag up a story where the innocent homeowner wins out against the bad guy by pulling out his gun and blowing them away. This happens every day across America. But let's ignore the stories of the "responsible gun owner" who blows away an innocent kid simply because he didn't like hearing his loud music coming out of his car. Ooh, ooh. I know, let's talk about Trayvon Martin again.
I'm not sure that there is a reason to debate about the guy who shoots into a car with kids over loud music. Did anyone in the forum think that guy was in the right on that? Does anyone think the guy who shot someone over using the cell phone in the movie theater was in the right?
So, what exactly is there to discuss or debate with that?
So, what exactly is there to discuss or debate with that?
darthtang aw
Active Member
I don't remember ever debating about homosexuality discrimination in Arizona. Did I? Nope, pretty sure I said i didn't care as even if it did pass (which it didn't) the supreme court would overturn it.
I posted a video and quick comment...that was used in the video. That is all. It is amazing what someone can infer from so little.
Are you saying the owner had a right to shoot those kids? Are you saying that guy is "responsible"? Because if not, I don't think there is anything to discuss.
I posted a video and quick comment...that was used in the video. That is all. It is amazing what someone can infer from so little.
2quills
Well-Known Member
I don't remember ever debating about homosexuality discrimination in Arizona. Did I? Nope, pretty sure I said i didn't care as even if it did pass (which it didn't) the supreme court would overturn it.
I even agreed that stuff going on in AZ, was rediculous which is why it was already over turned. Why is he still arguing this stuff? Keep up, Aggie.
I even agreed that stuff going on in AZ, was rediculous which is why it was already over turned. Why is he still arguing this stuff? Keep up, Aggie.
aggiealum
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397238/by-the-grace-of-god#post_3540257
I don't remember ever debating about homosexuality discrimination in Arizona. Did I? Nope, pretty sure I said i didn't care as even if it did pass (which it didn't) the supreme court would overturn it.
Are you saying the owner had a right to shoot those kids? Are you saying that guy is "responsible"? Because if not, I don't think there is anything to discuss.
I posted a video and quick comment...that was used in the video. That is all. It is amazing what someone can infer from so little.
No debate? Then what was that 6 page commenting that Bang Guy finally shut down. For someone who "didn't care if it passed", you sure seemed to chime into the debate quite a few times.
And the point of the "quick video and comment" was? Home invasions happen about a couple hundred times a day around this country, if not more. Some end up where the homeowner is a victim, others have these hero stories that the gun nuts use to validate a reason to arm every person with the capability of breathing. Me thinks your intention was just to stir up another hornets nest with yet another controversial topic.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397238/by-the-grace-of-god#post_3540257
I don't remember ever debating about homosexuality discrimination in Arizona. Did I? Nope, pretty sure I said i didn't care as even if it did pass (which it didn't) the supreme court would overturn it.
Are you saying the owner had a right to shoot those kids? Are you saying that guy is "responsible"? Because if not, I don't think there is anything to discuss.
I posted a video and quick comment...that was used in the video. That is all. It is amazing what someone can infer from so little.
No debate? Then what was that 6 page commenting that Bang Guy finally shut down. For someone who "didn't care if it passed", you sure seemed to chime into the debate quite a few times.
And the point of the "quick video and comment" was? Home invasions happen about a couple hundred times a day around this country, if not more. Some end up where the homeowner is a victim, others have these hero stories that the gun nuts use to validate a reason to arm every person with the capability of breathing. Me thinks your intention was just to stir up another hornets nest with yet another controversial topic.
darthtang aw
Active Member
No debate? Then what was that 6 page commenting that Bang Guy finally shut down. For someone who "didn't care if it passed", you sure seemed to chime into the debate quite a few times.
You and bunch of other guys debating homsexuality. pretty sure I was debating biblical intrepretations. If I wasn't, feel free to post the quote of myself saying homosexuality is horrible and I feel they are lower than scum...or whatever you think I said.
I posted because I found it interesting that a woman with a gun to her head managed to defend herself, walk away alive, and put seven into a criminal. I own guns, but I am not sure I could do that with a gun to my head.
