All Forums > The Pit > The Pit > Connecticut shooting
12/27/2012 7:28 PM
So if someone comes up with the same ideas as SNL but they are not wathcing it that isnt parroting?

How come when I come up with the same ideas as Rush and bring them forward, sometimes before him, I dont get the same consideration?
12/27/2012 7:51 PM
Because you have failed to prove that you have the brain power to run a .5 watt light bulb, let alone come up with an original thought on your own. 
12/27/2012 7:53 PM
I came up with the idea of Socialist soccer.

And I was the one that got WIS to institute carryover reform for the Gridiron Dynasty.

And when we had the sitcom contest in the pit my ideas rocked.
12/27/2012 8:05 PM
12/27/2012 9:49 PM
Posted by Smokewagon on 12/26/2012 4:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jclarkbaker on 12/25/2012 10:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Smokewagon on 12/25/2012 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jclarkbaker on 12/24/2012 8:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Smokewagon on 12/23/2012 11:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jclarkbaker on 12/23/2012 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 12/23/2012 12:20:00 AM (view original):
Oh, and who's gonna pay for armed guards in every school?
I bet Bloomberg's body guards have armor piercing bullets.  But keep listening to the guys surrounded by armed security.

I will say it for about the third time:  there is plenty of ******* money in education.  Fire a useless administrator or 10, as they seem to multiply like rabbits, and hire someone useful.

Your statements indicate that you know Jack and **** about education.  And Jack left town. 
Are you kidding me?  You're right, I know nothing of eduction.  Being the son of two teachers, the nephew of another, the son in law of another, and the husband of another.

Education is the poster child for govt wasting money.  There is a ton of money in education.  Much of the waste is on personnel. 

Oh, and guess what?  1/3 of schools have already found enough money for armed guards:

"Nationwide, at least 23,000 schools — about one-third of all public schools — already had armed security on staff as of the most recent data, for the 2009-10 school year, and a number of states and districts that do not use them have begun discussing the idea in recent days."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/us/nra-calls-for-armed-guards-at-schools.html?_r=0

So, to all those who said the NRA was stupid with their comment about armed guards:  you're idiots.

And to those of you who say "who will pay" or "there is no money in eduction" to pay for armed guards:  you're idiots.

Here's what you wrote in your post:  "I am related to teachers, I support the NRA, and everyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot."
And I refuted your idiotic comment.  If you really want to have a discussion about how there is not enough money in education, bring it on.  As I have already indicated, 1/3 of schools have already found the money.  I can guarantee you the richest school districts are in the other 2/3rds, because of the parents are likely idiotic liberals who have a reflexive hate of guns.  So bring it on *******.
You refuted nothing.  No one "finds" money in education, something else gets cut, something heaped on someone else, or they hold a bake sale for it.  Teachers all over the country buy supplies for their classrooms, even in the "richest" and "(idiotic) liberal" districts. 

For someone who wants a discussion, you throw "idiot" and "*******" around a lot. 


For someone who claims others don't know jack ****, you're sure fond of coming up with ... ah... nothing.  Other than, nothing should ever be cut from an education budget.  That is essentially your argument.  We spend more than almost every other country on education.  You seem to be a bit confused then.  You think "cuts" of any kind mean there is not enough money, when in fact the statistics show there is plenty.  You think misplaced priorities means lack of funds.  

Oh, my bad, I keep saying "you think".  Obviously I am mistaken.
12/27/2012 10:00 PM
Posted by seamar_116 on 12/27/2012 4:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/27/2012 2:03:00 AM (view original):
1 We have shown a need for farmers and hunters to have semi-autos. And how would you apply this to handguns?

2 Again I oppose all this but I can see where you are making a compromise here so ok. Can it go up to 20?

3 Instant checks are the way to go. I would have a real problem with a 30 day for all weapons.

4 I have a huge problem with this. Explain how this does anything other than facilitate weapons seizures. And gunsafes eliminate the possibility of home protection.



1. No you have not shown it. Prove it. Are farmers and hunters less capable now when they were in 1791? Has a new species of super-animal evolved? Are humans encountering more dangerous animals and life or death situations now than 1791? Or are they worse marksmen? Perhaps they should sign up for some additional training in marksmanship with the NRA or their local gun club. That would be a positive, would it not?; the ability to hit your target with fewer shots would lessen the chances that a shot hits an unintended target. You are not opposed to that are you?

2. No, you have not proven a need to be able to fire 20 shots without having to reload.

3. Why in the world are instant checks the way to go? Do you not want a potential gun owner seriously vetted? I don't care if you have a problem, real or otherwise. What is so pressing that you can't wait 30 days? Your rage might wear off? You might start thinking rationally when you get back on the meds you stopped taking? What exactly IS the problem that can't wait thirty days?   I am sure your answer will provide entertaining reading for us all!

