Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Boarder85 (fouroheight68)      Join Date: May 2006       01-09-2013, 1:43 PM Reply   
Did anyone else catch this last night? I love how JS calls it how he sees it. Thank you for some common sense on the debate! (gun owner here, no need to get into a heated debate)

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...playershare_fb
Old    Terry Redfearn (TerryR)      Join Date: Aug 2010       01-09-2013, 2:20 PM Reply   
Once again, he is the most annoying man on TV. Not even a little funny.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-09-2013, 2:34 PM Reply   
And he's out of touch with the Heller and McDonald decisions that fully acknowledge the individual right to bear arms.

And if you filled out the selective service form at 18 I would argue that's being part of the militia for those who want to argue the "well regulated militia" angle.
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       01-09-2013, 5:09 PM Reply   
Quote:
Once again, he is the most annoying man on TV. Not even a little funny.
Couldn't disagree more. Plus he makes sense.
Old    Seahawks #1 Fan Robert T (cwb4me)      Join Date: Apr 2010       01-09-2013, 5:56 PM Reply   
The real problem is the media.They make the sick minded serial killers into famous heroes.If you never knew who the shooters were they would choose a different path to stardom or suicide.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       01-09-2013, 7:15 PM Reply   
"The real problem is the media"
yah, out of the thousands and thousands of people killed by guns every year, they zero in on the mentally ill guy who take their AR and shoot up a bunch of kids!
Old    Jason Callen (westsidarider)      Join Date: Feb 2003       01-09-2013, 7:51 PM Reply   
There was NO effing AR used!!!! There was a similar type rifle found in the trunk of the car. That is once again the media playing into the pocket of and drinking that presidential jungle juice
Old    Seahawks #1 Fan Robert T (cwb4me)      Join Date: Apr 2010       01-10-2013, 3:53 AM Reply   
Over 10 times as many people die every year by malpractice.You don't see the media bashing doctors.Many more die at the hands of Drunk Drivers and the punishment is less severe.Shockingly enough more people die at the hands of a hammer every year than a gun.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-10-2013, 4:51 AM Reply   
JS is a good comedian. However, he would do better if he applied his brand of humor with less political bias and go with whats the funniest.

"Lets stop guys who dont follow the rules by.... making more rules."
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       01-10-2013, 6:34 AM Reply   
I get news from the TV via The Daily Show and CNN (left swinging) and to/from work in my car listen to conservative talk radio (Hannity, Rush, etc).... my best attempt to see/hear both sides.

From that the biggest argument from the "right" side is this - the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. After that they define "Good Guy" as a well trained, law obeying citizen (obeying a property's right to ban weapon included). With that said, all the guns in the world would NOT have stopped any public shooting as of late. I know that here in Wisconsin almost EVERY SINGLE STORE I have been in since the conceal and carry laws were passed here has a big sign saying "Firearms not permitted on this property" .... this includes malls, theaters, schools, churches, bars, etc etc etc.

So as a bad guy whole strolls into the mall and opens fire, this means that all of you "good guys" wouldn't have guns anyway.... you're SOL. And if you do in fact have a gun at a place that does not permit them, maybe you're not such a good guy. Lets say you're in that mall with a shooter, your gun is in your car, how many people would actually leave, get the weapon (losing sight of the bad guy"), and come back to stop him? If you say "I sure would, FOR AMERICA!" then I would ask this..... I am in a mall with the shooter, you leave to get your gun and come back to shoot the shooter.... now I see two guys with guns, I assume there are two shooters, I get my gun from my car, now I'm trying to take out the two shooters.... etc etc etc, next thing you know you have 7 people with guns all trying to kill each other since no one knows who is who.

..... with all that said, I don't think guns should be touched namely on the principal of if the 2nd amendment gets fudged with, where does it stop. I also think there is ZERO need for 100 round mags, fully auto rifles (most semi auto I can't justify).... my family has guns for hunting, they are shotgun/ pump based or bolt action rifles.... they work great for hunting, we don't need more.


Quote:
And if you filled out the selective service form at 18 I would argue that's being part of the militia for those who want to argue the "well regulated militia" angle.
Stupid. This is signing up for the group that a "Well regulated militia" would have to fight, not who we would be fighting for in a revolt (see 1776). If anyone legitimately thinks they could pull a band of people together (militia) and have a chance in hell to make a dent in the US Army.... you're not sane enough to own a weapon.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-10-2013, 7:22 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwb4me View Post
Over 10 times as many people die every year by malpractice.You don't see the media bashing doctors.Many more die at the hands of Drunk Drivers and the punishment is less severe.Shockingly enough more people die at the hands of a hammer every year than a gun.
Please provide a citation for that hammer stat, other than that somebody forwarded you an e-mail that says so.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-10-2013, 7:26 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by westsidarider View Post
There was NO effing AR used!!!! There was a similar type rifle found in the trunk of the car. That is once again the media playing into the pocket of and drinking that presidential jungle juice
have the police released a report that says that yet? If so I missed it. Can you please provide a link?
Old    Boarder85 (fouroheight68)      Join Date: May 2006       01-10-2013, 7:41 AM Reply   
I'm a gun owner. I like shooting guns. I like shooting anything that goes boom. With that said, I think I'm with alot of American's who want to find middle ground. Some states are very easy to obtain firearms, while others are very tough. Does that coorespond to reduced crime rates? I've seen statistics pointing to yes and no.

What I think everyone can agree with is (which is the point JS is making), what we have been doing currently isn't working and needs to be changed. I'm not smart enough to solve the problem, so I won't make suggestions. What I DO know is, I do not need a rifle specifically designed to efficiently kill multiple people. The rifles/guns used in many of the mass shootings (Aurora, Columbine, Oregon Mall, Newtown) were these type.

