independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sat 29th Feb 2020 1:50am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Utah man goes shopping...with rifle on his back...to support the 2nd Amendment
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 6 123456>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 01/19/13 7:53am

PurpleJedi

avatar

Utah man goes shopping...with rifle on his back...to support the 2nd Amendment

Joseph Kelley, Utah Man, ...an Be Safe

A Utah man brought a rifle and a pistol with him to a J.C. Penney department store to demonstrate that guns can be safe in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

On Wednesday, Cindy Yorgason was shopping at the J.C. Penney in Riverdale ...th a rifle slung across his chest, extra ammunition and a sidearm in a holster on his right hip, according to KSL 5 TV. She took some photos and posted them to Facebook, where images quickly went viral.

"He was in the wrong place and shouldn't be doing this at this location," Yorgason told KSL, adding that she didn't feel threatened at the time.

The rifle-toting shopper was later identified as 22-year-old Joseph Kelley. He revealed that he was carrying an unloaded AR-15 and the handgun was a loaded Glock 19C, according to The Salt Lake Tribune, adding that he is a firm believer in the Second Amendment.

He said he brought the guns to J.C. ... dangerous in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

"I felt no negative vibes from anyone," Kelley told the Tribune. "I think it went rather surprisingly well."

He said he carries weapons with him in order to protect children and others from "criminals, cartels, drug lords" and other "evil men."

Kelley is not the only one to openly carry firearms in a pro-Second Amendment demonstration -- a move gun advocates have made since President Barack Obama's push for stricter...gislation in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

Earlier this month, Warren Drouin and Steven Boyce of Portland, Ore., walked down a main street in the northwest city carrying their assault rifles. They said they were exercising the Second Amendment and hoped to educate the public on gun rights.

Drouin said he wanted bystanders to talk to them, not call the police.

"What they really should do is observe the person to determine if the person is aggressive. We're not doing anything threatening to anyone," he said.

Carrying firearms in public is legal in Oregon and carrying a concealed handgun is also legal with a valid license, according to KPTV.

By St. Boogar and all the saints at the backside door of Purgatory!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 01/19/13 7:59am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Cool. Not that I support this kind of thing per-say. And legal or not, if the store has a no guns policy it could still be actionable.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 01/19/13 8:20am

13cjk13

Disgusting.

"If we had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 01/19/13 9:22am

cborgman

avatar

idiotic

Out-foxing fox-bots for almost 20 years on the org.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 01/19/13 2:11pm

unique

avatar

PurpleJedi said:

A Utah man brought a rifle and a pistol with him to a J.C. Penney department store to demonstrate he's a fucking dick and citizens shouldn't have guns, especially complete fucking knob-ends like him.

[img:$uid]http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00367/118691636_Stockings_367314c.jpg[/img:$uid]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 01/19/13 3:11pm

lazycrockett

avatar

I cant wait till some nutjob goes on a shooting spree at a gun show.

The Most Important Thing In Life Is Sincerity....Once You Can Fake That, You Can Fake Anything.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 01/19/13 3:58pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

lazycrockett said:

I cant wait till some nutjob goes on a shooting spree at a gun show.

I do not think that has ever happened. A few accidents is all I have ever heard of. That would be a really dumb idea. I hope you are not actually looking forward to that happening.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 01/19/13 4:10pm

2elijah

avatar

I am so sick of some of these stupid-ass gun owners, who in my opinion, seem to not give a sh*t that children as young as 5 were recentlhy shot to death, by someone who used a gun owned by a legal gun owner. It seems to me, that if it was a relative or neighbor's kid, they wouldn't give a crap neither, as long as they can own a gun. Sick mindset. It makes you wonder what the hell has happened to people in this country and what is it going to take, to make them have a damn soul or compassion that we can have another incident like the recent Newtown shooting? It's bad enough that for the past 20 years, elected officials and many Americans don't seem to give a damn that many youth have been murdering each other, and Americans just turn to the other cheek. What message does that send to our youth when adults are out there crying 'foul' against gun control? Now if some non-domestic terrorist came in and committed that action, there would be a totally different reaction.