If I post a news story about a lady being taken off life support are you going to assume I am making some controversial topic? Even if the news story goes on to explain her life and what not?
You and bunch of other guys debating homsexuality. pretty sure I was debating biblical intrepretations. If I wasn't, feel free to post the quote of myself saying homosexuality is horrible and I feel they are lower than scum...or whatever you think I said.
Where was the controversy? You seemed to find it. so explain it.
I posted because I found it interesting that a woman with a gun to her head managed to defend herself, walk away alive, and put seven into a criminal. I own guns, but I am not sure I could do that with a gun to my head.
If I post a news story about a lady being taken off life support are you going to assume I am making some controversial topic? Even if the news story goes on to explain her life and what not?
jovial
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397238/by-the-grace-of-god#post_3540207
Brother. Someone likes to beat a dead horse to death. Can't argue about homosexuality discrimination in Arizona any longer, so let's drag up a story where the innocent homeowner wins out against the bad guy by pulling out his gun and blowing them away. This happens every day across America. But let's ignore the stories of the "responsible gun owner" who blows away an innocent kid simply because he didn't like hearing his loud music coming out of his car. Ooh, ooh. I know, let's talk about Trayvon Martin again.
He should have turned his radio down.
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397238/by-the-grace-of-god#post_3540207
Brother. Someone likes to beat a dead horse to death. Can't argue about homosexuality discrimination in Arizona any longer, so let's drag up a story where the innocent homeowner wins out against the bad guy by pulling out his gun and blowing them away. This happens every day across America. But let's ignore the stories of the "responsible gun owner" who blows away an innocent kid simply because he didn't like hearing his loud music coming out of his car. Ooh, ooh. I know, let's talk about Trayvon Martin again.
aggiealum
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397238/by-the-grace-of-god#post_3540285
You and bunch of other guys debating homsexuality. pretty sure I was debating biblical intrepretations. If I wasn't, feel free to post the quote of myself saying homosexuality is horrible and I feel they are lower than scum...or whatever you think I said.
Where was the controversy? You seemed to find it. so explain it.
I posted because I found it interesting that a woman with a gun to her head managed to defend herself, walk away alive, and put seven into a criminal. I own guns, but I am not sure I could do that with a gun to my head.
If I post a news story about a lady being taken off life support are you going to assume I am making some controversial topic? Even if the news story goes on to explain her life and what not?
Your M.O. here is to constantly post controversial topics. I rarely see you post a "feel good" story. Think you get a rise out of seeing who you can suck into your game. You're like that little kid that winds up the steel toy, then sits back and watches it spin. Then when someone does play the game and counters your opinion, you play the innocent little boy looking up at his Mom after pulling Sally's hair and saying "What? I didn't do it. I have no idea what you're talking about." Psychological head games seem to be your forte.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397238/by-the-grace-of-god#post_3540285
You and bunch of other guys debating homsexuality. pretty sure I was debating biblical intrepretations. If I wasn't, feel free to post the quote of myself saying homosexuality is horrible and I feel they are lower than scum...or whatever you think I said.
Where was the controversy? You seemed to find it. so explain it.
I posted because I found it interesting that a woman with a gun to her head managed to defend herself, walk away alive, and put seven into a criminal. I own guns, but I am not sure I could do that with a gun to my head.
If I post a news story about a lady being taken off life support are you going to assume I am making some controversial topic? Even if the news story goes on to explain her life and what not?
Your M.O. here is to constantly post controversial topics. I rarely see you post a "feel good" story. Think you get a rise out of seeing who you can suck into your game. You're like that little kid that winds up the steel toy, then sits back and watches it spin. Then when someone does play the game and counters your opinion, you play the innocent little boy looking up at his Mom after pulling Sally's hair and saying "What? I didn't do it. I have no idea what you're talking about." Psychological head games seem to be your forte.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Your M.O. here is to constantly post controversial topics. I rarely see you post a "feel good" story. Think you get a rise out of seeing who you can suck into your game. You're like that little kid that winds up the steel toy, then sits back and watches it spin. Then when someone does play the game and counters your opinion, you play the innocent little boy looking up at his Mom after pulling Sally's hair and saying "What? I didn't do it. I have no idea what you're talking about." Psychological head games seem to be your forte.