I sleep with an XD40 next to my bed with hollow point bullets in easy access. Yes, it is an efficient killing tool and will suit my needs for defense. No, it would not be efficient to kill a mass number of people. The idea is to make it HARDER to obtain "assault type" (broad term, yes but you know one when you see one) weapons. If that means I have to jump through 10x more hoops to get my hands on an AR15, and I cant carry X number of rounds, and I have to register it, report it stolen, lock it up, whatever, then that's OK with me if it keeps it out of the hands of just ONE criminal.

What I'm really getting sick of seeing/hearing is people like the wacko that was on Piers Morgan. Yes, he is a fringe lunatic and no, he doesn't represent most gun enthuasists. However, I am tired of seeing people post pictures of facebook/email of Stalin/Hitler/Pol Pot and comparing them to our current administration. Come on guys, really? I've never voted for Obama, but this is quite a stretch. The most ludicrous suggestion I've heard is from the NRA to arm school administrators. Yeah, because thats a great idea - lets put a glock in the hands of principle Belding and they can go round-for-round in the hallway of an elementary school.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-10-2013, 9:02 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_ssr View Post
JS is a good comedian. However, he would do better if he applied his brand of humor with less political bias and go with whats the funniest.
Political humor is exactly what he does best. So removing the political bias would end his career. IMO he isn't that funny, as in yucks from jokes. Most of his humor comes from casting a light on the absurdity of what people do in the political limelight.

He's practically made a career out of exposing the hypocrisy of Fox News alone. Obviously if you are politically aligned with most of the rhetoric coming out of Fox News you aren't going to find what he does humorous in the least. But if you are politically aligned with his position on things then he comes off as brilliant. If you want yucks from jokes and can deal with the liberal bias, then just watch Colbert.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-10-2013, 9:08 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Please provide a citation for that hammer stat, other than that somebody forwarded you an e-mail that says so.
Just google FBI annual crime statistics. Its been a talking point for a couple weeks.

Nick, just because a property says "guns prohibited" does not mean you cannot legally carry there. It means they have the right to ask you to leave if they see it. In order for it to be illegal it must be listed as a restricted site (school, church, etc) or have the very specific 30.06 or 51%signage on the door.

Also, you should hope every mass shooter uses a 100rd drum. They are crap and typically cant shoot more than 3rds without jamming or crapping out. They are cumbersome and throw the weigh dist way off. Hard to hit anything with it.

Quote:
What I think everyone can agree with is (which is the point JS is making), what we have been doing currently isn't working and needs to be changed.
How is it not working? Gun crime has been on a steady decline since the 80's. Making it hard to get guns is going to stop gun crime like making it hard to get cars is gonna stop car theft. Or making it harder to buy songs on itunes is gonna thwart piracy. Music pirates dont use itunes, car theives dont buy cars, and gun criminals dont follow laws.

In a free society, the only way you can stop bad people from doing bad things is make them too afraid to do it.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-10-2013, 9:41 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Please provide a citation for that hammer stat, other than that somebody forwarded you an e-mail that says so.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...-data-table-11
Old    Boarder85 (fouroheight68)      Join Date: May 2006       01-10-2013, 9:45 AM Reply   
8583>496
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-10-2013, 10:08 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fouroheight68 View Post
8583>496
A subset of 323<496
Old    Professor (brhanley)      Join Date: Jun 2001       01-10-2013, 10:09 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
This is outstanding. Last time I checked there were quite a few more "blunt objects" than just hammers. But, it makes a good sound bite and email chain I guess.
Old    Professor (brhanley)      Join Date: Jun 2001       01-10-2013, 10:11 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
A subset of 323<496
I guess there are four types of lies. Lies, damned lies, statistics, and this post. Please.
Old    Nicolas Kohler (monkey_butt)      Join Date: Sep 2011       01-10-2013, 10:13 AM Reply   
Quote:
Shockingly enough more people die at the hands of a hammer every year than a gun
Thanks for providing the link to the FBI statistics but let's now put the numbers in perspective. As I have to assume that you used the term 'shotgun' from that page (and don't include all other related homicides caused by firearms) then the category 'blunt objects' represents baseball bats, axes, bricks and not just hammers.

I don't think I need to point out that the comparison on your end is rather flawed ...
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-10-2013, 10:14 AM Reply   
The conversation is about a specific type of rifle and mass murders. Well mass murders peaked in 1929 and when compared to overall homicide, rifles of any kind are a small contributor. How am I wrong?

You can pick at the example of hammers but that's not something I proposed. Just that blunt objects > than a subset of rifles with the information provided.

My position is well expressed in this article I posted in another thread: http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybin...sis-is-amoral/

Last edited by norcalrider; 01-10-2013 at 10:23 AM.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       01-10-2013, 10:47 AM Reply   
Quote:
Nick, just because a property says "guns prohibited" does not mean you cannot legally carry there. It means they have the right to ask you to leave if they see it. In order for it to be illegal it must be listed as a restricted site
So you're telling me signs like this:

Are just a simple rule of thumb?.....
right.....
Quote:
Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin all allow private businesses to post a specific sign (language and format vary by state) prohibiting concealed carry, violation of which, in some of these states, is grounds for revocation of the offender's concealed carry permit. By posting the signs, businesses create areas where it is illegal to carry a concealed handgun similar to regulations concerning schools, hospitals, and public gatherings.
.... Surprising that you lack of knowledge on the subject just turned you into a "Bad guy". Given the Good/Bad argument and what was just posted, would I be within my rights to fire on a "bad guy" bringing a gun into a prohibited area?
Old    Rob VLX (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       01-10-2013, 11:09 AM Reply   
The 2nd amendment says nothing about "need". If some idiot wanted to ban yellow cars they could say "no one needs yellow cars". Show evidence that banning 30 round or 100 round drum magazines lowers crime. It doesn't exist. Nada. "What if it saves just one life"... that is just IGNORANT.. Let's ban all cars right now and save the thousands of people that die in car accidents. So let me say it.... NO, it isn't worth it to save just one life. Columbine happened in '99 during the "Assault Weapon Ban" that was in effect from '94 to 2004. It took place in a "Gun Free Zone". Why not just outlaw murder and killing people? LOL...
Old    Rob VLX (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       01-10-2013, 11:16 AM Reply   
Nick, I walk right into places with those signs like you posted carrying my concealed handgun all of the time. That is because in Texas they must use a specific sign referencing section 30.06 of the Texas Penal Code. I was in a restraurant one time and I told the owner that his sign outside was bogus and basically meaningless and I was carrying my gun anyway. He just laughed and said "I put out that sign because a couple of my liberal college professor customer's wanted it and they are too uninformed to understand the law. I know you guys with a CHLs will just carry anyway. I have no problem with people carrying guns whatsoever. It is win win." I had to chuckle. But he is 100% right.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-10-2013, 11:19 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwb4me View Post
Shockingly enough more people die at the hands of a hammer every year than a gun.
So we are all in agreement that the purported rash of hammer murders has been exaggerated? And that firearms do in fact kill almost 20x more people than all blunt objects (of which hammers would presumably be a subset)?
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-10-2013, 11:22 AM Reply   
interesting stat I heard on the radio the other night:

the number of guns in the United States has grown since the 1960s, but the number of households owning guns has declined from 50% to 33%. Those who do own guns tend to own more than one, and the industry depends on the minority who choose to own guns to own more than one.

Link to the story: http://www.marketplace.org/topics/bu...g-its-business
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-10-2013, 11:24 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by sidekicknicholas View Post
So you're telling me signs like this:

Are just a simple rule of thumb?.....
right.....


.... Surprising that you lack of knowledge on the subject just turned you into a "Bad guy". Given the Good/Bad argument and what was just posted, would I be within my rights to fire on a "bad guy" bringing a gun into a prohibited area?
Read your own post. They have to post a specific sign. The sign you posted is not the specific sign. it has to be the 30.06 or the 51% to have any legal ramification at all. If they post the sign you posted, they can only ask you to leave. if you do not leave then you could get in trouble for trespassing but that has no affect on your CHL. Below are the two signs that must be posted for any legal action.


Old    Rich (digg311)      Join Date: Sep 2007       01-10-2013, 11:25 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by skull View Post
The 2nd amendment says nothing about "need". If some idiot wanted to ban yellow cars they could say "no one needs yellow cars". Show evidence that banning 30 round or 100 round drum magazines lowers crime. It doesn't exist. Nada. "What if it saves just one life"... that is just IGNORANT.. Let's ban all cars right now and save the thousands of people that die in car accidents. So let me say it.... NO, it isn't worth it to save just one life. Columbine happened in '99 during the "Assault Weapon Ban" that was in effect from '94 to 2004. It took place in a "Gun Free Zone". Why not just outlaw murder and killing people? LOL...
There was an armed guard at Columbine. So it wasn't exactly "Gun Free". It also didn't matter at all. Jus sayin'.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-10-2013, 11:26 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by digg311 View Post
There was an armed guard at Columbine. So it wasn't exactly "Gun Free". It also didn't matter at all. Jus sayin'.
My HS and all the HS/JrHS in my district had on duty cops, I don't understand your point.

Additionally, there are reports that mention the Columbine Deputy Sheriff, stationed at the school, saving several lives and allowing injured students to escape while exchanging fire with the perpetrators.

Last edited by norcalrider; 01-10-2013 at 11:32 AM.
Old    Rob VLX (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       01-10-2013, 11:34 AM Reply   
Gun Free Zones don't apply to cops Rich. The point is rather simple: a) assault weapon ban was in effect - didn't matter b) Gun Free Zone - didn't matter
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-10-2013, 12:16 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwb4me View Post
Shockingly enough more people die at the hands of a hammer every year than a gun.
Where did you get this information? Did you hear this from someone/somewhere? Did you just make it up?
Old    Rob VLX (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       01-10-2013, 12:33 PM Reply   
The correct stat is more people die from a hammer than a rifle or "scary evil assault rifle". That is 100% correct :
323 die from a rifle
496 from hammer
726 from a non weapon (hands, feet, etc...)

The link is posted above. That is an FBI crime statistics.
Old    Fat-B (lugwrench)      Join Date: Jul 2002       01-10-2013, 1:23 PM Reply   
Am I the only one that finds it ironic that the prohibited gun sign is section 30.06?
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-10-2013, 1:32 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by skull View Post
The correct stat is more people die from a hammer than a rifle or "scary evil assault rifle". That is 100% correct :
323 die from a rifle
496 from hammer
726 from a non weapon (hands, feet, etc...)