[Edited 1/19/13 16:15pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 01/19/13 4:14pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

2elijah said:

I am so sick of some of these stupid-ass gun owners, who in my opinion, seem to not give a sh*t that children as young as 5 were recentlhy shot to death, by someone who used a gun owned by a legal gun owner. It seems to me, that if it was a relative or neighbor's kid, they wouldn't give a crap neither, as long as they can own a gun. Sick mindset.

how is that any different when a plane is used to kill people... if i fly am saying i do not care? hardly a reasonable response. Now I am not for exploiting the death of the kids. But if NOT for the move toward banning some kinds of guns (and bans in New York that will have nearly NO effect... what the killer is going to only put 7 bullets in his magazines?) this guy would not have done that.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 01/19/13 4:27pm

2elijah

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

2elijah said:

I am so sick of some of these stupid-ass gun owners, who in my opinion, seem to not give a sh*t that children as young as 5 were recentlhy shot to death, by someone who used a gun owned by a legal gun owner. It seems to me, that if it was a relative or neighbor's kid, they wouldn't give a crap neither, as long as they can own a gun. Sick mindset.

how is that any different when a plane is used to kill people... if i fly am saying i do not care? hardly a reasonable response. Now I am not for exploiting the death of the kids. But if NOT for the move toward banning some kinds of guns (and bans in New York that will have nearly NO effect... what the killer is going to only put 7 bullets in his magazines?) this guy would not have done that.

How is it different you ask? Dude, I'm sure you were one of the first ones b*tching about those terrorists when that plane was used in that 9/11 incident, so you should have the same attitude when a domestic terrorist, which is what that American male was, who terrorized those babies and blasted holes through their tiny bodies. If the thought of that doesn't move an emotion in your body, then I feel sorry for you.

It is apparent that many gun owners are exploiting the death of those children with their anti-gun control stance. It's almost as if they're saying, "Sh*t happens, so why bother with gun control?" I am appalled at your passion for your gun. Advice to you, don't let your gun, become your higher power. Guns and bullets don't have souls.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 01/19/13 4:36pm

Serious

avatar

eek eek eek eek Thank God I do not live in the USA shake

With a very special thank you to Tina: Is hammer already absolute, how much some people verändern...ICH hope is never so I will be! And if, then I hope that I would then have wen in my environment who joins me in the A....
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 01/19/13 4:45pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

2elijah said:

How is it different you ask? Dude, I'm sure you were one of the first ones b*tching about those terrorists when that plane was used in that 9/11 incident, so you should have the same attitude when a domestic terrorist, which is what that American male was, who terrorized those babies and blasted holes through their tiny bodies. If the thought of that doesn't move an emotion in your body, then I feel sorry for you.

about the terrorist yes not about the planes. And even if the Sandy Hook or Batman (and did you know the words "Sandy Hook" are in the Batman movie!? Freaky) shootings were not terrorism per say: I am fine calling the shooter terrorist. (as I did timothy mcveigh)

It is apparent that many gun owners are exploiting the death of those children with their anti-gun control stance. It's almost as if they're saying, "Sh*t happens, so why bother with gun control?" I am appalled at your passion for your gun. Advice to you, don't let your gun, become your higher power. Guns and bullets don't have souls.