Yep, you have me pegged. You have been here for what, a few months? Yet you know my MO. I have been here for years...under three different names, all of which I made known of the name change due to password issues. Here, feel free to research Lionkiller, DarthtangAW, and Darthtang. I have been here since 2004 I believe. I have started games, jokes, and average conversations. Been in all the forums. I was helping with seahorses before this forum had a seahorse section. Most of the seahorse advise came from me way back when.
I have seen mods come and go (Yet Beth and Bang Guy always remain), I have seen political discussion posters come and go. I have seen kids grow up on this forum. I have seen friends die (R.I.P. Tobian).
So you have me pegged.....good for you. Think what you want. I have been starting conversations for years here. half political. The other half not. Most of my topics dont get locked (till recently) and are actually civil conversations. Then you show up. Speaking down to people, infering various things about them, and even down right insulting them. And than try to pretend that wasn't your intent. So who is the one pulling hair then trying to look innocent. I just point out the hair. It isn't my fault if you actually pull it.
I question your political viewpoints. You insult. And I am the bad guy?
It is funny. You complain that I am playing psycological games, as if that is a bad thing, yet you jump right in. No one forces you to comment. No one forces you to read me. In fact I am pretty sure you can put me on an "ignore" feature and never have to read one of my posts again. Why don't you try that if you are so bothered.
Yep, you have me pegged. You have been here for what, a few months? Yet you know my MO. I have been here for years...under three different names, all of which I made known of the name change due to password issues. Here, feel free to research Lionkiller, DarthtangAW, and Darthtang. I have been here since 2004 I believe. I have started games, jokes, and average conversations. Been in all the forums. I was helping with seahorses before this forum had a seahorse section. Most of the seahorse advise came from me way back when.
I have seen mods come and go (Yet Beth and Bang Guy always remain), I have seen political discussion posters come and go. I have seen kids grow up on this forum. I have seen friends die (R.I.P. Tobian).
So you have me pegged.....good for you. Think what you want. I have been starting conversations for years here. half political. The other half not. Most of my topics dont get locked (till recently) and are actually civil conversations. Then you show up. Speaking down to people, infering various things about them, and even down right insulting them. And than try to pretend that wasn't your intent. So who is the one pulling hair then trying to look innocent. I just point out the hair. It isn't my fault if you actually pull it.
I question your political viewpoints. You insult. And I am the bad guy?
It is funny. You complain that I am playing psycological games, as if that is a bad thing, yet you jump right in. No one forces you to comment. No one forces you to read me. In fact I am pretty sure you can put me on an "ignore" feature and never have to read one of my posts again. Why don't you try that if you are so bothered.
sharkysmachine
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397238/by-the-grace-of-god#post_3540352
Your M.O. here is to constantly post controversial topics. I rarely see you post a "feel good" story. Think you get a rise out of seeing who you can suck into your game. You're like that little kid that winds up the steel toy, then sits back and watches it spin. Then when someone does play the game and counters your opinion, you play the innocent little boy looking up at his Mom after pulling Sally's hair and saying "What? I didn't do it. I have no idea what you're talking about." Psychological head games seem to be your forte.
And hypocrisy seems to be yours. You continue to be sucked in, chewed up and spit out. You preach tolerance, but give none, you hate guns yet own them, you encourage bigger govt and defend the gay lifestyle but criticize the religious beliefs and traditional values of others. Since you cant make rational arguments , hatred, intolerance and mud slinging seems to be your niche.
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397238/by-the-grace-of-god#post_3540352
Your M.O. here is to constantly post controversial topics. I rarely see you post a "feel good" story. Think you get a rise out of seeing who you can suck into your game. You're like that little kid that winds up the steel toy, then sits back and watches it spin. Then when someone does play the game and counters your opinion, you play the innocent little boy looking up at his Mom after pulling Sally's hair and saying "What? I didn't do it. I have no idea what you're talking about." Psychological head games seem to be your forte.
