Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Krankenstein on December 02, 2012, 09:54:39 PM
-
I rarely, if ever, talk about politics....but this is definitely what people would call moronic liberal bullshit:
This is referring to what Bob Costas was saying during the halftime show for NBC Sunday Night Football.
During half-time of the Cowboys-Eagles game tonight, Costas took a moment to acknowledge the tragedy and note that if it takes such an event to “bring sports into perspective” as is always said after a tragedy, then one may never reach the right perspective. Then, Costas offered up his perspective by paraphrasing columnist Jason Whitlock. Whitlock wrote, in reaction to the tragedy:
Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.
In the coming days, Belcher’s actions will be analyzed through the lens of concussions and head injuries. Who knows? Maybe brain damage triggered his violent overreaction to a fight with his girlfriend. What I believe is, if he didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.
-
Not defending liberals, but I don't think it's a liberal vs. conservative argument. There are plenty of liberal gun owners who for some reason, don't see Republicans as being all that great on gun rights (I don't understand why, I'm just telling it like it like it is).
-
guns are annoying make them illegal but make hand to hand combat less illegal and less penalty
-
guns are annoying make them illegal but make hand to hand combat less illegal and less penalty
If you could kill anyone with your bare hands and it would be a misdemeanor, then you could make gun ownership illegal unless you had a hunting license. 8)
Also it would make everyone big as fuck.
-
Not defending liberals, but I don't think it's a liberal vs. conservative argument. There are plenty of liberal gun owners who for some reason, don't see Republicans as being all that great on gun rights (I don't understand why, I'm just telling it like it like it is).
From what I have been reading, the author of the article that Bob quoted is a strong liberal backer. Personally I don't give a shit liberal or conservative it was an absolute asinine comment to make. Lets see...did OJ kill his ex wife with a gun? Was a gun involved when Chris Benoit killed his wife, his kids, and then himself?
The logic of some people is just so amazing.
-
Gun laws do need to be stricter IMO.
Other than parenting and a mortgage, gun ownership is one of the most serious responsibilities a person can have.
IMO, only the utmost responsible citizens, with zero criminal history other than small traffic violations should be allowed to purchase any firearms including rifles/shotguns.
This is coming from a gun enthusiast, who has zero criminal history.
Also, to validate Mr. Costas' point about brain damage, a recent report:
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/art/omar/600/4019v2872.jpg)
Researchers Discover 28 New Cases of Brain Damage in Deceased Football Players
December 3, 2012, 12:01 am ET by Steve Fainaru and Mark Fainaru-Wada
Researchers at Boston University have discovered 28 new cases of chronic brain damage in deceased football players — including 15 who played in the NFL — more than doubling the number of documented cases connecting football to long-term brain disease.
Continued...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sports/concussion-watch/researchers-discover-28-new-cases-of-brain-damage-in-deceased-football-players/
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sports/concussion-watch/researchers-discover-28-new-cases-of-brain-damage-in-deceased-football-players/)
-
Not defending liberals, but I don't think it's a liberal vs. conservative argument. There are plenty of liberal gun owners who for some reason, don't see Republicans as being all that great on gun rights (I don't understand why, I'm just telling it like it like it is).
shut up please
democrats want nothing but to yank all guns rights
-
Take away the gun and he would have stabbed her. Take away the knife and he would have bludgeoned her with a hammer. Take away the hammer and he would have choked her. The point being, the man had malice on his mind and would have found a way to kill, gun or no gun.
-
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
-
Gun laws do need to be stricter IMO.
Other than parenting and a mortgage, gun ownership is one of the most serious responsibilities a person can have.
IMO, only the utmost responsible citizens, with zero criminal history other than small traffic violations should be allowed to purchase any firearms including rifles/shotguns.
This is coming from a gun enthusiast, who has zero criminal history.
Also, to validate Mr. Costas' point about brain damage, a recent report:
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/art/omar/600/4019v2872.jpg)
Researchers Discover 28 New Cases of Brain Damage in Deceased Football Players
December 3, 2012, 12:01 am ET by Steve Fainaru and Mark Fainaru-Wada
Researchers at Boston University have discovered 28 new cases of chronic brain damage in deceased football players — including 15 who played in the NFL — more than doubling the number of documented cases connecting football to long-term brain disease.
Continued...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sports/concussion-watch/researchers-discover-28-new-cases-of-brain-damage-in-deceased-football-players/
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sports/concussion-watch/researchers-discover-28-new-cases-of-brain-damage-in-deceased-football-players/)
The how come in areas where gun laws are stricter, murder rates are sky high?! Detroit, Washington DC, Chicago....and the list goes on and on.
