|
Post by red75bronco on Sept 13, 2015 19:58:28 GMT -5
I just don't know what the basis is for the reports of "head and neck" injury, from the replays there just wasnt anything remotely traumatic happening to him. It seems more like it was some kind of nervous system issue or other internal problem causing him to black out. I don't know why they didn't bring it up, but he got a knee to the head at the end of the play.
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Feb 16, 2015 9:28:02 GMT -5
I don't think the wins and losses mean nearly as much as when and where you play. Send the pats to denver for a Thursday night game after playing in Baltimore the Sunday before.
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 22, 2015 9:02:18 GMT -5
I agree with this, but a drivers license is a privilege, not a right. Just like free speech right? Go yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre and see what happens. Where did I say that all gun owners have complete immunity from their actions because of the second amendment? You have a right to own a gun, that does not excuse you from illegal or irresponsible action. Same with free speech. You can say whatever you want, as it should be. You have to face the consequences of your actions. It is funny though, michael Browns step dad never got prosecuted for inciting riots after he urged the crowd to "burn the bitch down" causing major loss of property to shop owners in Ferguson.
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 22, 2015 8:53:19 GMT -5
Gun ownership is a right under the bill of rights. At what point do you feel the burden infringes on that right? Background checks have to happen to purchase a firearm. The records are not supposed to be used in a data base, now mandatory training and a data base to record it. What happens if someone's training lapses, confiscate the guns? I think gun owners should be responsible and knowledgeable/trained in firearms, but what you are wanting is unconstitutional. it would also discriminate against the poor. Those that can't afford training. Training is not free. 16-24 hours of training could be we'll very a thousand dollars. Real question, you can answer if you want. Have you ever fired a gun? own a gun, done any fire arm training? The 2nd amendment also states a "well regulated militia" but I guess you like to ignore that huh? I was trained by the Marine Corps and completed 1 police academy and 1 federal law enforcement academy. I've been in LE since 1996. As as for you horrific argument concerning the poor and guns, really? Trying to tug at your liberal heart strings. I thought you would be sympathetic since it is discrimination to expect people to show ID to vote because the poor cannot afford IDs. That is the reason libs always bring up on voting.
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 22, 2015 8:50:30 GMT -5
The bigges threat to the 2nd Amendment is irresponsible gun owners giving liberal politicians an excuse to get up in arms (no pun intended) every time a accidental tragedy occurs. I would support a mandated training and licensure program, similar to getting a drivers license, to all prospective gun owners. I agree with this, but a drivers license is a privilege, not a right.
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 21, 2015 22:00:26 GMT -5
The fork argument is reaching, but how about the dumbass parent who doesnt use child locks and leaves toxic chemicals where toddlers can get to them? yes, guns are shiny and attractive to kids, so is the blue cleaning fluid under the sink. How do you legislate to prevent stupidity without completely removing the offending item? And we can all agree, I think, that guns are here to stay. To me, all you can do is impose harsher penalties on parents who leave guns laying around that then lead to kids getting shot. Make gun owners have continual training, make them understand what a powerful weapon can do in the wrong hands. Every two years you need 16-24 hours of training. Just an idea. Gun ownership is a right under the bill of rights. At what point do you feel the burden infringes on that right? Background checks have to happen to purchase a firearm. The records are not supposed to be used in a data base, now mandatory training and a data base to record it. What happens if someone's training lapses, confiscate the guns? I think gun owners should be responsible and knowledgeable/trained in firearms, but what you are wanting is unconstitutional. it would also discriminate against the poor. Those that can't afford training. Training is not free. 16-24 hours of training could be we'll very a thousand dollars. Real question, you can answer if you want. Have you ever fired a gun? own a gun, done any fire arm training?
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 21, 2015 0:58:27 GMT -5
It is an absolute tragedy that no one wants to see. The irresponsible adult is to blame. Why was it left out, why did it have a round in the chamber? What law should be instituted to stop this? Serious question? Colorado made marijuana legal. There have been children who have died from eating edibles that were laying around. Who's fault is it that they died, the marijuana or who left it laying around. The same could be said for a child who drinks a poisonous household chemical. I don't think there is a law that stops this. It just pisses me off. Maybe there is a technology fix? Im just fantasizing...a gun that auto locks if unmoved for 5 minutes then opens only when the owner enters a code...yeah I know it's ridiculous but this shit drives me insane. I agree, it is so senseless. No clue what the hell is wrong with people. Zero chance my kids will have access to my firearms. Hell, they don't even know I have them.
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 21, 2015 0:50:55 GMT -5
Turned them off and didn't notice. Kids pick up the iPad so I don't usually have them on. just checked it out, it is close. I will have to resize a pic and upload my bronco. Never thought to see if anyone is into wheeling around here.