And hypocrisy seems to be yours. You continue to be sucked in, chewed up and spit out. You preach tolerance, but give none, you hate guns yet own them, you encourage bigger govt and defend the gay lifestyle but criticize the religious beliefs and traditional values of others. Since you cant make rational arguments , hatred, intolerance and mud slinging seems to be your niche.
sharkysmachine
Member
Absoloutely but thats how communism works, liberal or progressive is the popular term for modern day communist.
aggiealum
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/397238/by-the-grace-of-god#post_3540369
Shouldn't it be up to the individual to decide whether or not they want to have the ability to defend themselves? Nobody wants to force anyone to own a gun but left wingers want to ban them or make it nearly impossible to buy one.
"left wingers" don't want to ban every gun known to man. They do take the logical course when it comes to the ownership of specific types of firearms. These gun nuts that go out and spend thousands of dollars on AK-47's, AR-15's and such say they do it because "I like shooting them for sport". Yea right. They shoot them because it makes them feel powerful by having the ability to rip up a milk jug in 30 seconds with 50 rounds of ammo. However, these same individuals ignore the fact that same weapon has the capability to rip up one or more human beings in that same 30 seconds, which has occurred quite often in the recent past. Those weapons have no logical use for home protection. You may try and justify they do, but they don't. A sawed off shotgun is WAY more effective in regards to home defense that trying to swing around an awkward rifle, the shoot a projectile with twice the force as a similar projectile in a hand gun at someone, with the potential of harming innocent individuals in the process.
No one is forced to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment simply provides them the opportunity to make that choice if they choose to do so. I have friends and relatives that have never owned a gun, and have no desire to own one. Are they considered foolish for having the mindset that we pay individuals in our society to protect us from "the bad guys" when we are confronted by one of them? Yes, these "protectors" can't be everywhere at the same time, or the instant you require their assistance. But what kind of society would we live in if you provided every single person with a firearm? You'd claim that we'd become a more cautious society, using the logic that if everyone was "packing", then you wouldn't confront a stranger or other individual knowing they could easily shoot you as you could them. Problem with that logic is we're all not the same robotic individuals who lack feeling, and have weaknesses like Fear. Someone would always be on the losing end of that fight. Implement a law like that, and your murder rates and injuries by firearms would multiply tenfold.
Then there's the "feel of power" aspect of owning a gun. Interesting how someone's attitude changes when they are carrying a gun with them at all times. Some feel invincible in regards to their protection awareness. "As long as I have a firearm on me, I don't have to worry about my safety, or the safety of my family." Until the time comes to use that weapon to defend oneself. Then Fear comes into play. But then you also have the arrogant one's that have the mindset of knowing since they have that weapon, they can justify using it in self defense when they feel their life is being threatened. That's when you have your incidents like the old guy blowing away the dude for not turning off his cell phone in a movie theater, or another guy emptying his clip into a car of kids because they were playing their music too loud. Incidents like these two are why "left wingers" and "gun haters" prefer t have limited access to guns.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/397238/by-the-grace-of-god#post_3540369
Shouldn't it be up to the individual to decide whether or not they want to have the ability to defend themselves? Nobody wants to force anyone to own a gun but left wingers want to ban them or make it nearly impossible to buy one.
"left wingers" don't want to ban every gun known to man. They do take the logical course when it comes to the ownership of specific types of firearms. These gun nuts that go out and spend thousands of dollars on AK-47's, AR-15's and such say they do it because "I like shooting them for sport". Yea right. They shoot them because it makes them feel powerful by having the ability to rip up a milk jug in 30 seconds with 50 rounds of ammo. However, these same individuals ignore the fact that same weapon has the capability to rip up one or more human beings in that same 30 seconds, which has occurred quite often in the recent past. Those weapons have no logical use for home protection. You may try and justify they do, but they don't. A sawed off shotgun is WAY more effective in regards to home defense that trying to swing around an awkward rifle, the shoot a projectile with twice the force as a similar projectile in a hand gun at someone, with the potential of harming innocent individuals in the process.