4. This is a step in the direction of making sure that people that are NOT supposed to have guns....and you and JClark and Moe and others are all saying that we need to keep guns out of the hands of people that are not supposed to have them. So you give me a method for making sure this doesn't happen. Furthermore, I am not concerned about law-abiding gun owners. We can all agree with that, can we not? I want to make sure that someone who can legally buy a gun is not able to turn around and sell it to someone who IS NOT legally allowed to own a gun. Why would you have a problem with this? Why are you opposed to personal responsibility?
Why would a gun safe eliminate the possibility of home protection? Do you keep a loaded gun strapped to your side at all times? What about in the shower or on the crapper? So you are in favor of having a loaded gun around the house at all times? Even with children around?

Why not have a home alarm system that goes off? Would that not give you an opportunity to get to your gunsafe? Why not keep a baseball bat by your bed and when the alarm goes off wait just around the door and bash the intruder in the head when they enter your room. Unless you sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow I don't see the issue. If they mean you harm and get in to your room while you are asleep you are hosed anyway.

Next post...not sure what your point is...your link (wiki) says it is a semi-auto no longer produced. But I will say this. No resales. If you already have a semi-auto, so be it. I assume it is licensed and you  legally own it. But it will not pass on to anyone else. You can be buried with it if you want and no one will pry it from your cold, dead hands.
And yes, if one of your legally owned and licensed weapons shows up at the scene of the crime I do want the police coming to you and asking questions. Don't you?
**** is hysterical.  Do you really not understand the benefit of having many rounds to work with?  To being able to arm yourself quickly?
12/28/2012 12:17 AM
     "For someone who claims others don't know jack ****, you're sure fond of coming up with ... ah... nothing.  Other than, nothing should ever be cut from an      education budget.  That is essentially your argument.  We spend more than almost every other country on education.  You seem to be a bit confused then.  You      think "cuts" of any kind mean there is not enough money, when in fact the statistics show there is plenty.  You think misplaced priorities means lack of funds.  

     Oh, my bad, I keep saying "you think".  Obviously I am mistaken."



You are mistaken.  I never said an education budget should never be cut.  You want fiscal priorities straightened in schools.  So do I.  Putting armed guards in every school is another waste of money.  Anyone who really wants to go shoot a group of people up will do so....there is always a way, guards or not. 


12/28/2012 12:21 AM
Not much of a reasoned response there JClark....please feel free to go through point by point and answer all of the questions. Enlighten me. I'm listening.

12/28/2012 1:00 AM
Posted by seamar_116 on 12/27/2012 4:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/27/2012 2:03:00 AM (view original):
1 We have shown a need for farmers and hunters to have semi-autos. And how would you apply this to handguns?

2 Again I oppose all this but I can see where you are making a compromise here so ok. Can it go up to 20?

3 Instant checks are the way to go. I would have a real problem with a 30 day for all weapons.

4 I have a huge problem with this. Explain how this does anything other than facilitate weapons seizures. And gunsafes eliminate the possibility of home protection.



1. No you have not shown it. Prove it. Are farmers and hunters less capable now when they were in 1791? Has a new species of super-animal evolved? Are humans encountering more dangerous animals and life or death situations now than 1791? Or are they worse marksmen? Perhaps they should sign up for some additional training in marksmanship with the NRA or their local gun club. That would be a positive, would it not?; the ability to hit your target with fewer shots would lessen the chances that a shot hits an unintended target. You are not opposed to that are you?

2. No, you have not proven a need to be able to fire 20 shots without having to reload.

3. Why in the world are instant checks the way to go? Do you not want a potential gun owner seriously vetted? I don't care if you have a problem, real or otherwise. What is so pressing that you can't wait 30 days? Your rage might wear off? You might start thinking rationally when you get back on the meds you stopped taking? What exactly IS the problem that can't wait thirty days?   I am sure your answer will provide entertaining reading for us all!

4. This is a step in the direction of making sure that people that are NOT supposed to have guns....and you and JClark and Moe and others are all saying that we need to keep guns out of the hands of people that are not supposed to have them. So you give me a method for making sure this doesn't happen. Furthermore, I am not concerned about law-abiding gun owners. We can all agree with that, can we not? I want to make sure that someone who can legally buy a gun is not able to turn around and sell it to someone who IS NOT legally allowed to own a gun. Why would you have a problem with this? Why are you opposed to personal responsibility?
Why would a gun safe eliminate the possibility of home protection? Do you keep a loaded gun strapped to your side at all times? What about in the shower or on the crapper? So you are in favor of having a loaded gun around the house at all times? Even with children around?