But they would not be if not for the calls to put forth new restrictions and to enact more gun control. Didn't barack allude to more gun control in his very first remarks on Sandy Hook? I am pretty sure the first reply to the first post about it here was such a call. So what you may call exploitation i call a reaction. Over the top in cases like this one? Yeah... foolish and counter productive. But still a response to the actions by the government against the perceived 2nd amendment rights.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 01/19/13 5:00pm

2elijah

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

2elijah said:

How is it different you ask? Dude, I'm sure you were one of the first ones b*tching about those terrorists when that plane was used in that 9/11 incident, so you should have the same attitude when a domestic terrorist, which is what that American male was, who terrorized those babies and blasted holes through their tiny bodies. If the thought of that doesn't move an emotion in your body, then I feel sorry for you.

about the terrorist yes not about the planes. And even if the Sandy Hook or Batman (and did you know the words "Sandy Hook" are in the Batman movie!? Freaky) shootings were not terrorism per say: I am fine calling the shooter terrorist. (as I did timothy mcveigh)

It is apparent that many gun owners are exploiting the death of those children with their anti-gun control stance. It's almost as if they're saying, "Sh*t happens, so why bother with gun control?" I am appalled at your passion for your gun. Advice to you, don't let your gun, become your higher power. Guns and bullets don't have souls.

But they would not be if not for the calls to put forth new restrictions and to enact more gun control. Didn't barack allude to more gun control in his very first remarks on Sandy Hook? I am pretty sure the first reply to the first post about it here was such a call. So what you may call exploitation i call a reaction. Over the top in cases like this one? Yeah... foolish and counter productive. But still a response to the actions by the government against the perceived 2nd amendment rights.

Sandy Hook murders was an act of domestic terrorism. If someone confronts an unarmed individual, with an assault-type weapon, that's a definite threat and intent to harm and kill, by terrorizing the individual with such weapon. It's terrorism. If someone approaches you with a bat, it's an intent to commit harm against that individual's life, by terrorizing said individual with a weapon. It's terrorism..plain and simple. If a stranger, approaches a group of people with a gun, and threatens their lives, that stranger has the intent to commit harm against that group, by terrorizing them with a weapon. It's terrorism. If a gang member threatens a citizen's life with a weapon, its an act of terrorism.Terrorism presents itself in many forms. If a muslim committed that crime at Sandy Hook, you can bet it would be called an act of terrorism, whether that muslim was an American-born muslim or non-American.

The U.S. of America is obsessed with guns. The U.S. is the Wild, Wild West of the world. If a toddler gets struck by a bullet tomorrow in the U.S. it will just be another story in the news, and many Americans wouldn't flinch an eye, especially if the crime doesn't happen in their community. There will be no national attention given to that incident. Sad, but very true. How sad? A 90 year old woman got shot in the arm twice, near an intersection in Brooklyn, NY, about a week ago. She lived, but just the thought of an elderly person getting shot by a stray bullet, caused by two people having some 'beef', that had nothing to do with her, is sad. Imagine being blessed to live until 90 years old, and you're at an intersection, and get hit by a stray bullet. There was no national outcry.

[Edited 1/19/13 20:10pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 01/19/13 5:53pm

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

2elijah said:

I am so sick of some of these stupid-ass gun owners, who in my opinion, seem to not give a sh*t that children as young as 5 were recentlhy shot to death, by someone who used a gun owned by a legal gun owner. It seems to me, that if it was a relative or neighbor's kid, they wouldn't give a crap neither, as long as they can own a gun. Sick mindset.

how is that any different when a plane is used to kill people... if i fly am saying i do not care? hardly a reasonable response. Now I am not for exploiting the death of the kids. But if NOT for the move toward banning some kinds of guns (and bans in New York that will have nearly NO effect... what the killer is going to only put 7 bullets in his magazines?) this guy would not have done that.

this guy is an idiot, plain and simple.

Out-foxing fox-bots for almost 20 years on the org.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 01/19/13 6:07pm

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

2elijah said:

I am so sick of some of these stupid-ass gun owners, who in my opinion, seem to not give a sh*t that children as young as 5 were recentlhy shot to death, by someone who used a gun owned by a legal gun owner. It seems to me, that if it was a relative or neighbor's kid, they wouldn't give a crap neither, as long as they can own a gun. Sick mindset.

how is that any different when a plane is used to kill people... if i fly am saying i do not care? hardly a reasonable response. Now I am not for exploiting the death of the kids. But if NOT for the move toward banning some kinds of guns (and bans in New York that will have nearly NO effect... what the killer is going to only put 7 bullets in his magazines?) this guy would not have done that.

bans have "nearly no effect", you say?