No one is forced to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment simply provides them the opportunity to make that choice if they choose to do so. I have friends and relatives that have never owned a gun, and have no desire to own one. Are they considered foolish for having the mindset that we pay individuals in our society to protect us from "the bad guys" when we are confronted by one of them? Yes, these "protectors" can't be everywhere at the same time, or the instant you require their assistance. But what kind of society would we live in if you provided every single person with a firearm? You'd claim that we'd become a more cautious society, using the logic that if everyone was "packing", then you wouldn't confront a stranger or other individual knowing they could easily shoot you as you could them. Problem with that logic is we're all not the same robotic individuals who lack feeling, and have weaknesses like Fear. Someone would always be on the losing end of that fight. Implement a law like that, and your murder rates and injuries by firearms would multiply tenfold.
Then there's the "feel of power" aspect of owning a gun. Interesting how someone's attitude changes when they are carrying a gun with them at all times. Some feel invincible in regards to their protection awareness. "As long as I have a firearm on me, I don't have to worry about my safety, or the safety of my family." Until the time comes to use that weapon to defend oneself. Then Fear comes into play. But then you also have the arrogant one's that have the mindset of knowing since they have that weapon, they can justify using it in self defense when they feel their life is being threatened. That's when you have your incidents like the old guy blowing away the dude for not turning off his cell phone in a movie theater, or another guy emptying his clip into a car of kids because they were playing their music too loud. Incidents like these two are why "left wingers" and "gun haters" prefer t have limited access to guns.
aggiealum
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharkysMachine http:///t/397238/by-the-grace-of-god#post_3540432
Absoloutely but thats how communism works, liberal or progressive is the popular term for modern day communist.
Sean Hannity is among us!
Originally Posted by SharkysMachine http:///t/397238/by-the-grace-of-god#post_3540432
Absoloutely but thats how communism works, liberal or progressive is the popular term for modern day communist.
Sean Hannity is among us!
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397238/by-the-grace-of-god#post_3540496
"left wingers" don't want to ban every gun known to man. They do take the logical course when it comes to the ownership of specific types of firearms. These gun nuts that go out and spend thousands of dollars on AK-47's, AR-15's and such say they do it because "I like shooting them for sport". Yea right. They shoot them because it makes them feel powerful by having the ability to rip up a milk jug in 30 seconds with 50 rounds of ammo. However, these same individuals ignore the fact that same weapon has the capability to rip up one or more human beings in that same 30 seconds, which has occurred quite often in the recent past. Those weapons have no logical use for home protection. You may try and justify they do, but they don't. A sawed off shotgun is WAY more effective in regards to home defense that trying to swing around an awkward rifle, the shoot a projectile with twice the force as a similar projectile in a hand gun at someone, with the potential of harming innocent individuals in the process.
No one is forced to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment simply provides them the opportunity to make that choice if they choose to do so. I have friends and relatives that have never owned a gun, and have no desire to own one. Are they considered foolish for having the mindset that we pay individuals in our society to protect us from "the bad guys" when we are confronted by one of them? Yes, these "protectors" can't be everywhere at the same time, or the instant you require their assistance. But what kind of society would we live in if you provided every single person with a firearm? You'd claim that we'd become a more cautious society, using the logic that if everyone was "packing", then you wouldn't confront a stranger or other individual knowing they could easily shoot you as you could them. Problem with that logic is we're all not the same robotic individuals who lack feeling, and have weaknesses like Fear. Someone would always be on the losing end of that fight. Implement a law like that, and your murder rates and injuries by firearms would multiply tenfold.
Then there's the "feel of power" aspect of owning a gun. Interesting how someone's attitude changes when they are carrying a gun with them at all times. Some feel invincible in regards to their protection awareness. "As long as I have a firearm on me, I don't have to worry about my safety, or the safety of my family." Until the time comes to use that weapon to defend oneself. Then Fear comes into play. But then you also have the arrogant one's that have the mindset of knowing since they have that weapon, they can justify using it in self defense when they feel their life is being threatened. That's when you have your incidents like the old guy blowing away the dude for not turning off his cell phone in a movie theater, or another guy emptying his clip into a car of kids because they were playing their music too loud. Incidents like these two are why "left wingers" and "gun haters" prefer t have limited access to guns.
