What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[LeviF]

23 minutes ago, KW95 said:

BTW: I got a point from Canadian Bills Fans for saying " Shithouse "

You see CBF, Shithouse can be said without the dot in between **** and house.  So basically you gave me a warning point for no reason.

 

The word filters are funny.  It'll catch any combination that has !@#$ in it: !@#$wad, !@#$wit, !@#$stick, sir!@#$salot.  But it won't catch a lot of variations on ****.  Shithouse, shitbird, ****head, shitpost, etc.

 

Edit: Apparently it does catch ****head.  Interesting.

Edited February 20, 2018 by LeviF91

[boyst]

4 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

The word filters are funny.  It'll catch any combination that has !@#$ in it: !@#$wad, !@#$wit, !@#$stick, sir!@#$salot.  But it won't catch a lot of variations on ****.  Shithouse, shitbird, ****head, shitpost, etc.

 

Edit: Apparently it does catch ****head.  Interesting.

You are a mother !@#$ing !@#$compoop you donkey !@#$ing !@#$ !@#$er !@#$ation from the plant go!@#$your!@#$iving.

[KW95 - JA17]

4 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

The word filters are funny.  It'll catch any combination that has !@#$ in it: !@#$wad, !@#$wit, !@#$stick, sir!@#$salot.  But it won't catch a lot of variations on ****.  Shithouse, shitbird, ****head, shitpost, etc.

 

Edit: Apparently it does catch ****head.  Interesting.

 

Its been awhile, but I haven't let it go yet. I said Shithouse in the PPP the day Trump said that about countries and CNN saying it live on TV.  Good enough for our Prez, Good enough for the News, but not good enough on the boards...And it came from a Canadian Moderator!

 

[LeviF]

3 minutes ago, KW95 said:

 

Its been awhile, but I haven't let it go yet. I said Shithouse in the PPP the day Trump said that about countries and CNN saying it live on TV.  Good enough for our Prez, Good enough for the News, but not good enough on the boards...And it came from a Canadian Moderator!

 

 

Did you originally put a period between **** and house?  That would (rightfully) be interpreted as attempting to get around the word filter (which our fearless leader is not fond of) notwithstanding whether the word filter would have caught it or not.

Edited February 20, 2018 by LeviF91

[boyst]

2 minutes ago, KW95 said:

 

Its been awhile, but I haven't let it go yet. I said Shithouse in the PPP the day Trump said that about countries and CNN saying it live on TV.  Good enough for our Prez, Good enough for the News, but not good enough on the boards...And it came from a Canadian Moderator!

 

Maybe it's because you're too much of an idiot to get it right htat you got the warning

 

He said shithole. Not shithouse.

 

Shithole is the anus. Shithouse is where Jerry falwell had sex with his mother.

[KW95 - JA17]

1 minute ago, Boyst62 said:

Maybe it's because you're too much of an idiot to get it right htat you got the warning

 

He said shithole. Not shithouse.

 

Shithole is the anus. Shithouse is where Jerry falwell had sex with his mother.

 

Just another idiot picking the little things like either shithole of shithouse.....totally misses the point!

 

After reading this thread, should you be talking about sex with anyone?

[boyst]

Just now, KW95 said:

 

Just another idiot picking the little things like either shithole of shithouse.....totally misses the point!

 

After reading this thread, should you be talking about sex with anyone?

Do you think I care?

Honestly?

At this point, what difference does it make?

K, thanks petunia.

[KW95 - JA17]

Doesn't at all.

 

I've always tried to be nice to you since day one I came back in the shout box.....But at the end of the day, so be it!

 

Ill never forgive you for writing that Peterman threw an INT in the shout box when everyone watching at home was on TapeDelay.

[boyst]

Just now, KW95 said:

Doesn't at all.

 

I've always tried to be nice to you since day one I came back in the shout box.....But at the end of the day, so be it!

 

Ill never forgive you for writing that Peterman threw an INT in the shout box when everyone watching at home was on TapeDelay.

How much ahead was that warning?

 

And don't be nice to me for any reason. Be nice to everyone for the reason of why not?  I am equally a ****head to everyone in my shithole country in my shitposting. 

[KW95 - JA17]

Just now, Boyst62 said:

How much ahead was that warning?

