Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Posted: **Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:29 pm**

Its a good thing Obama isnt going to politicize the deaths of these children............what a puke. Sad sad day in America when this guy is the selected leader.

Posted: **Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:34 pm**

Say what?

Posted: **Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:39 pm**

Obama needs to stop talking about this religious bullshit. Why doesn't he just admit that nobody should be worshiping a god who would allow this to happen.

Posted: **Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:57 pm**

You cannot disagree with anything he said.

As the duly elected leader of this country it is his place to say exactly what he said.

Everyone needs to wake the fuck up. There is no need for public ownership of assault weapons in this country.

If you're willing to sacrifice lives so you can shoot at some bullseye for fun then move to another country.

And we need to start having a real discussion in this country about mental illness.

Posted: **Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:27 pm**

As a conservative who believes in private ownership of weapons, I can see an assault weapon ban. The only reasons to own a weapon are hunting, target practice, and personal/home protection. Assault weapons take the sportsmanship out of hunting, make targets meaningless, and in most cases aren't necessary for personal/home protection. A M-9 (or something similar) would be sufficient for personal protection (you can't conceal a rifle very well), and a M-9 and perhaps a M-16 would be sufficient for home protection (maybe one of each for a trained husband and wife if they're both so inclined).

I agree with DF about discussing mental illness. That is a reason to deny or revoke weapons licenses.

Also, as a conservative, I find nothing wrong with the President's words tonight. He's angry as a father and as a Commander-in-Chief at having to deal with this AGAIN. He understandably wants to find a way to stop it. While there's probably no way to COMPLETELY stop it, there are ways to minimize the danger and mitigate the damage.

Posted: **Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:41 pm**

danefan wrote:You cannot disagree with anything he said.

As the duly elected leader of this country it is his place to say exactly what he said.

Everyone needs to wake the fuck up. There is no need for public ownership of assault weapons in this country.

If you're willing to sacrifice lives so you can shoot at some bullseye for fun then move to another country.

And we need to start having a real discussion in this country about mental illness.

1. Yes I can, he and evidently you are wrong.

2. He is NOT a leader, if he was he would be proactive and mandate education/teachers need to obtain certification for shooting handguns. There would be mandatory gun safety classes in all public schools.

3. Nobody has the right to tell me or any other citizen of this country that I cannot own the same guns our military uses, to keep things balanced.

I for one am definitely willing to sacrifice 400-500 hundred people in 30 years so that 300 million are not. oppressed.

This country is going the wrong way and I am not going to stand for this

Posted: **Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:46 pm**

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:
danefan wrote:You cannot disagree with anything he said.

As the duly elected leader of this country it is his place to say exactly what he said.

Everyone needs to wake the **** up. There is no need for public ownership of assault weapons in this country.

If you're willing to sacrifice lives so you can shoot at some bullseye for fun then move to another country.

And we need to start having a real discussion in this country about mental illness.
1. Yes I can, he and evidently you are wrong.

2. He is NOT a leader, if he was he would be proactive and mandate education/teachers need to obtain certification for shooting handguns. There would be mandatory gun safety classes in all public schools.

3. Nobody has the right to tell me or any other citizen of this country that I cannot own the same guns our military uses, to keep things balanced.

I for one am definitely willing to sacrifice 400-500 hundred people in 30 years so that 300 million are not. oppressed.

This country is going the wrong way and I am not going to stand for this

So I guess every president before him wasn't a leader either.

Posted: **Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:50 pm**

Um...Alpha...in an economy where teachers are losing their jobs simply because there is no money to retain them, where in the heck are districts going to find the money to install armories in EVERY SCHOOL IN THE DISTRICT? Also, where is the $$ for ranges, plus the overtime involved in sending them to the range? Or, if it's on school time, you're going to have to pay for subs.

Sounds like you haven't thought this out very well....

Posted: **Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:53 pm**

SuperHornet wrote:Um...Alpha...in an economy where teachers are losing their jobs simply because there is no money to retain them, where in the heck are districts going to find the money to install armories in EVERY SCHOOL IN THE DISTRICT? Also, where is the $$ for ranges, plus the overtime involved in sending them to the range? Or, if it's on school time, you're going to have to pay for subs.