-
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Thread over.
Krank is spot on. Liberals are responsible for the pussification of America.
-
I'm a liberal from Colorado. I voted for weed and I love guns and now I get both. Fuck it.
Matter of fact-I shoot guns while a smoke weed.
-
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I wonder what a "well regulated militia" is supposed to do against a government in control of tanks, jets, aircraft carriers, drones, highly trained soldiers with body armor, automatic weapons, etc.?
-
I'm a liberal from Colorado. I voted for weed and I love guns and now I get both. Fuck it.
Matter of fact-I shoot guns while a smoke weed.
Fkn awesome.
PS you're not a true liberal bro.
-
Gun laws do need to be stricter IMO.
Other than parenting and a mortgage, gun ownership is one of the most serious responsibilities a person can have.
IMO, only the utmost responsible citizens, with zero criminal history other than small traffic violations should be allowed to purchase any firearms including rifles/shotguns.
This is coming from a gun enthusiast, who has zero criminal history.
Stricter gun laws? They're already strict enough and there are existing laws in the books.
The problem with guns is the illegal ownership of them by criminals.
Look up the stats of gun crimes committed by law abiding citizens...very few.
-
liberals..repubs...black s..whites...asians...fat ...muscular...tall...sho rt...women, men...we re all fighting for our own survival , interests in the end even if at the expense of someone else. Sometimes the stongest survive, sometimes it's the fittest, sometimes it's the smartest, but they all exist solely to survive daily and see others die, which in return make them feel good about themselves. Welcome in the jungle.
-
Thread over.
Krank is spot on. Liberals are responsible for the pussification of America.
...yep!
-
Fkn awesome.
PS you're not a true liberal bro.
Well this will really blow your mind then. I'm a Christian for gay marriage.
-
Well this will really blow your mind then. I'm a Christian for gay marriage.
Well aren't you just a riddle wrapped in a conundrum.
-
;D
-
I wonder what a "well regulated militia" is supposed to do against a government in control of tanks, jets, aircraft carriers, drones, highly trained soldiers with body armor, automatic weapons, etc.?
The fine people of Irag and Afgahnistan with just a tiny fraction of the weapons US citizens possesse seem to have managed quite well over the last decade.
-
guns dont kill people
guns are a tool used for killing
90% of household objects can be used as tools for killing
-
an armed society is a polite society
the laws that make a guy have to give money to a preggo woman is crap
law shoud say guy signs up for kid b4hand or mom is left to pay for kid she selfishly keeps
no welfare
-
There is already a law against murder on the books. If someone won't obey that law, why would they obey laws banning guns?
Madness
-
There is already a law against murder on the books. If someone won't obey that law, why would they obey laws banning guns?
Madness
Great point!
-
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.
-
The how come in areas where gun laws are stricter, murder rates are sky high?! Detroit, Washington DC, Chicago....and the list goes on and on.
More fucked up people perhaps?
-
Well aren't you just a riddle wrapped in a conundrum condom.
Liberal that practices safe sex ;D
-
Take away the gun and he would have stabbed her. Take away the knife and he would have bludgeoned her with a hammer. Take away the hammer and he would have choked her. The point being, the man had malice on his mind and would have found a way to kill, gun or no gun.
Exactly! Why don't/can't the people crying about guns understand this?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
According to many on this site, the Constitution was/is meant to be re-written to suit agendas.
The how come in areas where gun laws are stricter, murder rates are sky high?! Detroit, Washington DC, Chicago....and the list goes on and on.
Possibly one reason is that the stricter laws make it more difficult for law-abiding folks to defend themselves, while it is primarily CRIMINALS who are left with guns.
Krank is spot on. Liberals are responsible for the pussification of America.
They're not the only ones, but they're the principal ones.
Stricter gun laws? They're already strict enough and there are existing laws in the books.
The problem with guns is the illegal ownership of them by criminals.
Look up the stats of gun crimes committed by law abiding citizens...very few.
Nothing more needs to be said here. This is the BASIC TRUTH.
Only a delusionite thinks that more and stricter gun laws will solve our problems.
guns dont kill people
guns are a tool used for killing
90% of household objects can be used as tools for killing
You can also kill someone with your bare hands. Maybe we should impose stricter laws on hands.
There is already a law against murder on the books. If someone won't obey that law, why would they obey laws banning guns?
Again, basic truth.
Only an idiot would argue against this.
-
Gun laws should be very strict.
Several psychological tests and evaluations (to find out that you are not a religious nut, black, or have some sort of psychic or criminal problems) should be made before even being considered for a permit.