The link is posted above. That is an FBI crime statistics.
Not all blunt objects are hammers and the FBI stats do not break out hammers specifically.
Old    Mark V (mark197)      Join Date: Dec 2009       01-10-2013, 1:36 PM Reply   
Nick read this story from Wisconsin
http://www.wisn.com/Man-Who-Shot-Ald...k/-/index.html

He was carrying in an Aldi's that had a sign up.
Old    Rob VLX (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       01-10-2013, 1:43 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Not all blunt objects are hammers and the FBI stats do not break out hammers specifically.
Correct. I don't think there is an intent to mislead. I think it is just easier to say "hammers" than a long list of other blundt objects used to murder people.
Old    Rob VLX (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       01-10-2013, 1:46 PM Reply   
Also, note that "assault rifles" are not broke out in the rifle category. I'd bet there are far more murders with a $200 22 LR caliber than a 5.56 AR-15. Just like most of the handgun murders are committed with cheap pieces of crap and not $800 hanguns.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-10-2013, 2:29 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by skull View Post
Correct. I don't think there is an intent to mislead. I think it is just easier to say "hammers" than a long list of other blundt objects used to murder people.
Yes there is intent to mislead. It was baseball bats three weeks ago, now it's hammers. In both cases the claim is that those everyday tools kill more people than "guns." That's just plain false.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-10-2013, 2:34 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Yes there is intent to mislead. It was baseball bats three weeks ago, now it's hammers. In both cases the claim is that those everyday tools kill more people than "guns." That's just plain false.
And by guns I assume you mean assault weapons which is a political term for rifles that are not assault rifles as they lack burst and full-auto functions but look like assault rifles. None of these conversations have been about handguns or shotguns or bolt-action rifles because bans on those firearms would invoke a massive response against policy makers.

So we've established that both sides use words to invoke a response, anything unexpected there?
Old    Boarder85 (fouroheight68)      Join Date: May 2006       01-10-2013, 2:54 PM Reply   
"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has cut gun safety research by 96 percent since the mid-1990s, according to one estimate. Congress, pushed by the gun lobby, in 1996 put restrictions on CDC funding of gun research. Restrictions on other agencies were added in later years.

Biden said he would like federal agencies to have the ability to get information on what kind of weapons are used most to kill people and what kind of weapons are the most trafficked.

"I'm no great hunter - it's mostly skeet shooting for me - I don't quite understand why everybody would be afraid of whether or not we determine what is happening," he said."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9090YM20130110

This. We will never get anything accomplished with lobbyists fighting at every turn. How about some actual RESEARCH into the issue?
Old    Nicolas Kohler (monkey_butt)      Join Date: Sep 2011       01-10-2013, 3:00 PM Reply   
Quote:
My position is well expressed in this article I posted in another thread: http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybin...sis-is-amoral/
must have missed your position on that thread but took the time to read the article now ... so if the conclusion is that
Quote:
Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished.
then I wonder why we regulate (preventative) alcohol, illegal substances, wearing seat belts while driving ... just to name a few.

I'm not sure why we're even discussing this - Jon Stewart put it perfectly: We're the only nation obsessed with guns based on an imaginery threat that the government may turn against us (I don't think we're close to a civil war or had one recently). If common sense hopefully prevails and we're willing to engage in a discussion how to prevent 10000 people dying each year due to gun violence (real issue) vs. talking about hammers and baseball bats then I believe we're getting somewhere ...
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-10-2013, 3:16 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey_butt View Post
If common sense hopefully prevails and we're willing to engage in a discussion how to prevent 10000 people dying each year due to gun violence (real issue) vs. talking about hammers and baseball bats then I believe we're getting somewhere ...
Then I'd like to enter some research of a professor and criminologist into the record:

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/07/168771...icagos-goes-up

Mainly that there are hot spots that account for most violent crime and we can address that issue directly.

Our rights are not collective but individual. I did not perpetrate that crime, nor did millions of other law-abiding American gun owners. The collective does NOT have the right to strip me of my ability to defend my life.

Additionally, like most I'm sure you do not mind that Congress recently waived your individual right to privacy, in violation of the 4th amendment. Again, this is a move toward collectivism and that is something that will not stand long in the psyche of Americans. All of this surrounding a fear of terrorism which could be addressed by revising our a-hole attitude towards foreign countries but Congress would rather sacrifice your individual rights. Different issues, similar fear, and the same non-solution to calm the nerves of the masses.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-10-2013, 3:28 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
Additionally, like most I'm sure you do not mind that Congress recently waived your individual right to privacy, in violation of the 4th amendment. Again, this is a move toward collectivism and that is something that will not stand long in the psyche of Americans. All of this surrounding a fear of terrorism which could be addressed by revising our a-hole attitude towards foreign countries but Congress would rather sacrifice your individual rights. Different issues, similar fear, and the same non-solution to calm the nerves of the masses.
As bleeding heart as I am, I agree.

Look at how much $$$ we blew post 9/11, and for what? 14 guys with box cutters and some determination did something horrible. In newtown, a kid took his mom's guns and did something horrible (and aurora and columbine and v tech). But those are aborations. We can't and shouldn't plan our lives around the most rare, and extreme, events. Making grandma take off her shoes to get on a plane makes me feel no safer, and I doubt 15 round magazines would make me feel safer from gun violence than 30 round mags.

Now would I like to see a culture shift so that the wang wagging of packing heat (legally or illegally) goes away? Heck yeah. Used to be perfectly acceptable to beat your wife. Anyone defend that now? How 'bout driving while intoxicated (not irradicated, but certainly stigmatized)? Racism too. Lots of these cultural norms have changed over the years, and I'd hope that the concealed carrying of lethal weapons around would be one of them.

Which is not to say don't have a gun, it's to say your dong is still the same size whether you concealed carry one or not.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-10-2013, 3:34 PM Reply   
The other common sense approach for mass murders and those creepy ones like this Jodi Arias are mental health services.

