Recruiting Forum Off-Topic Thread II

Status
Not open for further replies.
#2,501
#2,501
InVOLuntary said:
My problem has nothing g to do with party. No, I don't care for Obama and he's been the worst president in modern US history in my opinion but it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with him chosing to protect a religion that while a vast majority is peaceful has a cancer that is growing day by day, week by week, year by year. He does this at the same time as he puts blame on lax US gun laws, an insult to law abiding gun owners everywhere instead of placing the blame squarely at the feet of radical Islam where it should be. The existing laws where if a female makes a claim that you've assaulted her, you immediately can lose your carry permit, have your guns confiscated and lose your second ammendment rights, whereas a radicalized Muslim that has been investigated by the FBI on two occasions for links to terrorism, has know to associated with a radical cleric in the prison system in central FL, and is a known homophobe that has made threats against gays in the past, has been ok'd to not only purchase guns but was employed by a security firm and had a high level gun license. All because he was Muslim and the government didn't want the appearance of racism. People, including myself, are sick and tired of our rights being chalenged when rights of non-Americans are treated as special when many want us dead.

Great pickup by the Vols by the way!
Click to expand...

Catbone said:
We should ban junk food for people dying of obesity.

We should ban cars for people dying in wrecks.

We should ban airplanes for people dying in 9/11.

We should ban guns for people dying getting shot.

We should ban medicine for dying by OD'ing.
Click to expand...

Homerun posts, guys.

When people use horrible, life altering events for political gain they are doing the work of the devil. Obama, Hillary, and the rest of the leftists - that means you.

Ownership of a gun is a Constitutional right and it is a tool. The finger on the trigger belongs to a person who made a mental decision to pull it and try to kill another person. It is that simple. Work on addressing the reasons for these type decisions, not in the physical prevention of innocent people being able to defend themselves or otherwise use a gun as a tool as protected Constitutional and moral rights. The answer is in the understanding of good and evil along with the resulting consequences.

People need to quit trusting devious politicians and media with their liberal agenda and start using their own brains. What loving person would not want the ability to defend the people they care for by possessing the tool necessary to do it? Realize they want the guns out of your hands because of the globalist agenda they want in place. They are not wanting to do it to make you safer.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,503
#2,503
InVOLuntary said:
Not disagreeing with that. I wonder if you are on the "Do not Fly" list if you fail a background check for a firearm purchase?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. A week or so ago Obama did one of those Town Hall meetings on PBS, and he mentioned that as one of the "common sense" gun laws he wanted to pass. I can't think of much of an argument for why it shouldn't be. If we don't trust someone to be on a plane, blocking them from getting a gun should be no brainer
 
#2,506
#2,506
I'm very pro gun. I own 2 homes and have an armed guard at the front gate of both. I'm armed 99% of the time myself. If something bad happens, I've at least got a fighting chance. There is absolutely nothing wrong with protecting people or property. An armed bouncer would of at least given those affected by this tragedy a chance to survive. Fewer guns won't matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,507
#2,507
CrunchingTheVolz said:
I'm very pro gun. I own 2 homes and have an armed guard at the front gate of both. I'm armed 99% of the time myself. If something bad happens, I've at least got a fighting chance. There is absolutely nothing wrong with protecting people or property. An armed bouncer would of at least given those affected by this tragedy a chance to survive. Fewer guns won't matter.
Click to expand...

Cool story, Leb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,508
#2,508
Anti gun laws don't work. If you're a psychopath like these people, they're going to find a way to get a gun and bombs regardless. Look at Paris.

I think bouncers should be able to carry handguns
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,509
#2,509
More guns equals less crime and more freedom.

It's been proven all over the world time and time again.
 
#2,510
#2,510
chargervol said:
You're tactic in this is admirable but this is too important to get sidetracked, at least for me.
I asked a simple question, How does Obama saying Islam instead of ISIS help?
All of your intelligent speeches or focus switching does nothing to answer this.
A US president saying Islam will alienate allies, give ISIS bulletin board material and do nothing to give us a strategic
If having another insult of BO is the more important to anyone, that's their thing I guess.
But while I am retired, I still have family there. Stupid partisan cheap shots pale in comparison to doing everything we can to keep any advantage, source of intelligence or anti recruiting method we have, period

Infidels being killed did not start not will it end with ISIS. Islamic terrorist will continue to kill till stopped and most Muslims stay silent. Americans are being killed and the evil must be stopped.
Click to expand...
 
