Discussion Board
Zero2Cool
  • Posts: 38338
  • Joined: 10/14/2006
Originally Posted by: KRK 

Things I learned today from Barfarn:
- The Bill of Rights is not part of the Constitution....who knew!!!!!
- James Madision, on of the most intelligent men in history is "an effing liar"

I glad he is not setting the curriculum for our public schools....but wait....maybe he is?!?!?!? That could be the issue.



Again, focus on topic, NOT the author of a post. Why, WHY is this so hard? My goodness.
isocleas2
  • Posts: 578
  • Joined: 8/8/2008
Here's a bit from Jim Jeffries talking about gun control, I found it funny while mixing in some valid points.

https://youtu.be/n71CSp8NJlc 
Zero2Cool
  • Posts: 38338
  • Joined: 10/14/2006
I love that skit.
Cheesey
  • Posts: 13210
  • Joined: 7/28/2008
Originally Posted by: Barfarn 

Cheesy address the issue don’t deflect or use false equivalence. It is guys like you that create the greatest supply of guns to bad guys. You need to come to grips with this. If you lose a gun or do something that allows one to fall into someone’s hands do you think you should be free of responsibility?

If you are careless with whom you allow to drive your car there can be both civil and criminal liability. Though when people start taking cars and killing; then more drastic measures must be instituted.

There needs to be a deterrent for the “good people” with guns that let criminals gain access to them. A true conservative believes you play, you pay. This concept should not be ignored when it’s not convenient for you. That’s the me first stuff you rail about. Your "more laws don’t work" argument is destroyed; because my proposed laws will alter behavior of all like you.

FACT: removing guns will lower the crime rate [some wont commit crimes with only a knife or a bat] and lower the amount damage inflicted when crimes occur. A criminal is a bad thing; a criminal with a gun is a real bad thing; a criminal with body armor and assault weapons is a really really really bad thing. How can you not see the difference?

Personally, I think possessing guns is an important privilege just like flying or driving; but if any of these become too dangerous for society, something needs to be done.


KRK [And Cheesey too] I think you’re a good man and intelligent. But, gotta give you the [Facepalm] sorry! You’re bogged down under MOUNTAINS of propaganda!!!!

First, gun rights are not in the Constitution; they’re in the Bill of Rights [I know you know this]. But, the BOR was not created until FOUR YEARS AFTER the Federalist papers were written.

Second, The Federalist Papers do not contain the true thoughts of the writers…THIS WAS PROPAGANDA designed to combat the Anti-Federalist papers to induce states to ratify the Constitution and to encourage those already ratified not to “unratify.” You highlighted, “ultimate authority resides in the people alone…;” Madison is an effing LIAR. The Koch Bros spent gazillions to promote the Federalist papers. Any media outlet you engage that speaks of the Federalist Papers as anything other than toilet paper must be ignored. Its like quoting Goebbels’s diary to support the virtues of the Third Reich.

Third, Madison was a total piece of shit. Another shattered BS indoctrinated myth of my youth. This asshole in the later years of his life doctored some of his letters and actually forged Jefferson’s handwriting to try to buoy his legacy. Madison bragged that he makes $257/yr off a Negro and only needs to spend $12-13 for their upkeep. If this exploitative 5'4" little prick is a founding father, I’ll say I’m adopted.

Fourth, the best source of figuring out what these guys were thinking is the floor debates. Most of these notes were kept by Madison; but now a new book by Mary Sarah Bilder argues that Madison doctored the Convention notes too. READ THAT BOOK!!! So what the hell; we simply cant trust ANYTHING we were taught.

Here’s Madison’s initial proposal for what became the 2nd Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Madison is saying if you dont want to carry a gun; you cant be compelled to be in a militia. It is impossible to argue that the right to possess weapons is not contingent on being in the militia.

All gun loving propaganda ignores the militia clause from Amendment #2 to get it to say what they want it to say. But, the reality is that it is there. Gun ownership is simply not nor has ever been a Constitutional right and the legacy of Scalia and the other 4 goofs that rendered Heller is forever tarnished.