However, violent crime rates in many "western" gun-free countries are higher than the US, so despite a higher murder rate because of access to guns we are a less violent society than many of those anti-gun advocates are choosing to compare us with. So while the gun is a tool that makes the outcomes of those attacks more severe in some cases, we also have less victims in our society per capita, by a 4X multiplier when compared to the UK.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-10-2013, 3:37 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by skull View Post
Also, note that "assault rifles" are not broke out in the rifle category. I'd bet there are far more murders with a $200 22 LR caliber than a 5.56 AR-15. Just like most of the handgun murders are committed with cheap pieces of crap and not $800 hanguns.
Unfortunately you are probably right. Which makes "gun control" sound better than "assault weapons ban" if the goal is reducing gun murders to parity with blunt objects.
Old    David Langston (rdlangston13)      Join Date: Feb 2011       01-10-2013, 5:31 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post

Which is not to say don't have a gun, it's to say your dong is still the same size whether you concealed carry one or not.
I don't understand the constant attack on people who choose to conceal carry legally. Last I heard they are not the ones shooting up schools or getting in gang wars committing drive bys.




Sent from my iPhone newtys droid killer using Tapatalk
Old    Seahawks #1 Fan Robert T (cwb4me)      Join Date: Apr 2010       01-10-2013, 7:30 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdlangston13 View Post
I don't understand the constant attack on people who choose to conceal carry legally. Last I heard they are not the ones shooting up schools or getting in gang wars committing drive bys.




Sent from my iPhone newtys droid killer using Tapatalk
Wrong, your dong shrinks when you stare down the barrel.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-11-2013, 5:08 AM Reply   
Quote:
Now would I like to see a culture shift so that the wang wagging of packing heat (legally or illegally) goes away? Heck yeah. Used to be perfectly acceptable to beat your wife. Anyone defend that now? How 'bout driving while intoxicated (not irradicated, but certainly stigmatized)? Racism too. Lots of these cultural norms have changed over the years, and I'd hope that the concealed carrying of lethal weapons around would be one of them.

Which is not to say don't have a gun, it's to say your dong is still the same size whether you concealed carry one or not.


Common misconception from those who get their gun knowledge from Hollywood. Protecting yourself and your family will never go out of style. Maybe you should go get your CHL and carry. See what its really about rather than your Dirty Harry dreams. Then decide wether its for you or not. I wouldnt cancel your ED script just yet if I were you. You will be very disapointed.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-11-2013, 6:07 AM Reply   
Ddd

Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk HD
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       01-13-2013, 10:47 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
have the police released a report that says that yet? If so I missed it. Can you please provide a link?
He cann't provide f'n crap! The police report is public knowledge and said he had an AR.
The only reason he says that the shooter didn't use an AR was because the police pulled an AR out of the trunk of the car and everyone knows your only allowed ONE assault rifle.
I would like to see the video of the shooter going from his car to the front of the school, unless he wore a trenchcoat, he would not be able to conceal the AR, plenty of time to lock down and secure the gate so no idiot could shoot his way in!
Old    plhorn (plhorn)      Join Date: Dec 2005       01-14-2013, 2:14 PM Reply   
Quote:
"plenty of time to lock down and secure the gate so no idiot could shoot his way in!"

The gates were locked down and secured. He shot the lock.
Old    Shawn (fizzz)      Join Date: Nov 2010       01-15-2013, 12:18 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by sidekicknicholas View Post
I get news from the TV via The Daily Show and CNN (left swinging) and to/from work in my car listen to conservative talk radio (Hannity, Rush, etc).... my best attempt to see/hear both sides.

From that the biggest argument from the "right" side is this - the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. After that they define "Good Guy" as a well trained, law obeying citizen (obeying a property's right to ban weapon included). With that said, all the guns in the world would NOT have stopped any public shooting as of late. I know that here in Wisconsin almost EVERY SINGLE STORE I have been in since the conceal and carry laws were passed here has a big sign saying "Firearms not permitted on this property" .... this includes malls, theaters, schools, churches, bars, etc etc etc.

So as a bad guy whole strolls into the mall and opens fire, this means that all of you "good guys" wouldn't have guns anyway.... you're SOL. And if you do in fact have a gun at a place that does not permit them, maybe you're not such a good guy. Lets say you're in that mall with a shooter, your gun is in your car, how many people would actually leave, get the weapon (losing sight of the bad guy"), and come back to stop him? If you say "I sure would, FOR AMERICA!" then I would ask this..... I am in a mall with the shooter, you leave to get your gun and come back to shoot the shooter.... now I see two guys with guns, I assume there are two shooters, I get my gun from my car, now I'm trying to take out the two shooters.... etc etc etc, next thing you know you have 7 people with guns all trying to kill each other since no one knows who is who.

..... with all that said, I don't think guns should be touched namely on the principal of if the 2nd amendment gets fudged with, where does it stop. I also think there is ZERO need for 100 round mags, fully auto rifles (most semi auto I can't justify).... my family has guns for hunting, they are shotgun/ pump based or bolt action rifles.... they work great for hunting, we don't need more.



Stupid. This is signing up for the group that a "Well regulated militia" would have to fight, not who we would be fighting for in a revolt (see 1776). If anyone legitimately thinks they could pull a band of people together (militia) and have a chance in hell to make a dent in the US Army.... you're not sane enough to own a weapon.
Sorry lots of false information here

The meaning of those signs varies state to state, in ga for example they mean nothing. All you can be asked is to leave, if you refuse to leave its trespassing, no weapons charge. Your missing the point of the argument though, if weapons were permitted everywhere by licensed carriers it would serve as a deterent. Think about where shootings occur, gun free zones(the big ones anyways) when's the last time you heard of a mass shooting at a gun show? Google kennesaw ga, it's a local law to require home owners to posses a firearm, must be the Wild Wild West right? Wrong........