 

And don't be nice to me for any reason. Be nice to everyone for the reason of why not?  I am equally a ****head to everyone in my shithole country in my shitposting. 

 

I was on my lazyboy, with my notebook on my lap and read your INT comment. 10 seconds after I see the play.

 

In regards to your second sentence...layoff the crackpipe....

 

 

[Just Jack]

I once had a former poster complain because I was talking about plays that had already happened (on local TV station) that had not occurred how he was watching (Sunday Ticket/DirecTV). I think it was about a 30 second delay on his feed. 

 

And I say outhouse, not shithouse. 

 

[thebug]

56 minutes ago, KW95 said:

 

I was on my lazyboy, with my notebook on my lap and read your INT comment. 10 seconds after I see the play.

 

In regards to your second sentence...layoff the crackpipe....

 

 

It was a Peterman pass, so you probably should have known it was coming anyway. 

[boyst]

5 minutes ago, thebug said:

It was a Peterman pass, so you probably should have known it was coming anyway. 

If I'd have been drinking I definitely would have done this.  But as soon as Peterman came in I was going to announce every play was an INT.

[B-Man]

Back to the thread.............................another wonderful liberal suggestion..............

 

How Banks Could Control Gun Sales if Washington Won’t

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/business/banks-gun-sales.html

 

 

 

An Idea: Banks Could Control Alcohol If Washington Won't

An Idea: Banks Could Control Fake News If Washington Won't

An Idea: Banks Could Control Churches If Washington Won't

An Idea: Banks Could Control Political Ads If Washington Won't

 

If we can't get the government to regulate our lives, let's get corporations to do it! Really, it's the best of both worlds.

[/dev/null]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Back to the thread.............................another wonderful liberal suggestion..............

 

How Banks Could Control Gun Sales if Washington Won’t

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/business/banks-gun-sales.html

 

 

 

An Idea: Banks Could Control Alcohol If Washington Won't

An Idea: Banks Could Control Fake News If Washington Won't

An Idea: Banks Could Control Churches If Washington Won't

An Idea: Banks Could Control Political Ads If Washington Won't

 

If we can't get the government to regulate our lives, let's get corporations to do it! Really, it's the best of both worlds.

This is nothing new, except previously it was implicitly endorsed by the Obama Administration.  The Fed a d Treasury pushed to classify some businesses as high risk credit such as gun makers, gun shops, tobacco companies, strip clubs, porn producers etc.  Business deemed high risk would have stricter interest rates and regulation.

[sodbuster]

2 hours ago, KW95 said:

 

Just another idiot picking the little things like either shithole of shithouse.....totally misses the point!

 

After reading this thread, should you be talking about sex with anyone?

Maybe people are "missing the point" of your posts because you're not communicating effectively. I mean, I'm still waiting for you to explain why an individual can't possibly affected by handgun fire just because they're carrying a rifle.

Edited February 20, 2018 by sodbuster

[DC Tom]

14 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Back to the thread.............................another wonderful liberal suggestion..............

 

How Banks Could Control Gun Sales if Washington Won’t

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/business/banks-gun-sales.html

 

 

 

An Idea: Banks Could Control Alcohol If Washington Won't

An Idea: Banks Could Control Fake News If Washington Won't

An Idea: Banks Could Control Churches If Washington Won't

An Idea: Banks Could Control Political Ads If Washington Won't

 

If we can't get the government to regulate our lives, let's get corporations to do it! Really, it's the best of both worlds.

 

Just to be clear...these would be the same financial institutions that they don't trust to control money?  

[KW95 - JA17]

30 minutes ago, sodbuster said:

Maybe people are "missing the point" of your posts because you're not communicating effectively. I mean, I'm still waiting for you to explain why an individual can't possibly affected by handgun fire just because they're carrying a rifle.

 

See, that was a good response without bashing anyone or calling them idiot or retards etc...

[Rockpile233]

I’m interested in what the staunchly anti-gun regulation crowd would propose doing on a federal level to combat the regular mass shootings we experience here.

 

I think most people acknowledge that there is something wrong, and thus a reasonable person would acknowledge that changing nothing is unlikely to stop the phenomenon from occurring.