[img:$uid]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg79/puxavidamane/firearms.png[/img:$uid]

federal assault weapons ban: 1994-2004

big drop in gun deaths: 1994-2004

you keep insisting that the two are not related, and when i ask what your explanation is, you go silent.

...

[Edited 1/19/13 18:43pm]

Out-foxing fox-bots for almost 20 years on the org.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 01/19/13 6:14pm

cborgman

avatar

also:

Back in 1996, Australia imposed a much stricter version of the assault weapons ban after a mass shooting. The Australian version avoided many of the loopholes in the U.S. law: Not only did the country ban all types of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, but it also spent $500 million buying up nearly 600,000 existing guns from private owners.

Australia’s law appears to have curbed gun violence. Researchers in the British Medical Journal write that the ban was “followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths [...]”

.

[Edited 1/19/13 18:56pm]

Out-foxing fox-bots for almost 20 years on the org.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 01/19/13 6:25pm

cborgman

avatar

and further (and very directly to your idea about the ineffectiveness of NY gun laws):

new york state enacted a state level version of the assault weapons ban in 1994, and have closed loopholes on it this year. we have had some of the strictest gun laws in the nation for a while now.

know where we nationally rank in gun deaths?

46th

http://www.statemaster.co...er-100-000

and that's even before this weeks further tightening.

and it also bears pointing out that most of the guns used in NY gun deaths come from other states where the laws are incredibly lax.

"Ninety percent of the guns seized in New York City that year were originally purchased in other States"

http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs...ile19.html

.

[Edited 1/19/13 20:11pm]

Out-foxing fox-bots for almost 20 years on the org.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 01/19/13 6:28pm

cborgman

avatar

[img:$uid]http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/33655298.jpg[/img:$uid]

[Edited 1/19/13 18:36pm]

Out-foxing fox-bots for almost 20 years on the org.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 01/19/13 8:10pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

cborgman said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

how is that any different when a plane is used to kill people... if i fly am saying i do not care? hardly a reasonable response. Now I am not for exploiting the death of the kids. But if NOT for the move toward banning some kinds of guns (and bans in New York that will have nearly NO effect... what the killer is going to only put 7 bullets in his magazines?) this guy would not have done that.

bans have "nearly no effect", you say?

[img:$uid]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg79/puxavidamane/firearms.png[/img:$uid]

federal assault weapons ban: 1994-2004

big drop in gun deaths: 1994-2004

you keep insisting that the two are not related, and when i ask what your explanation is, you go silent.

...

[Edited 1/19/13 18:43pm]

if the bans were the clause of the drop then why did deaths not go back up after the bans? And what % of said deaths prior to the ban was a baned weapon used? I would guess that shooting deaths in which a weapon that was banned under clinton was used is less than 10% of all gun related deaths. (and that numbers is inflated big time. It is deaths, not murders. I am going to guess that it includes accidents and suicides and justified shootings as well as 10,000 or so murders. It is funny... you touted 914 deaths in the last month or so... well that is way down from any year you posted. You also cherry pick the totals and ignore %. If there are many millions more people then a raw increase can be a true decrease. But that doesn't fit in with your agenda so.

do some research: 2/3 of deaths were suidides and of the 1/3 (about 10K a year) hand guns is about 1/2. And rifles? fewer than 500. (Less than being beaten to death by hand and less than blunt objects)

now there is another category of unknown type: that may be weapons that the bullet that was not IDed and sure some of them could have been from assault rifles. but even then it is less than 5K a year. WAY under your posted claim of 30K.