Magazine changes take less than a second, limit them to 10 rounds you add a whole 10 seconds to dump 100 rounds, wow!

Full autos? I don't think you know much about the NFA passed in the 1930's do you? In order to legally obtain anything that fires more than 1 round per trigger pull it requires a form 4 filed with the BATFE NFA, this is paperwork requiring approval from your local sheriff, passport photos a description of the weapon, a $200 tax, a 1-6 month wait(closer to 6-7), fingerprinting, and an extensive background check. The weapon must be "pre 1986" to be compliant, and there are strict rules once you owe it, for example you must obtain approval before leaving the state, it may not be loaned out etc. there are not legally acquired "full autos" running around the streets

As far as the militia goes, no one ever wants that but think about how spread out the military is, our military hasn't had a lot of success fighting an insurgency let alone one as well armed as their own citizens. Do you really think soldiers would agree to fight their own friends and family? Maybe some but not all, that's a whole different discussion though
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-15-2013, 9:01 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fizzz View Post
As far as the militia goes, no one ever wants that but think about how spread out the military is, our military hasn't had a lot of success fighting an insurgency let alone one as well armed as their own citizens. Do you really think soldiers would agree to fight their own friends and family? Maybe some but not all, that's a whole different discussion though
Can someone please point me to some evidence that the founding fathers intended the word "militia" in the second amendment to mean a group of vigilantes overthrowing a tyrannical government? I know there's this myth of an armed populace keeping the government in check with their home arsenals (and let's not forget about Red Dawn, right?), but is there any evidence from the strict constructionists that that's what the founding fathers truly intended?

Fact is, treason is treason until the traitors win (compare civil war to revolutionary war).
Old    Shawn (fizzz)      Join Date: Nov 2010       01-16-2013, 12:06 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Can someone please point me to some evidence that the founding fathers intended the word "militia" in the second amendment to mean a group of vigilantes overthrowing a tyrannical government? I know there's this myth of an armed populace keeping the government in check with their home arsenals (and let's not forget about Red Dawn, right?), but is there any evidence from the strict constructionists that that's what the founding fathers truly intended?

Fact is, treason is treason until the traitors win (compare civil war to revolutionary war).
That's not the sole intent of the second amendment but part of it. An armed populous also makes the country unobtainable to other countries as well as guaranteeing individuals protection from one another. The founding fathers knew power corrupts and kept the second amendment simple, it says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, that's pretty simple it doesn't say anything about "other than high capacity mags" or "other than full autos" or "other than military looking weapons", its very specific actually that our right is to posses firearms period!
Read here as it breaks down and explains the second amendment a little better
http://www.barefootsworld.net/article2.html

Treason? How about passing laws against the very same constitution they agreed to uphold? That's where treason starts
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-16-2013, 4:13 AM Reply   
^In a time of muskets, canons, and bayonets, I don't think the forefathers gave autos and high capacity mags much thought.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-16-2013, 5:33 AM Reply   
(
Quote:
Originally Posted by fizzz View Post
That's not the sole intent of the second amendment but part of it. An armed populous also makes the country unobtainable to other countries as well as guaranteeing individuals protection from one another. The founding fathers knew power corrupts and kept the second amendment simple, it says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, that's pretty simple it doesn't say anything about "other than high capacity mags" or "other than full autos" or "other than military looking weapons", its very specific actually that our right is to posses firearms period!
Read here as it breaks down and explains the second amendment a little better
http://www.barefootsworld.net/article2.html

Treason? How about passing laws against the very same constitution they agreed to uphold? That's where treason starts
So it sounds like you think the constitution guarantees the right to bazookas (there being no definition of arms and all, and us all agreeing that the bazooka is an arm)?

we have a supreme court to decide whether laws are constitutional or not. We don't need the militia for that.
Old    Shawn (fizzz)      Join Date: Nov 2010       01-17-2013, 4:19 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
(

So it sounds like you think the constitution guarantees the right to bazookas (there being no definition of arms and all, and us all agreeing that the bazooka is an arm)?

we have a supreme court to decide whether laws are constitutional or not. We don't need the militia for that.
There you go, now your thinking like an American! the supreme court just upheld that the federal government doesn't have the right to decide what types of firearms are legal, heller v. district of columbia i believe. Its up to the states. I believe it was also mentioned that the 94 awb would have been ruled unconstitutional if they had ruled on it at the time.

Bazookas are classified as destructive devices under the NFA, technically the constitution does guarantee them to civilians. However its then up to the states to decide if they want to allow them. See how that works? New York just passed a ridiculous gun law, good for them, it was passed by the state senate and is perfectly constitutional. I wouldn't move to New York for double my salary, but that's fine if the people that live there want to stay. Georgia allows just about everything(great state), full autos, silencers, destructive devices, concealed carry, open carry etc. Technically a "bazooka" is legal to have, even legal to build as long as it doesn't fire projectiles that explode, it would be more or less considered a cannon but its legal.

wake77, when the constitution was written they guaranteed citizens the right to the most deadly weapons at the time, if you don't think they were smart enough to know weapons would progress from that id say your underestimating some of the most brilliant men to ever live. Don't you think they might have written a clause in saying except military grade weapons or something?
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-17-2013, 4:36 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fizzz View Post
New York just passed a ridiculous gun law, good for them, it was passed by the state senate and is perfectly constitutional.
Portions of what NY passed have been overturned by lower courts in the past, there are several examples of CA legislation to that extent. And now with several Governor's backing gun rights there a good chance we will see some interesting court proceedings to further define this issue.