I’ve never given a gun or had one stolen. In fact, no gun owner I know has done that.
And as I have proven already, gun control laws don’t work. They only affect law abiding citizens. You say “removing guns” is the answer. Pray tell, how exactly do you do that? The only way would be to target legal gun owners that have registered guns. That wouldn’t affect one single criminal, would it? So again, only law abiding people would lose their rights.
You say I’m not answering your questions? I answered them in every post. You just ignore the answers because you know I am right.
And “gun loving propaganda?” What, is it wrong for me to want to keep my rights as an American? If you don’t want to own a gun, that’s fine with me. But you think your desires should allow you to take away my guns?
You say “possessing guns is an important privilege” yet every post you make says the exact opposite. I’d say that’s hypocritical.
Again, it’s not the gun that is a problem, it’s evil people. I have never seen anywhere where a gun jumped off a shelf and went out on its own and killed people. It is an object that some horrible people use to cause destruction.
Unless you target the bad people, you won’t lower violent crime.
I really don’t understand why that’s so difficult for some to understand.
I think it comes down to just plain hating guns, and willfully ignoring the real issues.
Cheesey
  • Posts: 13210
  • Joined: 7/28/2008
Originally Posted by: earthquake 

Honestly, if you can't handle a trip to the drug store without a firearm, you probably need therapy.

In any case, the statistics on this are very clear on this, the "good guy with a gun" theory is complete and utter bullshit. The "good guy" is far more likely to be unable to operate their firearm is a stressful situation, injure themselves, or injure an innocent bystander. It's obvious why Walgreens wants you to keep it at home.



Really? Where did you read “the good guy with a gun theory is complete and utter bullshit”??? The “Liberal daily news”? I certainly don’t see any proof of that in your post, or for that matter anywhere else. We have concealed carry here in Wisconsin, and you have to prove you know how to safely handle a gun before you get the permit.
And as far as going to the drugstore while carrying a gun. As I stated before, do criminals that plan to rob a drugstore show their gun before they go up to the counter to rob it? No. They have the gun in their pocket and pull it out when it’s time to do the dirty work.
So you get a false sense of security, because some store says “guns not allowed” which ONLY affects decent law abiding citizens. The criminal could care less about some stupid sign. He will walk right past it and go in and rob the place.
I guess a false sense of security means more then reality to some.
Cheesey
  • Posts: 13210
  • Joined: 7/28/2008
Just read on yahoo that a 23 year old woman used a knife to stab her mother to death.
Time for “stricter kitchen cutlery control” laws! 😂
Rockmolder
  • Posts: 7571
  • Joined: 9/14/2008
If anything, you need to loosen those gun laws.

Simple handguns won't protect you from the government and evildoers when they're coming at you with assault rifles, rocket propelled weaponry or even nuclear powered explosives. Everyone should be able to get one of those Davy Crockett nuke launchers for in their backyard. Don't see the constitution excluding those.
Zero2Cool
  • Posts: 38338
  • Joined: 10/14/2006
Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 

If anything, you need to loosen those gun laws.

Simple handguns won't protect you from the government and evildoers when they're coming at you with assault rifles, rocket propelled weaponry or even nuclear powered explosives. Everyone should be able to get one of those Davy Crockett nuke launchers for in their backyard. Don't see the constitution excluding those.



Continuing with the facetious tone ...

Government has drones.
Government has tanks.
Government has aircraft.

This arm the people stuff ... not gonna work lol
KRK
  • Posts: 3588
  • Joined: 1/28/2017
There seems to be a lack of understanding on exactly whose side the military would be on. Talk to some military guys and ex-military sometime....They would tell you that having an armed populace, even with rifles is one the the reason the Japs didn't invade the U.S. mainland. They had machine guns, mortar, artillery, etc. An armed populace is a great defense against tyranny of any sort.

Any fight would be short with the armed, albeit only with rifles, making short work of the who would dictate and vote disarm them.

Human history and human nature teaches:
  • Those willing to vote will always rule of those willing mere to talk.
  • Those willing fight rule those only willing to vote
  • Those willing to die will always rule over those only willing to fight.

μολων λαβε
Cheesey
  • Posts: 13210
  • Joined: 7/28/2008
The reason I keep a loaded gun for one reason. It’s in case I need it. I’m not a blood thirsty villain. I just want to be able to protect myself and family if necessary. It’s the same reason police have guns. You may never need to use it. But need it once and not have it....you can figure out what would happen.
I’ve been a gun owner for the last 46 years. Never committed a crime with a gun (or otherwise, for that matter) and have no plans to start now.
Law abiding citizens should not have their rights taken away.
That’s my point.
Cheesey
  • Posts: 13210
  • Joined: 7/28/2008
On Yahoo! again.....man attacks and stabs 5 people with a knife.
When are we going to put those “kitchen cutlery control” laws into the books!?!?🤣
porky88
  • Posts: 3458
  • Joined: 4/27/2007
Businesses have every right to ban guns from their organizations. It is not the place of the state to mandate that individuals be allowed to bring guns into a Walgreens or a McDonalds because the state allows them to do so on public property. That is up to that company. It is their property.