[Edited 1/19/13 20:28pm]

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 01/19/13 8:13pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

cborgman said:

[img:$uid]http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/33655298.jpg[/img:$uid]

[Edited 1/19/13 18:36pm]

it is funny how people like you say i have no credibility and yet you and others so often resort to this kind of smug side insults.... and when i point it out you and others come back with personal jabs. It is just not nice or friendly. but you got to be you i guess.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 01/19/13 8:44pm

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

if the bans were the clause of the drop then why did deaths not go back up after the bans?

gun deaths the final year of the ban (using the ratio which you argued is the only way to read that chart):

10.10

number of years in the nearly 10 years since the ban expired in which the number was at or dropped below 10.10:

0

meaning every single year since the ban ended, the numbers have been up.

did you actually look at the chart before making such a proclamation or is this your usual lack of concern for truth?

And what % of said deaths prior to the ban was a baned weapon used? I would guess that shooting deaths in which a weapon that was banned under clinton was used is less than 10% of all gun related deaths. (and that numbers is inflated big time. It is deaths, not murders. I am going to guess that it includes accidents and suicides and justified shootings as well as 10,000 or so murders. It is funny... you touted 914 deaths in the last month or so... well that is way down from any year you posted. You also cherry pick the totals and ignore %. If there are many millions more people then a raw increase can be a true decrease. But that doesn't fit in with your agenda so.

of course it is all gun deaths, including murders, accidents, and suicides. i honestly dont know if it includes "justified shootings", but since that's your conjecture, you look it up.

but if you really think it's unfair to use those numbers, let me point out two things:

1) said numbers dont even include shootings that didnt result in death. if i were really going for the big numbers, i would include those... so spare me your nonsense. i actually am being really strict about it, as the number of shootings that dont result in death would be SUBSTANTIALLY higher.

2) 10,000 a year is way the fuck too many, regardless, especailly considering this is WAY above the amount of any of our peer countries in the world. know which countries beat us? countries like guatemala, el salvador, hondorus and jamacia.... you know, violent and corrupt countries.

and knowing your hatred of research, i seriously challenge your comment that the (now) 1019 deaths since sandy hook is "way down from any year you posted", particularly since that number is not even a fully accurate number since it is just one person trying to keep tabs over an entire country.

but of course, feel free to prove me wrong by actually researching and showing data rather than your usual unresearched "nuh-uh"

Out-foxing fox-bots for almost 20 years on the org.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 01/19/13 8:47pm

noimageatall

avatar

lazycrockett said:

I cant wait till some nutjob goes on a shooting spree at a gun show.

neutral

5 accidentally shot at gun shows in North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana

Five people were wounded in accidents at gun shows in North Carolina, Ohio and Indiana on Saturday, according to authorities.

In Raleigh, N.C., authorities said three people were wounded when a loaded shotgun accidentally discharged at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show at the N.C. State Fairgrounds.

Officials say Gary Lynn Wilson, 36, was having his shotgun checked before entering the show when the incident happened. He was unzipping his 12-gauge shotgun's case when it accidentally fired birdshot pellets, hitting three people, The News & Observer i...h reported. Wilson was planning on privately selling the gun at the show, according to NBC affiliate WNCN.

Witness Daniel Peadan told WNCN he was about to enter the building, when he heard a loud pop: "The people right there at the door, a lot of them ran ... They scattered because it was chaotic." confuse Why didn't they break out their weapons????? neutral

..........................

In Medina, Ohio, an exhibitor at a local gun show was opening a box containing a gun when the weapon went off, striking his partner, who was sitting next to him, NBC station WKYC of Cleveland reported.

The victim suffered non-life threatening injuries in the arm and thigh and was taken to a hospital.

................................

In Indianapolis, state police said a 54-year-old man was loading his .45 caliber semi-automatic gun when he shot himself in the hand, The Associated Press reported. The victim, Emory L. Cozee, had been leaving the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife show at the state fairgrounds, officials told the AP. Loaded personal weapons are not permitted inside this show, according to the AP.

