When the good guys have guns! [W:48:127]

[TurtleDude]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

Misprounouncing the name of a city is not ridicule, nor is a lisp a specifically homosexual thing. The vast majority of gay people that I know have no pronunciation traits that are any different than my own. You're making a mountain out of a molehill, and pronouncing Maggie's moral rightness by standards that you hold.

great post, bravo. Its the contrarian game-find something to complain about to stir things up. honest disagreement need not apply, lets create a conflict based on stupid nitpicking

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

Yeah. Bob's homophobia is hilarious. Maybe next he can come up with ebonics version of "Chicago" to keep you entertained. :roll:

Give it a rest. this PC nonsense is silly

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

You should try imagining how it feels to be homosexual and have to put up with constant ridicule from small minded bigots.

or how us intelligent people like Maggie and Lizzie have to deal with phony claims of bigotry from those who come here to create conflict when none was intended.

 

[lizzie]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

What makes you think it was a homophobic joke? Please be specific.

How much did you have to read into that Than Franthis-whatever to read "homosexual"? Why was it homosexual? Please be specific.

What Bob was most likely referring to is the liberal reputation of San Francisco, which is no doubt a well-earned reputation.

 

[ChezC3]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

I just seen this on another site and was gonna post it, this is a clear example of why CCL is GOOD. Damn good job soldier, damn good...

 

[aberrant85]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

I note that you appear to be posting from Than Fwanthithco

What makes you think it was a homophobic joke? Please be specific.

How much did you have to read into that Than Franthis-whatever to read "homosexual"? Why was it homosexual? Please be specific.

Why don't you just ask Bob Blalyock if it was intended to be a nod towards SF gays? I'm sure he would own it if it was.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

I don't care what some people associate it with. People who are not homosexual have lisps, and the vast majority of homosexuals do not. If you automatically assume that someone with a speech impediment is gay, then you are apparently the one who has a problem with stereotyping, not everyone else. Do you avoid using the word gay as it was originally defined, because it now refers to homosexual men, or do you avoid using the word queer (meaning odd), since it now refers to homosexuals? Just because you decide what someone means, or that they are being offensive, doesn't make it so.

The intent was obvious.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

lets get back to the guy who was the reason for this thread-does anyone argue against the shopkeeper having a concealed pistol?

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

What Bob was most likely referring to is the liberal reputation of San Francisco, which is no doubt a well-earned reputation.

He did so by means of a homosexual slur. And then a bunch of people laughed about it and mocked homosexuals. And then they tried to weasel out of taking responsibility for it. /recap

 

[aberrant85]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

lets get back to the guy who was the reason for this thread-does anyone argue against the shopkeeper having a concealed pistol?

NO! I don't! Anyone robbing a convenience store should assume the cashier is armed! The gun could have been under the counter, it doesn't make a difference in this scenario.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

NO! I don't! Anyone robbing a convenience store should assume the cashier is armed! The gun could have been under the counter, it doesn't make a difference in this scenario.

well sadly, in places like Chicago and DC, the crooks understand that storekeepers are unarmed. indeed in Chicago, it was not uncommon for house robbers to rat out people who pulled banned guns on them

I like a society where a crook is always guessing who is armed and I like it even better if every armed robber, rapist or mugger were to be fatally shot by their intended victims. It would really cut down on crime, eliminate lots of scum from society and save us tax dollars spent prosecuting and housing such assholes

 

[Aderleth]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

Give it a rest. this PC nonsense is silly

Who said anything about political correctness? Bob insulted my city in a spectacularly ignorant manner. He's made the same insult before. Stupidity is annoying to me. It doesn't speak well of you that you apparently don't agree. :shrug:

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

Who said anything about political correctness? Bob insulted my city in a spectacularly ignorant manner. He's made the same insult before. Stupidity is annoying to me. It doesn't speak well of you that you apparently don't agree. :shrug:

san francisco deserves all the abuse it takes. you all foisted Nancy Pelosi on the rest of us. But I give you credit for the Grateful Dead, The Jefferson Airplane and QSMS-three of the greatest rock acts in known history.

 

[aberrant85]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

san francisco deserves all the abuse it takes. you all foisted Nancy Pelosi on the rest of us. But I give you credit for the Grateful Dead, The Jefferson Airplane and QSMS-three of the greatest rock acts in known history.

Not to mention basically all the technology responsible for people like us to pontificate on the internet came from the Bay Area.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

Not to mention basically all the technology responsible for people like us to pontificate on the internet came from the Bay Area.

cowabunga dude!!