 

To me then you fall into a few camps:

 

1. “Mass shootings are a cost of doing business if you will, in a county that affords freedoms we hold dear. While unfortunate occurrences, mass shootings do not offset the benefit of the second amendment and thus must be endured.”

 

While I don’t agree with this mindset, I respect it because it’s at least consistent.

 

2. Mass shootings ARE an issue that should be addressed federally, but guns aren’t the problem. It’s those difficult to quantify “underlying issues” that we need to address. (Loss of family values, war on religion, mental health etc.)

 

Okkkkkk. I would argue that there is some merit to this, but nobody I speak to in person ever has an idea to do anything different. I would argue that many people typically can agree that someone with documented mental health issues shouldn’t have access to firearms, but this becomes an opportunity to posture politically and no one actually does anything.

 

3. “Mass shootings ARE an issue and increased federal regulation on guns should be considered”

 

I would say this is probably the majority opinion these days from people I am surrounded by (small sample obviously for the smart asses) Ideas have been floated, but are constantly confused by slippery slope counter arguments and declarations that there is a war on the second amendment. At least this camp seems to acknowledge that we should TRY SOMETHING even if it’s small.

 

4. “Guns kill and should be outlawed for personal ownership.”

 

These people are crazy, unrealistic, self absorbed, idiots. Unfortunately people try to group #3 in with them to drag reasonable conversations into absurdity.

 

So if you think mass shootings are an issue that needs work, come

up with something. Easy to bash everyone’s ideas without having an alternative. 

 

And if if you think your hoard of rifles and ammunition is going to protect you from a tyrannical government...please pass that good stuff my way. A former friend of mine with this opinion is already online spreading Florida is a false flag conspiracy stories. You are a special sort of crazy and nobody is going to push you off your opinion. 

 

I think camps 2 and 3 could have reasonable conversations if this pathetic generation of politicians would go away.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Rockpile233

[sodbuster]

2 minutes ago, Rockpile233 said:

I’m interested in what the staunchly anti-gun regulation crowd would propose doing on a federal level to combat the regular mass shootings we experience here.

 

I think most people acknowledge that there is something wrong, and thus a reasonable person would acknowledge that changing nothing is unlikely to stop the phenomenon from occurring.

 

To me then you fall into a few camps:

 

1. “Mass shootings are a cost of doing business if you will, in a county that affords freedoms we hold dear. While unfortunate occurrences, mass shootings do not offset the benefit of the second amendment and thus must be endured.”

 

While I don’t agree with this mindset, I respect it because it’s at least consistent.

 

2. Mass shootings ARE an issue that should be addressed federally, but guns aren’t the problem. It’s those difficult to quantify “underlying issues” that we need to address. (Loss of family values, war on religion, mental health etc.)

 

Okkkkkk. I would argue that there is some merit to this, but nobody I speak to in person ever has an idea to do anything different. I would argue that many people typically can agree that someone with documented mental health issues shouldn’t have access to firearms, but this becomes an opportunity to posture politically and no one actually does anything.

 

3. “Mass shootings ARE an issue and increased federal regulation on guns should be considered”

 

I would say this is probably the majority opinion these days from people I am surrounded by (small sample obviously for the smart asses) Ideas have been floated, but are constantly confused by slippery slope counter arguments and declarations that there is a war on the second amendment. At least this camp seems to acknowledge that we should TRY SOMETHING even if it’s small.

 

4. “Guns kill and should be outlawed for personal ownership.”

 

These people are crazy, unrealistic, self absorbed, idiots. Unfortunately people try to group #3 in with them to drag reasonable conversations into absurdity.

 

So if you think mass shootings are an issue that needs work, come

up with something. Easy to bash everyone’s ideas without having an alternative. 

 

And if if you think your hoard of rifles and ammunition is going to protect you from a tyrannical government...please pass that good stuff my way. A former friend of mine with this opinion is already online spreading Florida is a false flag conspiracy stories. You are a special sort of crazy and nobody is going to push you off your opinion. 

2.5. I think that some of the regulations we have now, specifically the NICS check, is being half-assed. The most blatant example is that one of the recent mass shooters had purchased the firearm AFTER he had been dishonorably discharged from the military. If that information can't be passed between the DOD and the FBI, two federal agencies, what the hell is the point? Start there.