Cozee was hospitalized. Police told the AP no charges will be filed and the shooting was accidental.

These incidents all happened on the first "National Gun Appreciation Day," which was organized by Political Media, a Republican consulting firm.

..................

"Even people with the best intentions, screw up, occasionally make mistakes," Danas said. confused shrug

"Let love be your perfect weapon..." ~~Andy Biersack
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 01/19/13 8:53pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

cborgman said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

if the bans were the clause of the drop then why did deaths not go back up after the bans?

gun deaths the final year of the ban (using the ratio which you argued is the only way to read that chart):

10.10

number of years in the nearly 10 years since the ban expired in which the number was at or dropped below 10.10:

0

meaning every single year since the ban ended, the numbers have been up.

did you actually look at the chart before making such a proclamation or is this your usual lack of concern for truth?

And what % of said deaths prior to the ban was a baned weapon used? I would guess that shooting deaths in which a weapon that was banned under clinton was used is less than 10% of all gun related deaths. (and that numbers is inflated big time. It is deaths, not murders. I am going to guess that it includes accidents and suicides and justified shootings as well as 10,000 or so murders. It is funny... you touted 914 deaths in the last month or so... well that is way down from any year you posted. You also cherry pick the totals and ignore %. If there are many millions more people then a raw increase can be a true decrease. But that doesn't fit in with your agenda so.

of course it is all gun deaths, including murders, accidents, and suicides. i honestly dont know if it includes "justified shootings", but since that's your conjecture, you look it up.

but if you really think it's unfair to use those numbers, let me point out two things:

1) said numbers dont even include shootings that didnt result in death. if i were really going for the big numbers, i would include those... so spare me your nonsense. i actually am being really strict about it, as the number of shootings that dont result in death would be SUBSTANTIALLY higher.

2) 10,000 a year is way the fuck too many, regardless, especailly considering this is WAY above the amount of any of our peer countries in the world. know which countries beat us? countries like guatemala, el salvador, hondorus and jamacia.... you know, violent and corrupt countries.

and knowing your hatred of research, i seriously challenge your comment that the (now) 1019 deaths since sandy hook is "way down from any year you posted", particularly since that number is not even a fully accurate number since it is just one person trying to keep tabs over an entire country.

but of course, feel free to prove me wrong by actually researching and showing data rather than your usual unresearched "nuh-uh"

again: if we are going to talk about assault rifles murders then we need to stick to just that. NOT some way over inflated (by a factor of at least 3 and and really closer to 6 when you exclude known hand guns) figure to prop up an anti gun agenda but then say "no one wants to ban all guns"

buy your logic, because each year more people over 100 die that there must be something up with how older people are being treated.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 01/19/13 8:59pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

noimageatall said:

lazycrockett said:

I cant wait till some nutjob goes on a shooting spree at a gun show.

neutral

5 accidentally shot at gun shows in North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana

accidents: even cops and people in the military have accidents. there are accidents at car shows and horse races and swim meets...

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 01/19/13 9:19pm

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

cborgman said:

[img:$uid]http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/33655298.jpg[/img:$uid]

[Edited 1/19/13 18:36pm]

it is funny how people like you say i have no credibility and yet you and others so often resort to this kind of smug side insults.... and when i point it out you and others come back with personal jabs. It is just not nice or friendly. but you got to be you i guess.

you know what is disrespectful, only?

you clutter every topic with unresearched and often blatantly wrong info.

you have no credibility because you refuse to allow yourself to have any.

the rest of us spend time researching and making sure our info is correct so as to keep the discussions honest and intellectual. you however, shit upon almost every thread in this forum with complete bullshit (excuse me: "bull corn") that is often completely wrong. and then we waste page after page of posts correcting your made up info until the thread is no longer interesting and wildly off-topic.

if you want us to respect you, start giving us a reason to.