For example, I do not permit guns at my work because it is corporate policy. My company stipulates that weapons are banned on site. It is a big issue during hunting season. However, I do not write anyone up for having a gun in the public land across from work because that falls under the state and they allow it. Not my place then. See how that works?

Believing that this would make anyone less safe is interesting. I would argue that Airports are a prime target then for this reason (they allow no guns), but mass shootings rarely occur there. Why? Because of the police presence. Is it the guns they have? I don’t think so. People fear authority. Having that presence to deter unwanted acts is what works. If two people have a gun and one person has no respect for the other, then I don’t think that deters anyone from using their gun.

Cheesey
  • Posts: 13210
  • Joined: 7/28/2008
Originally Posted by: porky88 

Businesses have every right to ban guns from their organizations. It is not the place of the state to mandate that individuals be allowed to bring guns into a Walgreens or a McDonalds because the state allows them to do so on public property. That is up to that company. It is their property.

For example, I do not permit guns at my work because it is corporate policy. My company stipulates that weapons are banned on site. It is a big issue during hunting season. However, I do not write anyone up for having a gun in the public land across from work because that falls under the state and they allow it. Not my place then. See how that works?

Believing that this would make anyone less safe is interesting. I would argue that Airports are a prime target then for this reason (they allow no guns), but mass shootings rarely occur there. Why? Because of the police presence. Is it the guns they have? I don’t think so. People fear authority. Having that presence to deter unwanted acts is what works. If two people have a gun and one person has no respect for the other, then I don’t think that deters anyone from using their gun.


Porky, I have no problem with a store or business saying they don’t want guns in their stores/companies.
The point I have made is, no sign is going to keep an evil person from bringing in and using a gun. It ONLY would keep respectful people from taking a gun inside.
And as far as airports, they have metal detectors and body scanners to keep weapons out of an airplane, and to keep mass shootings from happening there. So far I haven’t seen that at Walgreens. Until they do, it’s only a “feel good” sense of false security.
Do you not agree?
And you are right in the fact that if someone has no respect for others, they will use their gun. That’s the problem. Bad people that have no respect for others.
KRK
  • Posts: 3588
  • Joined: 1/28/2017
Porky makes a great point.

Any business can choose to ban guns on site. That is their own decision, and they face consequences one way or the other. On one hand, lawful concealed carry employees would have to choose whether or not they wanted to continue their employment there. At the same time, that business has to weigh the safety benefit of having armed employees against the downside of one of them going wacko.

On the other hand, businesses have to understand that when implemented, they become soft targets when they implement such policies.

Regardless, the decision is to be made by the business, not the government. If customers don’t like the decision, then don’t shop there.

The second amendment precludes the federal government from making restrictions against citizens from carrying guns. That does not mean the states cannot implement additional restrictions. That further does not mean that businesses cannot implement for the restrictions.

I know some of you will think that I’m a wind sock on this issues, but I believe my position is consistent, the federal government cannot unduly restrict our ability to bear arms. It is our right.

States can further implement policies, subject to the courts, which may restrict ownership.

Our founding fathers, who were brilliant, setting up a system where by if a certain state wanted to put in rules, citizens had the right to move to another state or such rules with that necessarily exist. We all have a choice.

Most of the problems in our country, IMO, stem from our federal government trying to do too much, implementing a ‘nanny’ state, instead of allowing the states to make determinations how things are done.
Cheesey
  • Posts: 13210
  • Joined: 7/28/2008
“Nanny state”.
So true. The government treats us like we are all children that can’t be trusted to make adult decisions.
I have no problem with those that don’t want to own guns. They have that right. Most people I know are mature enough to make that decision for themselves.
porky88
  • Posts: 3458
  • Joined: 4/27/2007
Originally Posted by: Cheesey 

Porky, I have no problem with a store or business saying they don’t want guns in their stores/companies.
The point I have made is, no sign is going to keep an evil person from bringing in and using a gun. It ONLY would keep respectful people from taking a gun inside.
And as far as airports, they have metal detectors and body scanners to keep weapons out of an airplane, and to keep mass shootings from happening there. So far I haven’t seen that at Walgreens. Until they do, it’s only a “feel good” sense of false security.
Do you not agree?
And you are right in the fact that if someone has no respect for others, they will use their gun. That’s the problem. Bad people that have no respect for others.


I would agree that placing a sign and announcing it is probably not necessary. I would think the same if a sign was placed saying, "we allow guns" as well. It just draws attention to yourself and that is the last thing you want to do.

However, and I may have glossed over this point in this thread already, but some states require signs stating no guns allowed. In other words, it's the law that a business needs these signs if they in fact don't want guns on their property. In fact, Wisconsin is one of these states. You need to place a sign at your organization's entry points that clearly prohibits guns from the premises. Without the sign, you technically can't ask people to leave. In other words, you are informing the public that this is a gun free zone.