Why not have a home alarm system that goes off? Would that not give you an opportunity to get to your gunsafe? Why not keep a baseball bat by your bed and when the alarm goes off wait just around the door and bash the intruder in the head when they enter your room. Unless you sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow I don't see the issue. If they mean you harm and get in to your room while you are asleep you are hosed anyway.

Next post...not sure what your point is...your link (wiki) says it is a semi-auto no longer produced. But I will say this. No resales. If you already have a semi-auto, so be it. I assume it is licensed and you  legally own it. But it will not pass on to anyone else. You can be buried with it if you want and no one will pry it from your cold, dead hands.
And yes, if one of your legally owned and licensed weapons shows up at the scene of the crime I do want the police coming to you and asking questions. Don't you?
1 and 2. It isnt an issue of citizens having to prove the need for a right. The government needs to show conclusive proof that a ban on magazines and semi-autos helps. Your side has to prove it and not just imply that it might help.

1 Farmers live in a much more crowded enviroment and predators are more aggresive. Hunters want the coolest guns and they make hunting easier so you can still hunt and maintain a job.

2 I admit some personal preference here. My Uncle owns a FN Fal with a 20 round mag. I think he can lose the 35s if need be. Again I want the Government to show clear evidence that it will help. Did things get better during the Clinton gun ban and if not why?

3 I want the process to be as efficent as possible with the government having as little power as possible.

4 Of course I keep a gun next to my bed. No Children so why not. The image of the Manson clan kicking in my front door is something that always pops in my head.
12/28/2012 1:18 AM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/28/2012 1:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by seamar_116 on 12/27/2012 4:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/27/2012 2:03:00 AM (view original):
1 We have shown a need for farmers and hunters to have semi-autos. And how would you apply this to handguns?

2 Again I oppose all this but I can see where you are making a compromise here so ok. Can it go up to 20?

3 Instant checks are the way to go. I would have a real problem with a 30 day for all weapons.

4 I have a huge problem with this. Explain how this does anything other than facilitate weapons seizures. And gunsafes eliminate the possibility of home protection.



1. No you have not shown it. Prove it. Are farmers and hunters less capable now when they were in 1791? Has a new species of super-animal evolved? Are humans encountering more dangerous animals and life or death situations now than 1791? Or are they worse marksmen? Perhaps they should sign up for some additional training in marksmanship with the NRA or their local gun club. That would be a positive, would it not?; the ability to hit your target with fewer shots would lessen the chances that a shot hits an unintended target. You are not opposed to that are you?

2. No, you have not proven a need to be able to fire 20 shots without having to reload.

3. Why in the world are instant checks the way to go? Do you not want a potential gun owner seriously vetted? I don't care if you have a problem, real or otherwise. What is so pressing that you can't wait 30 days? Your rage might wear off? You might start thinking rationally when you get back on the meds you stopped taking? What exactly IS the problem that can't wait thirty days?   I am sure your answer will provide entertaining reading for us all!

4. This is a step in the direction of making sure that people that are NOT supposed to have guns....and you and JClark and Moe and others are all saying that we need to keep guns out of the hands of people that are not supposed to have them. So you give me a method for making sure this doesn't happen. Furthermore, I am not concerned about law-abiding gun owners. We can all agree with that, can we not? I want to make sure that someone who can legally buy a gun is not able to turn around and sell it to someone who IS NOT legally allowed to own a gun. Why would you have a problem with this? Why are you opposed to personal responsibility?
Why would a gun safe eliminate the possibility of home protection? Do you keep a loaded gun strapped to your side at all times? What about in the shower or on the crapper? So you are in favor of having a loaded gun around the house at all times? Even with children around?

Why not have a home alarm system that goes off? Would that not give you an opportunity to get to your gunsafe? Why not keep a baseball bat by your bed and when the alarm goes off wait just around the door and bash the intruder in the head when they enter your room. Unless you sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow I don't see the issue. If they mean you harm and get in to your room while you are asleep you are hosed anyway.

Next post...not sure what your point is...your link (wiki) says it is a semi-auto no longer produced. But I will say this. No resales. If you already have a semi-auto, so be it. I assume it is licensed and you  legally own it. But it will not pass on to anyone else. You can be buried with it if you want and no one will pry it from your cold, dead hands.
And yes, if one of your legally owned and licensed weapons shows up at the scene of the crime I do want the police coming to you and asking questions. Don't you?
1 and 2. It isnt an issue of citizens having to prove the need for a right. The government needs to show conclusive proof that a ban on magazines and semi-autos helps. Your side has to prove it and not just imply that it might help.