Federal legislation is not looking likely unless Harry Reid makes a move. The House is staying silent until the Senate makes a move. So aside from EO actions I would not expect anything out of DC at this time.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-17-2013, 4:51 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
^In a time of muskets, canons, and bayonets, I don't think the forefathers gave autos and high capacity mags much thought.
This is a tired argument if you ask me. The forefathers didn't give much thought to the interwebs or phones and yet I'm pretty certain they would say your 4th amendment rights extend to those new-fangled technological developments.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       01-18-2013, 6:59 AM Reply   
Quote:
This is a tired argument if you ask me. The forefathers didn't give much thought to the interwebs or phones and yet I'm pretty certain they would say your 4th amendment rights extend to those new-fangled technological developments.
Maybe the whole constitution should be re-written to be relevant again.... times have changed, maybe our major governing document should too.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-18-2013, 8:35 AM Reply   
> vigilantes overthrowing a tyrannical government

This concept is so flawed today. We could hardly stand up to our high tech military with our pea shooters. Our best defense against tyranny is our all volunteer military. There is not a chance that they would destroy their own families.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-18-2013, 9:22 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamonddad View Post
> vigilantes overthrowing a tyrannical government

This concept is so flawed today. We could hardly stand up to our high tech military with our pea shooters. Our best defense against tyranny is our all volunteer military. There is not a chance that they would destroy their own families.
It's not about overthrowing the government. And tyranny of the majority was feared just as much as a tyrannical government. Again, this is an issue of collective rights vs. individual rights and the bill of rights was added to the constitution to protect against the fears of tyranny of the majority. Valuing life and liberty above all was embodied by protecting these individual freedoms to protect your life against all threats to your liberty. Be it a foreign invader or a domestic criminal our country was founded that no citizen should be defenseless against these threats to their life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sidekicknicholas View Post
Maybe the whole constitution should be re-written to be relevant again.... times have changed, maybe our major governing document should too.
It can be amended at any given time and our most recent amendment was ratified in 1992. Go through the proper process if you want it changed the document is living. That said only one amendment has ever been repealed and it was an amendment the prohibited something... See the parallel.

Also, understand if a ban was truly popular the Democratic controlled Senate would be moving on it right now... But notice Harry Reid has not... His constituents and many of his caucuses constituents are willing to speak with their votes on this issue.

And we would be remiss to not acknowledge this is a civil rights issue and at the core of our counties value structure. The fear was always tyranny of the majority and infringement of absolute rights of individuals.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-18-2013, 9:32 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
It's not about overthrowing the government. And tyranny of the majority was feared just as much as a tyrannical government. Again, this is an issue of collective rights vs. individual rights and the bill of rights was added to the constitution to protect against the fears of tyranny of the majority. Valuing life and liberty above all was embodied by protecting these individual freedoms to protect your life against all threats to your liberty. Be it a foreign invader or a domestic criminal our country was founded that no citizen should be defenseless against these threats to their life.
How do you feel about tyranny of the majority when it comes to gay marriage?
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-18-2013, 9:42 AM Reply   
Shawn, I don't think marriage should be governed. If your church wants to marry you great do it. If you want to enjoy the property rights now associated with the marriage contract then have a civil partnership. Gay, straight, I don't care, marriage should not be handled by the state. Property rights contracts, sure let the government in there.

Feel the same about women's health issues. I'm a man, it's not my body, therefore it does not infringe on my liberty and I am not bothered by it. I do understand as a man between the age of 18-45ish I will be subsidizing their healthcare but I freely entered into those insurance contracts, well until ACA, which I'm not entirely upset about, just think it could be done better and cheaper with equal or greater results i.e. Japan.

See unlike either political party, I believe my views are logically consistent. As for the parties, I won't ever register for one because of the inconsistencies.

Last edited by norcalrider; 01-18-2013 at 9:45 AM.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-18-2013, 9:47 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
Shawn, I don't think marriage should be governed. If your church wants to marry you great do it. If you want to enjoy the property rights now associated with the marriage contract then have a civil partnership. Gay, straight, I don't care, marriage should not be handled by the state. Property rights contracts, sure let the government in there.

Feel the same about women's health issues. I'm a man, it's not my body, therefore it does not infringe on my liberty and I am not bothered by it. I do understand as a man between the age of 18-45ish I will be subsidizing their healthcare but I freely entered into those insurance contracts, well until ACA, which I'm not entirely upset about, just think it could be done better and cheaper with equal or greater results i.e. Japan.
right on. pretty much the same on my part.

And while I don't really understand gun (or gay) culture, I don't begrudge legal use and ownership of firearms (or what two dudes do in the privacy of their home).

I don't for the life of me understand why we don't keep track of guns though. My kids get a birth certificate when they are born, my car, my boat, my home are all titled or ownership is recorded in a public record. Shoot, even my voter registration is a matter of public record.

Could someone 'splain to me why gun reg is such a no-no?
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-18-2013, 10:00 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Could someone 'splain to me why gun reg is such a no-no?
Historically registration is the first step to confiscation. It's holding the line as the anti-gun lobby has crossed the line in many liberal states such as my own.

I'm ok with gun sales requiring background checks and taking place at FFLs. But to track the citizenry is just something in concept I'm opposed to.
Old    Ben (kamighazi)      Join Date: Nov 2008       01-18-2013, 10:07 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
Historically registration is the first step to confiscation.
Devils advocate here: Can you support this claim with statistical fact? My car is registered, and it can kill people, and if use it improperly too many times they take my licence away. Could be considered over reach, but do you want a proven crazy diver on the streets while your kids are playing?
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-18-2013, 10:08 AM Reply   
do you feel like someone is going to take away your car, home, children and right to vote too?