Therefore, I would probably add that your displeasure for the signage doesn't fall on the business making a choice of not allowing guns on his or her property. I would say your point should be taken up with the states that again mandate that signage be placed at the entry points informing the public that guns are prohibited. Just food for thought...

FYI, many airport front entrances do not have metal detectors. You can walk in and up to the ticket counters without setting off an alarm. Otherwise, you would set off alarms most times for having random metal in your pocket (like keys). They do, however, have signs that say "no guns allowed on the property" which is again mandated by several states (not all of them). Again, to your point, if somebody wants to inflict harm, he or she is probably not going to be afraid of those signs. They are just going to walk in and inflict harm.

Given that Airports have a ton of traffic going in and out all day (and it is common knowledge that no guns are allowed), you would think they would be high volume targets for active shooters. They are in fact threatened often, yet these threats are often not carried out. Why is that? I comeback to the presence of trained officers who can and will respond to an incident far quicker than John Doe and his concealed carry.
KRK
  • Posts: 3588
  • Joined: 1/28/2017
Rules at airports are different across the nation. Every airport in the nation must allow you to be able to get a locked, secured, unloaded gun into the airport so that you can check it in your checked bag.

Many airports allow concealed carry in non-secure areas. It depends on the state. I live in Florida and it is illegal to have a loaded gun in a common area or any area of the airport. I happen to think that that is a good rule, and wish other states were to do that.

I also am a licensed concealed carry citizen. In states which have reciprocity with Florida I follow the rules check my gun and I am packing while on the road. If I am going to be primarily spending time in a state with reciprocity, but traveling from an airport back to Florida in a state which does not have reciprocity, I pack my gun securely in my checked bag before going to the airport.

To the point, airports are safer because there are numerous uniformed and armed police.
Cheesey
  • Posts: 13210
  • Joined: 7/28/2008
Porky, I don’t have displeasure over stores putting signs out.
All I’m saying is that they won’t prevent even one crime.
It’s a false sense of security.
I do get your point about them having to put out a sign by law.
Armed cops do keep bad guys out of committing a violent crime at an airport. But average stores don’t have those armed people. Thus the bad guys hit the places where there is less chance of coming up against armed people.
KRK
  • Posts: 3588
  • Joined: 1/28/2017
Cheesey said:
Quote:

I do get your point about them having to put out a sign by law.

I believe in response to Porky88 who observed:
Quote:

... but some states require signs stating no guns allowed. In other words, it's the law that a business needs these signs if they in fact don't want guns on their property. In fact, Wisconsin is one of these states. You need to place a sign at your organization's entry points that clearly prohibits guns from the premises. Without the sign, you technically can't ask people to leave. In other words, you are informing the public that this is a gun free zone.


Cheesey, I think Porky88's point is that this is a law, not an opinion, i.e. the law (in certain states) says they MUST put signs up ONLY if they want to disallow concealed or open carry. They don't have to put of signs, but if they don't, local laws apply.

I think the law is probably a good one, although I think a store owners who would not want licensed concealed carry citizens in their stores is foolish and short-sighted.