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 20, 2015 20:10:48 GMT -5
If someone can figure out a way to stop morons from leaving guys where 5 year olds can use them Id feel alot better about guns. www.cnn.com/2015/01/20/us/missouri-boy-shoots-baby-brother/index.html5-year-old boy finds gun, shoots baby brother in head
(CNN)The mother called 911 to say her 5-year-old boy shot his baby brother with a paintball gun. But it wasn't a paintball gun. It was a .22-caliber Magnum revolver. And the 9-month-old boy didn't survive. Missouri authorities are trying to figure out what led up to the shooting Monday in Elmo, in the northwest corner of Missouri. "At this point foul play is not suspected, and it appears at this time that the shooting was accidental," the Nodaway County Sheriff's Office said. Sheriff Darren White told CNN affiliate KCTV that the baby was in a playpen when his brother found the gun lying on a bed. Authorities say the gun belongs to a relative, but not the mother. The sheriff said guns are rampant in the rural community. "We are big supporters of firearms around here," White told CNN affiliate KETV. "We have a lot of people that own weapons. They hunt. They target shoot. ... Most people are very safe with them, and this is one of those cases where everything went together in the wrong way." Authorities have not determined whether charges will be filed against any adult in the case. But, but, but.... popyc.org/images/signboard/gun.jpgOh I get it. It's not guns that kill people. It's five year olds that kill people. It is an absolute tragedy that no one wants to see. The irresponsible adult is to blame. Why was it left out, why did it have a round in the chamber? What law should be instituted to stop this? Serious question? Colorado made marijuana legal. There have been children who have died from eating edibles that were laying around. Who's fault is it that they died, the marijuana or who left it laying around. The same could be said for a child who drinks a poisonous household chemical.
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 20, 2015 8:54:05 GMT -5
Mental health how? That is the big question. Felony is easy were you convicted of a felony? Black or white and easily verified. You have to be specific on mental health. There are a lot of privacy issues. Also remember, James Holmes was reported by his therapist.
I am not against training, but it has to be specified. The one issue I don't like, and there are documented cases, is it will cause some type of waiting period. The issue is with domestic violence. The victim is usually a woman and weaker. She has no way to protect herself. If she decides to standup for herself and get a gun to defend herself there is a waiting period if she has never owned one before. What should she do during that period? She obviously feels her life is in danger enough to want a gun to defend herself. I believe there was several documented cases in California due to the waiting period and the victim being injured badly or killed. I think it would be better if everyone was trained about guns in the education system. It would take out the curiosity and fear of firearms. The libs would never allow it. It might take precious time away from the 10 year old that they are teaching oral and anal sex to. Teaching them how to get birth control without their parents. Mandatory class in Colorado and I believe all common core curiculim. One of the thousand reasons my kids are in private school.
Just so you know, the Dems made it in Colorado that I can register the same day as I vote with only a utility bill with my address. Would you be ok with this for guns? Not trying to piss you off, just curious if this would no ok for you to buy a gun?
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 19, 2015 17:32:53 GMT -5
Your question was "Are all gun guys here still against background checks?" The answer seems to be a resounding no. Yea as long as nothing changes from the shitty checks we now use. What would you like to see in a background check? I dont one even have to show id to vote.
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 19, 2015 9:51:28 GMT -5
But wait, China has lots of knives. Why didn't all that knife ownership deter the perpetrators? Would you be more or less willing to attack a 100lb woman yielding a knife or a gun? To defend herself, she must engage in hand to hand combat with a knife. With a gun, you know become equals and your size and strength don't matter.
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 19, 2015 9:48:45 GMT -5
We can establish reasonable rules for background checks. You seem to agree that there is a reasonable standard that can be applied when you agree that felons should not be allowed to purchase guns (although felons can purchase guns in many states). There are other reasonable standards that can be applied. For example, we also limit gun ownership to those who have been convicted of domestic violence and it would be equally as reasonable to procure a background check for that purpose as it would be to check for felony convictions. We don't need to go down the path of testing ridiculous standards like testing for political affiliation. If guns present a deterrent effect, why would the government absolutely knowing who owns guns not deter the government from attacking those people? Actually, wouldn't it reduce the probability of use of deadly force if the government knew you did not own a gun? More importantly, however, there would not have to be a gun registry, just a registry of owners and those who are prohibited by law from owning or purchasing guns. This is hardly different from the government having records of CHL holders who presumably also are all gun owners. People don't seem to mind the government knowing that they can conceal-carry by obtaining a government license to that effect.I will agree with you that criminals would not conduct background checks on each other but requiring the checks and prosecuting the sellers for failing to perform the check and decline sales to those prohibited from purchase would prevent guns from moving out of the legal marketplace into the black market where criminals can buy and sell them. You sort of pay the price. If you use your gun to kill somebody or your gun is used in an accidental shooting then your jail time is of little use to that person. Even if you had the money to adequately compensate a family for the killing it still does not do much for the person who died. The person who died is the person who really paid the price. And this is one of the key problems that people have with the "pro gun advocates". You all focus on your rights and how gun control laws affect you without any regard for how your gun ownership affects other people. Nobody cares if you own a gun any more than they care whether you own a coffeemaker. If you "pro gun advocates" can self-help the problems of accidental shootings and guns moving into the black market then we can all promptly stop talking about gun control. So you want to make it harder for criminals to get guns, which I agree with of course. But you there to be a list of gun owners. Maybe you trust authorities more than i, but wasn't the list of ccw holders released just last year in New York? So criminals want guns and you are going to provide them a list of where these guns exist. Do you not put te gun owners at risk for simply exercising there 2nd amendment rights? Honest question. There are also many gun owners that do not get a ccw exactly because of the list. I know you you will not understand this because you have a completely different view of the government. I believe there are good and bad people in all ways of society, that includes LEO and the government. They are humans just like the general population and make good and bad decisions. And and to your paragraph above the bold, 1) do you really think all citizens are going to go on that list freely and 2) do you think everyone who is not on that list will not have a weapon? LEO is going to assume just like they do today that everyone is armed regardless of some list. As they should. LEO understands that the majority of lea gal owning gun owners are much more responsible and less of a threat than the balance of society. Ever wonder why the majority of ex military are gun owners? They have seen the other side.