So much is registered, I don't see what the big deal is. How are those things (home, family and vote -- essential liberty interests for sure) distinguishable from firearms?

Honest Q -- I'm looking to understand the argument. All I see is a line in the sand and I don't understand why it's there.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       01-18-2013, 10:32 AM Reply   
Looks like the armed guard in schools lasted about a week before it backfired.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/1...dent-bathroom/

I am honestly surprised guns manufactured in the past few years all aren't being RFID chipped.... this could provide tracking (obviously they could be disabled or removed, but make it PITA).... RFID could be tied to the hammer too, so if the gun is stolen, owner commits a felony, or enters a "gun free zone" the hammer disables.

Last edited by sidekicknicholas; 01-18-2013 at 10:34 AM.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-18-2013, 10:34 AM Reply   
I am a gun owner who favors simple training/licensing...

1) mandatory saftey/usage training.
2) background check for a license.
3) 10 round clip limit.
4) any semi-auto is ok

Once licensed, you can buy any gun/ammo without waiting period or background check.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-18-2013, 10:45 AM Reply   
First, I believe one of the first things you are taught in drivers education is driving is not a right. Car registration is a taxation thing and when a bad driver is convicted of such crimes they do not take the car but rather the license. Many people drive still without licenses. I'm not sure the car analogy is congruent.

I'm not advocating free and clear sales. In fact, I just posted that all sales should have a background check and take place at an FFL. This would limit sales of new and used guns to citizens who were cleared by the government.

Ben, Ca w/ SKSs, Chicago w/ longguns, NY, Australia, Canada and many others have used their registrations to then collect or demand turnover after further changing the laws after the registration periods. Registration isn't the problem it's when the majority reverses itself and decides to change the rules, this is the tyranny I fear.

Not to mention registration doesn't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, look at US vs. Haynes (1968) and see how unlawful possession of a short-barrel rifle was protected by the 5th amendment.

Another argument against registration is it serves no purpose and has lots of problems and costs. Reasons Canada got rid of their long gun registry last year (shocker CA passed legislation to create one at the same time).

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...and-never-did/
Quote:
The evidence shows that the long-gun registry has not been effective in reducing criminal violence. Nor is the Canadian experience unique. No international study of firearm laws by criminologists or economists has found support for the claim that restricting access to firearms by civilians reduces criminal violence. And so ending the long gun registry is consistent with the basic principles of good fiscal management. Arguably any government program that fails to achieve its objectives should be shut down.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-18-2013, 10:48 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamonddad View Post
.3) 10 round clip limit.
Awesome, so 30-round magazines are OK...

Most guns outside of states with arbitrary magazine limits come with more than 10-round magazines. Standard capacity for most handguns is above 10-rounds. Changing a magazine isn't going to lower death counts or prevent these tragedies.

Last edited by norcalrider; 01-18-2013 at 10:51 AM.
Old    Ben (kamighazi)      Join Date: Nov 2008       01-18-2013, 11:55 AM Reply   
yeah bad analogy. but it the point was to get the though across that: some things are intrinsically dangerous and as such should have more oversight.

That said i completely agree with you that regulation wont do anything. Currently there are 330 million guns in circulation, and there are about that many people living in this country. if all gun sales were hauled today, there is still a very good chance that crazy people and guns will mix together with ease.

Its a mental and pharmaceutical issue, guns are just easier than driving planes into buildings
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-18-2013, 12:15 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
First, I believe one of the first things you are taught in drivers education is driving is not a right. Car registration is a taxation thing and when a bad driver is convicted of such crimes they do not take the car but rather the license. Many people drive still without licenses. I'm not sure the car analogy is congruent....
In the words of Lee Corso, "Not so fast my friend". Not sure about other states (but I would say many have similar laws), but here in TN, a vehicle can be seized by the state or county for driving on a revoked license or while a vehicle is being used in commission of a felony.

What really surprises me is that I haven't read anybody posting that Sandy Hook never happened and was a conspiracy concocted by the government. A buddy of mine informed me that there are Sandy Hook "truthers" (think of 9/11 truthers) all over the internet. Any thoughts on this??
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-18-2013, 12:30 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
In the words of Lee Corso, "Not so fast my friend". Not sure about other states (but I would say many have similar laws), but here in TN, a vehicle can be seized by the state or county for driving on a revoked license or while a vehicle is being used in commission of a felony.
Certainly, it can be seized and there is recourse to regain possession of that vehicle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
IWhat really surprises me is that I haven't read anybody posting that Sandy Hook never happened and was a conspiracy concocted by the government. A buddy of mine informed me that there are Sandy Hook "truthers" (think of 9/11 truthers) all over the internet. Any thoughts on this??
Politicians and Bureaucrats can barely do math let alone pull of a conspiracy. [insert history channel aliens crazy hair guy picture]

Last edited by norcalrider; 01-18-2013 at 12:34 PM.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       01-18-2013, 12:46 PM Reply   
AS you wish.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-18-2013, 12:57 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
Certainly, it can be seized and there is recourse to regain possession of that vehicle.



Politicians and Bureaucrats can barely do math let alone pull of a conspiracy. [insert history channel aliens crazy hair guy picture]
LOL, it's only "the media" that's crafty enough to do it...
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       01-18-2013, 1:18 PM Reply   
Here you go wake. I do not believe in any of this btw. You asked so I am just posting it up for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrngdgUixYg
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-18-2013, 1:22 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
LOL, it's only "the media" that's crafty enough to do it...
I'm only slightly more confident in the media's ability to do math and losing faith in their ability to investigate these days. I just don't believe in conspiracies.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:15 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us