1 Farmers live in a much more crowded enviroment and predators are more aggresive. Hunters want the coolest guns and they make hunting easier so you can still hunt and maintain a job.

2 I admit some personal preference here. My Uncle owns a FN Fal with a 20 round mag. I think he can lose the 35s if need be. Again I want the Government to show clear evidence that it will help. Did things get better during the Clinton gun ban and if not why?

3 I want the process to be as efficent as possible with the government having as little power as possible.

4 Of course I keep a gun next to my bed. No Children so why not. The image of the Manson clan kicking in my front door is something that always pops in my head.
1. You said <<1 We have shown a need for farmers and hunters to have semi-autos.>>
Now you say <<It isnt an issue of citizens having to prove the need for a right>>

You said the need has been shown. I am asking you what it is. You stated it...don't try and change your argument now.

2. <<1 Farmers live in a much more crowded enviroment and predators are more aggresive. Hunters want the coolest guns and they make hunting easier so you can still hunt and maintain a job>>  

Pretty much bullshit. Please support with some factual evidence. How are predators more aggressive? Hunters want the coolest guns? BFD. What are you, 12?   MAke hunting easier = "I don't have to be as skilled at what I do"  And what does hunting have to do with maintaining a job? Who are you, Jed Clampett?

3. I'm sorry, I thought we wanted to make sure that we kept the guns out of the hands of the people who shouldn't have them, so law abiding citizens could have them. Again 30-days? Seriously, you are now acting like you have the attention span of a 5-year old. I asked you some specific questions...give them a response: I've bolded them for your convenience.

Why in the world are instant checks the way to go? Do you not want a potential gun owner seriously vetted? I don't care if you have a problem, real or otherwise. What is so pressing that you can't wait 30 days? Your rage might wear off? You might start thinking rationally when you get back on the meds you stopped taking? What exactly IS the problem that can't wait thirty days?   I am sure your answer will provide entertaining reading for us all!

4. <<The image of the Manson clan kicking in my front door is something that always pops in my head.>>  I think the image of the Manson clan kicking in your door is something all of us imagine.
But seriously? Are you that paranoid? How do you function? What about the serial killer that lives down the street? Or the femme fatale you see at the bar? Or the vigilante hooker you call up from Craigslist? Or the young black kids that moved in across the street? Enraged Comcast customer? Random drive-by? Fender bender involving Suh?
12/28/2012 2:02 AM
1 Farmers need semiautos to kill predators. Hunters need better weapons because they have a job and cant hunt for months at a time. Those are both needs. The government needs to show that any of these bans are needed. they need to show clear and compelling evidence that it it needed. Not just "We cant fix it so we are going to ban a bunch of guns again". The Clinton ban failed, why is this any different?

2 Has anyone anywhere shown ANY evidence that the ban will work? I think it is logical to assume better weapons make for better work. No one asks why do farmers use tractors instead of horses.

3 We already have waiting periods for handguns. Why do we need to hand this much power to the government. Instant checks are the right way to go,

4 So you really want every person in America to need to lock up their guns?? How exactly is that enforced? And does everyone with a CCW need a little mini safe on their belt? And yes I sleep better with a loded gun in my nightstand. And no one has died from me doing it in 20 years.
12/28/2012 12:39 PM
<<1 Farmers need semiautos to kill predators. Hunters need better weapons because they have a job and cant hunt for months at a time. Those are both needs.>>

Total bullshit.   Lewis and Clark managed and did not lose a single man except for the guy that died at the start of the trip from appendicitis.

<<Hunters need better weapons because they have a job and cant hunt for months at a time>>   Yeah, I want to hear a real hunter make this claim. This is laughable. So bow hunters are unemployed and/or idiots?

You were watching Jeremiah Johnson again, weren't you?  "Can you skin a bear, pilgrim?"

12/28/2012 6:07 PM (edited)
It comes down to a simple fundemental difference.

Do we as citizens have rights?

If we do not the government can do whatever they want.

If we do the government has to show a need for a limit of the rights.

And I ask again has anyone anywhere shown any evidence that an AG ban will save lives?

Did the Clinton ban, which was very comprehensive, do any good or make a difference?
12/28/2012 2:12 PM
Clinont ban?    Guess I am not as well read as I think I am.
12/28/2012 6:08 PM
Went back and corrected the spelling error just for you.

Does that mean you are going to respond to the issues reaised?
of 26
All Forums > The Pit > The Pit > Connecticut shooting

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.