LOL! The top 10 guns used in crimes are 9 pistols and a Mossburg 500 pump action shotgun so why all the paranoia about AK's and AR's? Criminals don't use expensive guns like AR and AK's. These so called mass shootings where the AR was used (the Aurora shooter's AR jammed and he switched to a shotgun and two pistols) are no worse than what happens over a summer weekend in Chicago over a summer weekend. We've seen the left wing practice of incrementally shoving their extremist agenda down out throats and it isn't going to happen on a national basis with gun bans.
Fact is we need to stop worrying about making it hard for responsible citizens to get guns and work on the reporting system so people with mental issues are in the system for background checks. Criminals are going to get guns no matter what but we can and should do more to keep them away from mentally unstable people.
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397238/by-the-grace-of-god#post_3540496
"left wingers" don't want to ban every gun known to man. They do take the logical course when it comes to the ownership of specific types of firearms. These gun nuts that go out and spend thousands of dollars on AK-47's, AR-15's and such say they do it because "I like shooting them for sport". Yea right. They shoot them because it makes them feel powerful by having the ability to rip up a milk jug in 30 seconds with 50 rounds of ammo. However, these same individuals ignore the fact that same weapon has the capability to rip up one or more human beings in that same 30 seconds, which has occurred quite often in the recent past. Those weapons have no logical use for home protection. You may try and justify they do, but they don't. A sawed off shotgun is WAY more effective in regards to home defense that trying to swing around an awkward rifle, the shoot a projectile with twice the force as a similar projectile in a hand gun at someone, with the potential of harming innocent individuals in the process.
No one is forced to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment simply provides them the opportunity to make that choice if they choose to do so. I have friends and relatives that have never owned a gun, and have no desire to own one. Are they considered foolish for having the mindset that we pay individuals in our society to protect us from "the bad guys" when we are confronted by one of them? Yes, these "protectors" can't be everywhere at the same time, or the instant you require their assistance. But what kind of society would we live in if you provided every single person with a firearm? You'd claim that we'd become a more cautious society, using the logic that if everyone was "packing", then you wouldn't confront a stranger or other individual knowing they could easily shoot you as you could them. Problem with that logic is we're all not the same robotic individuals who lack feeling, and have weaknesses like Fear. Someone would always be on the losing end of that fight. Implement a law like that, and your murder rates and injuries by firearms would multiply tenfold.
Then there's the "feel of power" aspect of owning a gun. Interesting how someone's attitude changes when they are carrying a gun with them at all times. Some feel invincible in regards to their protection awareness. "As long as I have a firearm on me, I don't have to worry about my safety, or the safety of my family." Until the time comes to use that weapon to defend oneself. Then Fear comes into play. But then you also have the arrogant one's that have the mindset of knowing since they have that weapon, they can justify using it in self defense when they feel their life is being threatened. That's when you have your incidents like the old guy blowing away the dude for not turning off his cell phone in a movie theater, or another guy emptying his clip into a car of kids because they were playing their music too loud. Incidents like these two are why "left wingers" and "gun haters" prefer t have limited access to guns.
LOL! The top 10 guns used in crimes are 9 pistols and a Mossburg 500 pump action shotgun so why all the paranoia about AK's and AR's? Criminals don't use expensive guns like AR and AK's. These so called mass shootings where the AR was used (the Aurora shooter's AR jammed and he switched to a shotgun and two pistols) are no worse than what happens over a summer weekend in Chicago over a summer weekend. We've seen the left wing practice of incrementally shoving their extremist agenda down out throats and it isn't going to happen on a national basis with gun bans.
Fact is we need to stop worrying about making it hard for responsible citizens to get guns and work on the reporting system so people with mental issues are in the system for background checks. Criminals are going to get guns no matter what but we can and should do more to keep them away from mentally unstable people.