Sounds like you haven't thought this out very well....

Wrong, we have every non gun owner pay $500 dollars for this program. They would need to register themselves with local and state government that they are a non gun owner.

Its not a tax or a fine, its just like the health care mandate.

Posted: **Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:58 pm**

danefan wrote:You cannot disagree with anything he said.

As the duly elected leader of this country it is his place to say exactly what he said.

Everyone needs to wake the **** up. There is no need for public ownership of assault weapons in this country.

If you're willing to sacrifice lives so you can shoot at some bullseye for fun then move to another country.

And we need to start having a real discussion in this country about mental illness.

No shooting in recent history used an assault weapon...why is this an issue???

Posted: **Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:07 pm**

http://patriotaction.net/profiles/blogs ... ter-nongun" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:13 pm**

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:
SuperHornet wrote:Um...Alpha...in an economy where teachers are losing their jobs simply because there is no money to retain them, where in the heck are districts going to find the money to install armories in EVERY SCHOOL IN THE DISTRICT? Also, where is the $$ for ranges, plus the overtime involved in sending them to the range? Or, if it's on school time, you're going to have to pay for subs.

Sounds like you haven't thought this out very well....

Wrong, we have every non gun owner pay $500 dollars for this program. They would need to register themselves with local and state government that they are a non gun owner.

Its not a tax or a fine, its just like the health care mandate.

What if all the non-gun owners just go out and buy guns, then who pays for the schools to arm their teachers?

Posted: **Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:18 pm**

BlueHen86 wrote:
ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

Wrong, we have every non gun owner pay $500 dollars for this program. They would need to register themselves with local and state government that they are a non gun owner.

Its not a tax or a fine, its just like the health care mandate.
Obama....he can use some of his "Obama money"......................

What if all the non-gun owners just go out and buy guns, then who pays for the schools to arm their teachers?

Posted: **Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:21 pm**

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:
Obama....he can use some of his "Obama money"......................

What if all the non-gun owners just go out and buy guns, then who pays for the schools to arm their teachers?

Posted: **Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:19 pm**

Col Hogan wrote:
danefan wrote:You cannot disagree with anything he said.

As the duly elected leader of this country it is his place to say exactly what he said.

Everyone needs to wake the **** up. There is no need for public ownership of assault weapons in this country.

If you're willing to sacrifice lives so you can shoot at some bullseye for fun then move to another country.

And we need to start having a real discussion in this country about mental illness.
No shooting in recent history used an assault weapon...why is this an issue???

What kind of weapon did this kid use? If its not an assault weapon than I'm mistaken on my terminology. I'm no gun expert, but this sure as hell looks like an assault weapon to me.

What is the purpose of the weapons he used? Why does a woman in CT need them? Why does anyone need them?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the guns are responsible. I just don't think our society is responsible enough to have them owned by the public. Too many legally owned guns accessible to mentally unstable people.

Posted: **Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:01 pm**

We need them because our government has them. Period

Sorry but there is no reason for us not to have them. I have had "assault weapons" for over 20 years and mine havent done anything unless you are a gopher or a deer.

Posted: **Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:26 pm**

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:3. Nobody has the right to tell me or any other citizen of this country that I cannot own the same guns our military uses, to keep things balanced.

and since the military uses nuclear weapons, then I should own nuclear weapons too, to keep things balanced.

Posted: **Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:29 pm**

Again, arming the teachers is never going to happen so give it up already. You, like the other side, are overreacting to the situation.

Posted: **Mon Dec 17, 2012 12:21 am**

We're a violent culture
Built on violence / Founded expanded and globalized on violence
This is who we are...Don't make me explain this like I did about Wal-Mart
People creating threads complaining about Wal-Mart - WE ARE WAL-MART / Welcome to America
We are violent and it's a part of our culture that's not going to change

Posted: **Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:02 am**

danefan wrote:You cannot disagree with anything he said.

As the duly elected leader of this country it is his place to say exactly what he said.

Everyone needs to wake the fuck up. There is no need for public ownership of assault weapons in this country.

If you're willing to sacrifice lives so you can shoot at some bullseye for fun then move to another country.

And we need to start having a real discussion in this country about mental illness.

Wow. Nice red herring there, Dane.