 

[aberrant85]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

well sadly, in places like Chicago and DC, the crooks understand that storekeepers are unarmed. indeed in Chicago, it was not uncommon for house robbers to rat out people who pulled banned guns on them

I like a society where a crook is always guessing who is armed and I like it even better if every armed robber, rapist or mugger were to be fatally shot by their intended victims. It would really cut down on crime, eliminate lots of scum from society and save us tax dollars spent prosecuting and housing such assholes

Look, if the only thing you take from the gun control debate is "It's us against them" then you are never going to understand that probably 90% of people just want sensible laws that decrease our country's serious gun violence epidemic. We don't want to destroy your way of life or rip up the constitution, we just want real solutions.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

Look, if the only thing you take from the gun control debate is "It's us against them" then you are never going to understand that probably 90% of people just want sensible laws that decrease our country's serious gun violence epidemic. We don't want to destroy your way of life or rip up the constitution, we just want real solutions.

1) I call BS on that

2) sensible gun laws involve punishing those who use guns to commit crime-

3) the stuff anti gunners call sensible gun laws are designed to harass law abiding gun owners

for example

magazine limits
"assault weapon bans"
ammo buying licenses

its illegal for CRIMINALS to own any guns. so those "sensible" laws are designed only to hassle gun owners

While you may not want to harass us, there is no doubt Biden, Obama etc do

 

[aberrant85]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

1) I call BS on that

2) sensible gun laws involve punishing those who use guns to commit crime-

3) the stuff anti gunners call sensible gun laws are designed to harass law abiding gun owners

for example

magazine limits
"assault weapon bans"
ammo buying licenses

its illegal for CRIMINALS to own any guns. so those "sensible" laws are designed only to hassle gun owners

While you may not want to harass us, there is no doubt Biden, Obama etc do

What would be an example of a sensible gun law that punishes someone who use a gun to commit crime? And do you see that on top of such laws, gun control advocates are attempting to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

 

[MaggieD]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

Why don't you just ask Bob Blalyock if it was intended to be a nod towards SF gays? I'm sure he would own it if it was.

I'm not concerned with how Bob Blaylock meant it. I'm concerned with how Guy interpreted it. Whether he inferred what Bob implied isn't the question at hand.

 

[MaggieD]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

Look, if the only thing you take from the gun control debate is "It's us against them" then you are never going to understand that probably 90% of people just want sensible laws that decrease our country's serious gun violence epidemic. We don't want to destroy your way of life or rip up the constitution, we just want real solutions.

Know what "real solutions" are??

Enforce the laws already on the books. If sentences aren't deterring those who shouldn't be carrying guns from carrying guns? Then the sentences just simply aren't tough enough.

Don't take away my right to own a gun because some jamokes in inner-city Chicago shoot each other up with illegal ones.

 

[aberrant85]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

I'm not concerned with how Bob Blaylock meant it. I'm concerned with how Guy interpreted it. Whether he inferred what Bob implied isn't the question at hand.

It doesn't matter if he was correct in how he interpreted it?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

What would be an example of a sensible gun law that punishes someone who use a gun to commit crime? And do you see that on top of such laws, gun control advocates are attempting to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

1) i have dealt with anti gun advocates for close to 40 years

some honestly think stuff like magazine limits will impact criminals.

however, almost none of them care if it harasses people like me. they willingly will inconvenience or even criminalize 100 law abiding gun owners if they think it will stop one criminal

sorry, my rights should not be subject to interference in far fetched and unproven attempts to stop criminals

secondly, many leaders of the gun control movement pretend to be after criminals but really want to harass us

examples-democrats banning the sale of machine guns made after May 19, 1986 even though in 50 years there was only one case of a legally owned machine gun (and it was by a dayton Ohio cop) used in a crime

or Obama banning the import of 70 year old Rifles claiming that these "military grade" (yeah 70 years ago-obsolete since Vietnam) weapons could end up in criminal hands

so, for you to have a good argument you have to prove that whatever law you support will actually impact mostly criminals.

NONE OF THE STUFF the democrats have proposed in the last 40 years meet that test

 

[MaggieD]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

It doesn't matter if he was correct in how he interpreted it?

Not really. What he's already shown us is that he buys into the stereotype that gays lisp. Know what? I know plenty of homosexuals. Know how many lisp?

Not one.

 

[lizzie]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

It doesn't matter if he was correct in how he interpreted it?

It frankly doesn't matter at all anyway. This is a thread about gun rights, and a criminal getting thwarted by a law-abiding citizen with a gun. All the rest is fluff.

 

[aberrant85]

Re: When the good guys have guns! [W:48]

Know what "real solutions" are??

Enforce the laws already on the books. If sentences aren't deterring those who shouldn't be carrying guns from carrying guns? Then the sentences just simply aren't tough enough.

Not everyone who uses a gun irresponsibly stops to think about the consequences, let alone the toughness of sentences. That's what makes guns such a special case; the consequences of a hasty or careless decision can be so great that it's worth putting standards in place to prevent them from happening.

Don't take away my right to own a gun because some jamokes in inner-city Chicago shoot each other up with illegal ones.

Why should your right be taken away if you have demonstrated responsibility, have a clean record, are mentally stable, and have purchased the gun legally? I don't see why not.