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 19, 2015 9:43:20 GMT -5
Tell me what AR stands for and why these guns are so bad. Why are they worse than any other rifle. What makes them the boogie man? Background checks at stores and gun dealers is fine. The check should be do you have a felony or not. I might be ok with denying if you take anti depressants, but that is a slippery slope. I am not ok with a government agent determining if people are mentally stable for a gun. If I was the agent most liberals couldn't own guns because they are obviously crazy? . If a liberal was the agent, they would obviously think I was crazy because I don't care for our dear leader. We can establish reasonable rules for background checks. You seem to agree that there is a reasonable standard that can be applied when you agree that felons should not be allowed to purchase guns (although felons can purchase guns in many states). There are other reasonable standards that can be applied. For example, we also limit gun ownership to those who have been convicted of domestic violence and it would be equally as reasonable to procure a background check for that purpose as it would be to check for felony convictions. We don't need to go down the path of testing ridiculous standards like testing for political affiliation. If guns present a deterrent effect, why would the government absolutely knowing who owns guns not deter the government from attacking those people? Actually, wouldn't it reduce the probability of use of deadly force if the government knew you did not own a gun? More importantly, however, there would not have to be a gun registry, just a registry of owners and those who are prohibited by law from owning or purchasing guns. This is hardly different from the government having records of CHL holders who presumably also are all gun owners. People don't seem to mind the government knowing that they can conceal-carry by obtaining a government license to that effect.I will agree with you that criminals would not conduct background checks on each other but requiring the checks and prosecuting the sellers for failing to perform the check and decline sales to those prohibited from purchase would prevent guns from moving out of the legal marketplace into the black market where criminals can buy and sell them. You sort of pay the price. If you use your gun to kill somebody or your gun is used in an accidental shooting then your jail time is of little use to that person. Even if you had the money to adequately compensate a family for the killing it still does not do much for the person who died. The person who died is the person who really paid the price. And this is one of the key problems that people have with the "pro gun advocates". You all focus on your rights and how gun control laws affect you without any regard for how your gun ownership affects other people. Nobody cares if you own a gun any more than they care whether you own a coffeemaker. If you "pro gun advocates" can self-help the problems of accidental shootings and guns moving into the black market then we can all promptly stop talking about gun control. So you want to make it harder for criminals to get guns, which I agree with of course. But you there to be a list of gun owners. Maybe you trust authorities more than i, but wasn't the list of ccw holders released just last year in New York? So criminals want guns and you are going to provide them a list of where these guns exist. Do you not put te gun owners at risk for simply exercising there 2nd amendment rights? Honest question. There are also many gun owners that do not get a ccw exactly because of the list. I know you you will not understand this because you have a completely different view of the government. I believe there are good and bad people in all ways of society, that includes LEO and the government. They are humans just like the general population and make good and bad decisions.
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 19, 2015 9:33:38 GMT -5
Kind of like talking about inner-city crime and Muslim terrorists. If they would self-help the problems of violence and hatred in their communities then we can all stop talking about profiling. Right? The analogy doesn't fit. Gun owners have direct control over their own guns. They control how they are stored, who has access to them and how they are sold. People do not exercise that kind of control over other people in their community. Red75bronco even disputes that such self-help can occur. He, like many gun advocates, asserts that there are just bad people out there and you can't control them. i say don't take my right away to defend myself. I could care less if you want to defend yourself with a spoon or a bazooka. Does not affect me. You tell me what laws would have prevented Columbine, Va Tech, Sandy Hook, the Aurora Theatre Shooting? What laws do you want to put on the books to stop this? Columbine was done with pipe bombs and shot guns. Remember , there was a federal AR ban and 10 round magazine law. Va Tech bought his guns legally, what would you like changed so he could not buy his gun? Although reported incorrectly, sandy hook did not involve ARs. James Holmes bought his weapons legally. A counsellor reported he was mentally unstable to authorities. They did nothing. He also chose the only "gun free" theatre in his area. There were closer ones to his apartment, he passed those by. He also boobie trapped his apartment with homemade bombs. You claim aim I don't answere your question, ihave no clue what your question is. All I hear is we need reasonable gun control laws. Common sense laws. What the hell does that mean? All the laws I have seen suggested would do nothing to stop the above. The real issue is mental health, not an inanimate object.
|
|