i tell you time and time again; google before you post, and you never do. you just keep putting up false info, because you either lack the respect for those of us having intelligent conversation, or because you simply dont care what the facts are and just get off on arguing and the attention.

and frankly, i have seen you repeatedly over the years pull some incredibly smug and personal attack bullshit...

like when you went to the mods complaining that i was threatening to maim you and then rape you, called me a terrorist who was committing federal crimes because i said "i will rip you a new one" and said you were going to report me to the FBI.

or like when you posted sosgemini's personal pic at a fundraiser to the sean hannity website and lied about some of the details in an effort to destroy his career in politics.


and several other incredibly slimy moves i will kindly not list.

hardly "nice or friendly" behavior.

so, spare me your whining about the awful treatment, cause you are in the top 10 or 15 of the worst offendors of this forum's history. it's exactly the behavior that got you banned as slamglam.

and just like you said back then:

"if the ban me MEH... i will get by. [...] I may TRY to get another account"

...that account being onlyndausa. the only reason a couple of us havent gone to the mods to get you re-banned is because we are nice. i have discussed it in orgnote with several other long-time orgers, and we all just decided despite the obvious evidence that it was just mean to go to the mods about it, unless your behavior gets really bad.

the only reason you are even currently on the org is because we are really nice to you. most banned orgers would not get that kind and nice treatment.

so spare me your ad hominem empty pariah-whining about how awful the treatment of you is, cause you are getting off really really REALLY easy.

'kay?

.

[Edited 1/19/13 22:22pm]

Out-foxing fox-bots for almost 20 years on the org.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 01/19/13 9:21pm

cborgman

avatar

noimageatall said:

lazycrockett said:

I cant wait till some nutjob goes on a shooting spree at a gun show.

neutral

5 accidentally shot at gun shows in North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana

Five people were wounded in accidents at gun shows in North Carolina, Ohio and Indiana on Saturday, according to authorities.

In Raleigh, N.C., authorities said three people were wounded when a loaded shotgun accidentally discharged at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show at the N.C. State Fairgrounds.

Officials say Gary Lynn Wilson, 36, was having his shotgun checked before entering the show when the incident happened. He was unzipping his 12-gauge shotgun's case when it accidentally fired birdshot pellets, hitting three people, The News & Observer i...h reported. Wilson was planning on privately selling the gun at the show, according to NBC affiliate WNCN.

Witness Daniel Peadan told WNCN he was about to enter the building, when he heard a loud pop: "The people right there at the door, a lot of them ran ... They scattered because it was chaotic." confuse Why didn't they break out their weapons????? neutral

..........................

In Medina, Ohio, an exhibitor at a local gun show was opening a box containing a gun when the weapon went off, striking his partner, who was sitting next to him, NBC station WKYC of Cleveland reported.

The victim suffered non-life threatening injuries in the arm and thigh and was taken to a hospital.

................................

In Indianapolis, state police said a 54-year-old man was loading his .45 caliber semi-automatic gun when he shot himself in the hand, The Associated Press reported. The victim, Emory L. Cozee, had been leaving the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife show at the state fairgrounds, officials told the AP. Loaded personal weapons are not permitted inside this show, according to the AP.

Cozee was hospitalized. Police told the AP no charges will be filed and the shooting was accidental.

These incidents all happened on the first "National Gun Appreciation Day," which was organized by Political Media, a Republican consulting firm.

..................

"Even people with the best intentions, screw up, occasionally make mistakes," Danas said. confused shrug

neutral

Out-foxing fox-bots for almost 20 years on the org.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 01/19/13 9:25pm

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

cborgman said:

of course it is all gun deaths, including murders, accidents, and suicides. i honestly dont know if it includes "justified shootings", but since that's your conjecture, you look it up.

but if you really think it's unfair to use those numbers, let me point out two things:

1) said numbers dont even include shootings that didnt result in death. if i were really going for the big numbers, i would include those... so spare me your nonsense. i actually am being really strict about it, as the number of shootings that dont result in death would be SUBSTANTIALLY higher.