#2,511
#2,511
JacketVol said:
Infidels being killed did not start not will it end with ISIS. Islamic terrorist will continue to kill till stopped and most Muslims stay silent. Americans are being killed and the evil must be stopped.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that.
I asked for any reason that Obama changing one word, in yet another presidential speech, would bring all of that to an end.
They were around way before our latest president. And will be around for some time to come. Semantics in a speech will have absolutely zero bearing on that.
If you disagree, that's fine, I have no problem with opposing views. I just wish someone would offer proof of how it would work. Given that it's been done throughout history, even by a president in the US.
Until then, I maintain that it's just a political/religious gripe and has no basis for working in reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,512
#2,512
CrunchingTheVolz said:
I'm very pro gun. I own 2 homes and have an armed guard at the front gate of both. I'm armed 99% of the time myself. If something bad happens, I've at least got a fighting chance. There is absolutely nothing wrong with protecting people or property. An armed bouncer would of at least given those affected by this tragedy a chance to survive. Fewer guns won't matter.
Click to expand...

So you have no problem with a person with the history that the shooter in Orlando being cleared to purchase two guns less than two weeks ago. It is not that no one should purchase hans, it is someone with his history should not have been hired to be a security employee or purchase the guns. If it take more personnel to do the screening, then have more personnel and and provide the proper training. Three times the "authors" checked his background and failed to take proper action. Three times they failed on the same person. I own guns and believe in the right to do so. However, there are many who have forfeited their right to do so, but the NRA preaches that no-one should be denied the right. As long as known criminals, the mentally ill, and known haters can continue to purchase assault weapons, the number of incidents will continue to grow and law abiding citizens will become more likely to be wiped off the face of the earth. I am pro gun also, but there are people who must not be allowed to purchase guns, especially where no background check is required.

This reminds me of the 9-11 tragedy which could and should have been prevented.
 
#2,513
#2,513
VOLINVONORE said:
So you have no problem with a person with the history that the shooter in Orlando being cleared to purchase two guns less than two weeks ago. It is not that no one should purchase hans, it is someone with his history should not have been hired to be a security employee or purchase the guns. If it take more personnel to do the screening, then have more personnel and and provide the proper training. Three times the "authors" checked his background and failed to take proper action. Three times they failed on the same person. I own guns and believe in the right to do so. However, there are many who have forfeited their right to do so, but the NRA preaches that no-one should be denied the right. As long as known criminals, the mentally ill, and known haters can continue to purchase assault weapons, the number of incidents will continue to grow and law abiding citizens will become more likely to be wiped off the face of the earth. I am pro gun also, but there are people who must not be allowed to purchase guns, especially where no background check is required.

This reminds me of the 9-11 tragedy which could and should have been prevented.
Click to expand...

You need to research what the NRA says about this. They simply want existing laws to be enforced. They don't want criminals to have guns either. This guy was investigated twice by the FBI and had known terrorist ties. He was still allowed to purchase both the guns used by passing a background check. That is a failure on the federal level, not because of a lack of laws. The NRA would not have wanted thus guy to own firearms. The NRA would have wanted 10-20% of the patrons if that club to be armed so they could have fought back and at the very least could have minimized the carnage.
 
#2,514
#2,514
CrunchingTheVolz said:
I'm very pro gun. I own 2 homes and have an armed guard at the front gate of both. I'm armed 99% of the time myself. If something bad happens, I've at least got a fighting chance. There is absolutely nothing wrong with protecting people or property. An armed bouncer would of at least given those affected by this tragedy a chance to survive. Fewer guns won't matter.
Click to expand...

An armed guard?
 
#2,515
#2,515
VOLINVONORE said:
So you have no problem with a person with the history that the shooter in Orlando being cleared to purchase two guns less than two weeks ago. It is not that no one should purchase hans, it is someone with his history should not have been hired to be a security employee or purchase the guns. If it take more personnel to do the screening, then have more personnel and and provide the proper training. Three times the "authors" checked his background and failed to take proper action. Three times they failed on the same person. I own guns and believe in the right to do so. However, there are many who have forfeited their right to do so, but the NRA preaches that no-one should be denied the right. As long as known criminals, the mentally ill, and known haters can continue to purchase assault weapons, the number of incidents will continue to grow and law abiding citizens will become more likely to be wiped off the face of the earth. I am pro gun also, but there are people who must not be allowed to purchase guns, especially where no background check is required.

This reminds me of the 9-11 tragedy which could and should have been prevented.
Click to expand...