By the way, irrespective of you opinion on Wal-Mart's decision in regard to retailing ammo and guns, HOWEVER, there is alot of FAKE NEWS ON BOTH SIDES regarding their decision. (BTW, I am ambivalent on their decision but like Wal-Mart because it is the only store that still retails Old Spice...but I digress.) Wal-Mart's actual policy, which is available on their website, is that they do not want OPEN carry in their stores. If you licensed concealed carry, and the local/state jurisdiction in which the store is located allows concealed carry, you are fine and they are fine. I think the policy is reasonable.
Cheesey
  • Posts: 13210
  • Joined: 7/28/2008
KRK, I understood what Porky said about it being a law about the sign thing. I guess I didn’t make it clear that I got that. It makes sense.
And Old Spice.....that brings back memories! My Dad always used that. Every time I smell it, I think of my Dad. He passed away in 1974. But the smell takes me back. I actually keep a bottle of it just to remember him.
It’s something how smells can trigger memories.
Users browsing this topic
  • Guest
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (3h) : @mattschneidman Gutekunst said Packers weighed adding an "explosive offensive player" at trade deadline but worthy options simply weren't there.
Zero2Cool (3h) : @zachkruse2 Brian Gutekunst said the Packers have to "take a long look at inside linebacker" this offseason
Zero2Cool (3h) : @TomSilverstein Gutekunst said he's from the Ron Wolf school of player acquisition and that means if there's a quarterback they like and think can be a starter in the league, they won't hesitate to ob
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Vikings make Gary Kubiak offensive coordinator
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : I wouldn't mind Robbie Anderson
gbguy20 (23-Jan) : i want mike lafleur
gbguy20 (23-Jan) : yeah that seemed promising as well. i know much less about him.
beast (23-Jan) : I'm thinking we sign the Jets WR that we looked into trade for
gbguy20 (22-Jan) : peter bukowski says we should trade for Robert Woods. i like that idea.
gbguy20 (22-Jan) : on its face those numbers sound terrible. though i wonder what our situation comes out to
gbguy20 (22-Jan) : will be available in FA. lets get him.
gbguy20 (22-Jan) : the coeboys have 110 mil invested in 9 players next year. none of them are named dak, cooper or jones. add the 30+ expected for dak and it comes to 78% of the expected cap. im assuming cooper will ve
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Sad ... Mr. Peanut.
Nonstopdrivel (22-Jan) : I've been joking for years that they should give something like this a try, but I never thought I'd see it happen.
Nonstopdrivel (22-Jan) : Holy shit, NFL is adapting a rule from rugby for the Pro Bowl.
Porforis (21-Jan) : Same, NSD.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : FEAR THE MOTHERFUCKING DEER YO!
Nonstopdrivel (21-Jan) : These Bucks are running roughshod through the NBA. I wish basketball inspired me with a tenth of the passion that football does.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : How did Andy Reid celebrate yesterdays win? “I had a cheeseburger and went to bed.”
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Spend it on OG or WR, those are the too biggest needs. WR obviously clear 1 need.
KRK (21-Jan) : I rather spend the money on the interior of both lines and ILB
RickLM (20-Jan) : Yes. Hunter Henry is someone I want. How do you feel about Corey Littleton? I think he's worth a look too.
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Sign TE HUNTER HENRY
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Henry Ruggs III to Packers at 30.
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Kris Richard for DC?
beast (20-Jan) : Nope, 72 and we don't have the CBs for his system
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Wade Phillips for DC?
Cheesey (20-Jan) : Must have been a Chicago fan
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : bear?
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : “I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.” – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Zero2Cool (19-Jan) : Packers Chat Room - initialized.
Zero2Cool (19-Jan) : Unless the Packers make it.
PhoenixPackerFan60 (19-Jan) : Chiefs in SB. It's their year this year.
Zero2Cool (19-Jan) : Shout enter button sucks while viewing forum, no workie.
Zero2Cool (19-Jan) : Shout works great.
buckeyepackfan (19-Jan) : Check
Zero2Cool (19-Jan) : @mattschneidman #Packers punter JK Scott (illness) is expected to play in today’s NFC Championship Game after being added to the injury report as questionable yesterday, per source.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jan) : Can't count them out after last week but I doubt Vrabel will make poor choices like O'Brien did
Mucky Tundra (19-Jan) : Chiefs falling behind early again
Cheesey (19-Jan) : On any given day. If we didn’t belong, we wouldn’t be here.
Zero2Cool (19-Jan) : Matt LaFleur might have lost play calling duties to Arthur Smith if he didn't get GB HC job. Crazy
Zero2Cool (19-Jan) : Play clean game and Packers can win easily
PhoenixPackerFan60 (19-Jan) : I think they have a chance. Not a good one, but a chance.
PhoenixPackerFan60 (19-Jan) : Every single prognosticator on TV says Packers don't belong in this game. Every one is baffled by the 14 wins. Even a couple said this team is an 8-8 caliber team or 9-7, at best but somehow stumb
gbguy20 (19-Jan) : t-minus 7 hours
gbguy20 (19-Jan) : game day.
Zero2Cool (19-Jan) : Let's fucking go!!!
gbguy20 (19-Jan) : fuck yes. ALL IN!
Zero2Cool (19-Jan) : #Packers activate safety Raven Greene from IR
Zero2Cool (18-Jan) : I remember Dotson arriving in the airport with a leather jacket. The guy looked like a difference maker. he was just average, but that was enough
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2019 Packers Schedule
Thursday, Sep 5 @ 7:20 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
BRONCOS
Thursday, Sep 26 @ 7:20 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Cowboys
Monday, Oct 14 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
RAIDERS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 7:20 PM
Chiefs
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
Chargers
Sunday, Nov 10 @ 3:25 PM
PANTHERS
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 7:20 PM
49ers
Sunday, Dec 1 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 8 @ 12:00 PM
REDSKINS
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

23-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / dyeah_gb

23-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / KRK

22-Jan / Around The NFL / beast

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2020 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.