2) 10,000 a year is way the fuck too many, regardless, especailly considering this is WAY above the amount of any of our peer countries in the world. know which countries beat us? countries like guatemala, el salvador, hondorus and jamacia.... you know, violent and corrupt countries.

and knowing your hatred of research, i seriously challenge your comment that the (now) 1019 deaths since sandy hook is "way down from any year you posted", particularly since that number is not even a fully accurate number since it is just one person trying to keep tabs over an entire country.

but of course, feel free to prove me wrong by actually researching and showing data rather than your usual unresearched "nuh-uh"

again: if we are going to talk about assault rifles murders then we need to stick to just that. NOT some way over inflated (by a factor of at least 3 and and really closer to 6 when you exclude known hand guns) figure to prop up an anti gun agenda but then say "no one wants to ban all guns"

buy your logic, because each year more people over 100 die that there must be something up with how older people are being treated.

why are we only allowed to talk about assault rifles? because it suits your agenda?

you cant argue with the numbers, so you ignore them or pick at them in a sad effort to discredit them.

you havent even begun to address the numbers i found on NY and our gun laws. is it because even in your wild desperation, you cant find a way to try and shuffle the info to make it look like you are right?

Out-foxing fox-bots for almost 20 years on the org.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 01/19/13 9:27pm

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

buy your logic, because each year more people over 100 die that there must be something up with how older people are being treated.

and despite some really heavy competition from your other posts, that might be one of the most non-sensical things i have seen you post.

.

[Edited 1/19/13 21:27pm]

Out-foxing fox-bots for almost 20 years on the org.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 01/19/13 11:00pm

unique

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

2elijah said:

I am so sick of some of these stupid-ass gun owners, who in my opinion, seem to not give a sh*t that children as young as 5 were recentlhy shot to death, by someone who used a gun owned by a legal gun owner. It seems to me, that if it was a relative or neighbor's kid, they wouldn't give a crap neither, as long as they can own a gun. Sick mindset.

how is that any different when a plane is used to kill people... if i fly am saying i do not care? hardly a reasonable response. Now I am not for exploiting the death of the kids. But if NOT for the move toward banning some kinds of guns (and bans in New York that will have nearly NO effect... what the killer is going to only put 7 bullets in his magazines?) this guy would not have done that.

the part in bold says it all about the mentality of pro gun morons

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 01/19/13 11:09pm

cborgman

avatar

unique said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

how is that any different when a plane is used to kill people... if i fly am saying i do not care? hardly a reasonable response. Now I am not for exploiting the death of the kids. But if NOT for the move toward banning some kinds of guns (and bans in New York that will have nearly NO effect... what the killer is going to only put 7 bullets in his magazines?) this guy would not have done that.

the part in bold says it all about the mentality of pro gun morons

i dont know, i think it unwittingly makes a strong case FOR gun control.

in american history, there are almost no instances of commercial planes being used to kill people, and yet we started two wars (one the longest in us history), killed hundreds of thousands of people, spent untold amounts of money, and created lots of new laws and changed the entire way we work as a country to keep it from happening again.

and only 3,000 died in the worst example (and probably the only example i am really aware of).

yet we have more than 3 times that amount cold-bloodedly murdered with guns EVERY YEAR (to say nothing of other gun deaths), but the gun nuts refuse to even allow bans on assault weapons. onlyndausa in particular says things like "that is about average so what?" to such numbers. 'nothing can be done, so we have to accept that and keep allowing everybody guns' they seem to say.

makes a pretty strong case FOR gun control, if you ask me.... however unwittingly.

.

[Edited 1/19/13 23:41pm]

Out-foxing fox-bots for almost 20 years on the org.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 6 123456>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Utah man goes shopping...with rifle on his back...to support the 2nd Amendment