There are things in place to try and prevent bad people from being able to legally arm themselves. Of course terrorists don't abide by these laws. The man had not been charged with a crime. He legally bought the weapons. Had he been denied at the gun shop, he would have got them elsewhere. More laws isn't going to change that. Laws disarming people just makes for more future victims IMO. You have to draw up the law and go with it. The shooter was a bad guy who had not broken the laws. That all changed obviously yesterday. You can't single out a person for what you think MIGHT happen, if they haven't broken any laws. You just can't have it both ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,516
#2,516
InVOLuntary said:
You need to research what the NRA says about this. They simply want existing laws to be enforced. They don't want criminals to have guns either. This guy was investigated twice by the FBI and had known terrorist ties. He was still allowed to purchase both the guns used by passing a background check. That is a failure on the federal level, not because of a lack of laws. The NRA would not have wanted thus guy to own firearms. The NRA would have wanted 10-20% of the patrons if that club to be armed so they could have fought back and at the very least could have minimized the carnage.
Click to expand...

They do not support requiring background checks and delaying the purchase of guns at gun shows until they have been cleared. They do believe that there should be no restrictions on the purchase of assault weapons by anyone who wants to purchase them at gun shows. Anyone can purchase almost any weapon on the spot at gun shows if the purchaser tell only one little lie.
 
#2,520
#2,520
chargervol said:
I agree with all of that.
I asked for any reason that Obama changing one word, in yet another presidential speech, would bring all of that to an end.
They were around way before our latest president. And will be around for some time to come. Semantics in a speech will have absolutely zero bearing on that.
If you disagree, that's fine, I have no problem with opposing views. I just wish someone would offer proof of how it would work. Given that it's been done throughout history, even by a president in the US.
Until then, I maintain that it's just a political/religious gripe and has no basis for working in reality.
Click to expand...

I understand fully what you are writing. However, what gives pause is how he let Git-mo terrorists go who have now killed more Americans recently along with Iran dealings ect that make you question MORE why he refuses to ever call them what they are. They are radical Islamic terrorist. I am not thinking he should just say Islam is responsible for this. But what is wrong with saying the people doing this are radical Islamic terrorist? I mean he has no problem calling out Right wing Christian gun hugging Bible carrying nuts. He loves to make fun of Christianity but not radical Islamic terrorist. This is what is confusing. I hope you get what I am saying because they are some people who do stupid things including killing people they do not agree with in the name of all kinds of religions. The only one he sidesteps is radical Islamic terrorist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,521
#2,521
I think people have this natural instinct to want to believe that every terrible act can be prevented somehow if we just make more laws. The fact is that sometimes bad stuff happens no matter what preventative measures are in place. Life is dangerous and unpredictable. Protect yourselves people. A piece of paper can only do so much. Heck, even in the most secure and controlled environment in the world, prison, you have murder, rape, cell phones, and drug overdoses. We can make America one big prison but life is still going to be dangerous. Live free. Protect yourselves. Our heritage of freedom is not something we should so eagerly trade for a false sense of security.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#2,522
#2,522
Skullbone said:
I think people have this natural instinct to want to believe that every terrible act can be prevented somehow if we just make more laws. The fact is that sometimes bad stuff happens no matter what preventative measures are in place. Life is dangerous and unpredictable. Protect yourselves people. A piece of paper can only do so much. Heck, even in the most secure and controlled environment in the world, prison, you have murder, rape, cell phones, and drug overdoses. We can make America one big prison but life is still going to be dangerous. Live free. Protect yourselves. Our heritage of freedom is not something we should so eagerly trade for a false sense of security.
Click to expand...

I agree. I respect police. I respect the laws set by those who make them. While I respect them, I don't trust them to protect me or my loved ones. I do what I think I need to do to feel secure.
 
#2,523
#2,523
America already has the most incarcerated population and the most gun deaths in the world.
Whatever we are doing, it ain't working.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,524
#2,524
bignewt said:
America already has the most incarcerated population and the most gun deaths in the world.
Whatever we are doing, it ain't working.
Click to expand...

You are correct. Would you agree that the majority of the gun crime taking place is in liberal gun regulated areas, i.e. Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Detroit and other major cities where people spew forth gun control?

I have no problem with a background check or a mental evaluation for the purchase of a gun. Also, if I were selling a gun and a guy with an Arabic sounding name came up wanting to buy I would have to think twice about selling to him in this day and age.
 
#2,525
#2,525
itsme said:
You are correct. Would you agree that the majority of the gun crime taking place is in liberal gun regulated areas, i.e. Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Detroit and other major cities where people spew forth gun control?

I have no problem with a background check or a mental evaluation for the purchase of a gun. Also, if I were selling a gun and a guy with an Arabic sounding name came up wanting to buy I would have to think twice about selling to him in this day and age.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that the guns are out there, laws about who can buy them legally won't do a whole lot. If you are unstable and want a gun, you will get a gun from somewhere. The only way to curb it and its a slow painful fix is to stop mass manufacturing, start getting the big guns out of circulation. You can't buy what doesn't exist.
 
New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top