It only took you five sentences to hit on the REAL problem in this country. Let's stop solving symptoms and actually address the PROBLEM.

Posted: **Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:44 am**

"We're not doing enough, and we will have to change."

"We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end, and to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and it is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can't be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this."

"If there's even one step we can take to save one child, or one parent, or one town from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora and Oak Creek and Newtown and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that, then surely we have an obligation to try,"

"Because what choice do we have?"

"We can't accept events like this as routine, Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage? That the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that the violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"

--Barack Obama, President of the United States

A bullet to the head of the shooter by a well trained security guard or administrator on-site in the lobby of the school/public facility would have prevented this as well, or at least limited the scope of damage. Moreso than waiting for the "authorities" to respond. Just saying, Mr. President.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Posted: **Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:25 am**

Chizzang wrote: This is who we are...Don't make me explain this like I did about Wal-Mart
People creating threads complaining about Wal-Mart - WE ARE WAL-MART / Welcome to America

I see my dad just about every weekend, and just about every weekend we repeat the same pattern.

My dad: Well, we wouldn't be in this situation if the corporations would stop sending all the jobs overseas.

Me: Well, Americans are paid too much. Companies can get little, yellow people to work for 25 cents an hour.

My dad: The Chinese aren't treating their workers... ah fuck it, I don't feel like arguing again. I gotta head in to Wal-Mart. Wanna go?

Posted: **Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:36 am**

danefan wrote:
Col Hogan wrote:
No shooting in recent history used an assault weapon...why is this an issue???
What kind of weapon did this kid use? If its not an assault weapon than I'm mistaken on my terminology. I'm no gun expert, but this sure as hell looks like an assault weapon to me.

What is the purpose of the weapons he used? Why does a woman in CT need them? Why does anyone need them?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the guns are responsible. I just don't think our society is responsible enough to have them owned by the public. Too many legally owned guns accessible to mentally unstable people.

According to the M.E. report, he used a Bushmaster rifle chambered in .223....an AR-15...

While it looks like a military weapon, it has numerous critical differences that remove it from Assault Weapon status...

First, and most critically, it can only fire one round each time the trigger is pulled...an Assault Weapon, by definition has select fire allowing it to fire multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger...

Second, the weapon was chambered in .223, not 5.56... .223 is a lower powered version of the bullet that the military does not use...

You can see versions of other rifles that use .233 in other threads...so, because the rifle used in this shooting LOOKS like a military weapon, people like Dianne Feinstein want to ban it, while leaving other just as deadly weapons alone...

Regarding your question of need, I did not realize need is a legitimate question for any legal item...does anyone need a BMW when a Prius will do the same thing...does anyone need a $10000 watch when a Timex will do???

So, if looks scare you, go ahead and ban scary looking weapons...but don't expect anything to change because you haven't attacked the cause, you have simply gone after a symbol...

Posted: **Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:42 am**

Just a refresher. The 94 "assault" weapons ban was essentially a menu of cosmetic features, which, if a weapon met a certain number of the features, it would be banned.

Specifically:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
-Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
-Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
-Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
-Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
-A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
-Detachable magazine.

The Bushmaster used in Friday's shooting obviously has a pistol grip. As long as it doesn't have a telescoping stock, bayonet lug, threaded barrel, or a mounted M-203 grenade launcher, it would still be completely legal under a reinstatement of the "assault" weapons ban. It would be just as lethal. That's why the ban is pointless and leads us down a slippery slope, as Col mentioned earlier.

Posted: **Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:36 am**

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:
SuperHornet wrote:Um...Alpha...in an economy where teachers are losing their jobs simply because there is no money to retain them, where in the heck are districts going to find the money to install armories in EVERY SCHOOL IN THE DISTRICT? Also, where is the $$ for ranges, plus the overtime involved in sending them to the range? Or, if it's on school time, you're going to have to pay for subs.

Sounds like you haven't thought this out very well....

Wrong, we have every non gun owner pay $500 dollars for this program. They would need to register themselves with local and state government that they are a non gun owner.

Its not a tax or a fine, its just like the health care mandate.

You're starting to make as much sense as a screen door on a submarine.

Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!

Re: Scumbag Obama what a sick Fu*k!