If fisticuffs had a lower penalty, everyone would roid up and train tapout, and we can't have that either.
-
I wonder what a "well regulated militia" is supposed to do against a government in control of tanks, jets, aircraft carriers, drones, highly trained soldiers with body armor, automatic weapons, etc.?
In brief?
Go Afghani on the gov'ts ass.
Not that an appreciable percentage of the U.S. military would turn on the population, of course.
-
In brief?
Go Afghani on the gov'ts ass.
Not that an appreciable percentage of the U.S. military would turn on the population, of course.
I don't know man. There is a very strong authoritarian element to the military. The structure itself is authoritarian in nature. But you're right, it's highly unlikely. I was in the army.
-
Liberals don't believe in individual responsibility only the 'responsibility' of society. So it wasn't his fault he pulled the trigger, but society's fault for allowing him to have a gun.
-
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Thread over.
Krank is spot on. Liberals are responsible for the pussification of America.
Why do so many idiots use that quote to support their argument against gun control, yet completely ignore what it means? ::)
-
Gun laws should be very strict.
Several psychological tests and evaluations (to find out that you are not a religious nut, black, or have some sort of psychic or criminal problems) should be made before even being considered for a permit.
If fisticuffs had a lower penalty, everyone would roid up and train tapout, and we can't have that either.
How come you make no mention of stricter murder laws? but stricter gun laws?
-
Liberals don't believe in individual responsibility only the 'responsibility' of society. So it wasn't his fault he pulled the trigger, but society's fault for allowing him to have a gun.
In the same breath many liberals will argue for the legalization of drugs. I'm liberal but consistent. Personal liberty first.
-
Gun control laws have very little to no bearing on crime rates. Pro-Gun Right groups assert that having an increasingly armed populace reduces violent crime. They are wrong. Pro-Gun Control groups assert stricter gun laws and even on outright ban on firearms will reduce crime. They are wrong. Both lobbying groups are wrong.
Each deer season, hundreds of thousands of gun owners in states like Wisconsin and Michigan go hunting. These hunters would actually surpass most nation's standing army members. Outside of the rare accident and the occasional murder, the great, vast majority of these hunters come home safely and unharmed(with food and fur!). In fact, they'd have a higher chance of being electrocuted to death due to faulty wiring than they would be outright murdered.
The Columbine shooters broke over 50 different gun laws before and during their rampage. Would another gun law have made the difference? Likely not.
2nd amendment advocates assert that had one or more persons had their concealed weapon on them during the tragic Aurora Colorado theatre shootings, then many deaths could have been averted. In that scenario, the armed person would whip out their gun and take down a fully armored assailant with superior weaponry that had the element of surprise and complete intent to kill anyone and anything that moved? This is combined with the fact that their were likely people running in all directions in a dark theatre. Unless your name is John Rambo, this isn't happening and the awful result would have remained the same.
-
The fine people of Irag and Afgahnistan with just a tiny fraction of the weapons US citizens possesse seem to have managed quite well over the last decade.
Don't forget the Afghans fighting off the Russians for another 10 years... Fuck anyone who says that militias can't fight the Military Machine.
They are just pussies.
-
Don't forget the Afghans fighting off the Russians for another 10 years... Fuck anyone who says that militias can't fight the Military Machine.
They are just pussies.
depends, if the Russians wanted to, they could have wiped them off the face of the earth...but there are reprecussions for every action.
-
Don't forget the Afghans fighting off the Russians for another 10 years... Fuck anyone who says that militias can't fight the Military Machine.
They are just pussies.
The Afghans were only able to fight off the Russians with US-supplied weapons and aid. Take into account as well that US forces have done their best at targeting primarily military and strategic targets in Iraq and Afghanistan and avoiding civilian casualties so there would always be a militia presence(often hiding in plain sight among the civilian populace).
If it were a full-on extermination perpetrated upon the Iraqi and Afghan people by the US military, there really wouldn't be jackshit any militia group could do about it.
-
Gun control laws have very little to no bearing on crime rates. Pro-Gun Right groups assert that having an increasingly armed populace reduces violent crime. They are wrong. Pro-Gun Control groups assert stricter gun laws and even on outright ban on firearms will reduce crime. They are wrong. Both lobbying groups are wrong.
Each deer season, hundreds of thousands of gun owners in states like Wisconsin and Michigan go hunting. These hunters would actually surpass most nation's standing army members. Outside of the rare accident and the occasional murder, the great, vast majority of these hunters come home safely and unharmed(with food and fur!). In fact, they'd have a higher chance of being electrocuted to death due to faulty wiring than they would be outright murdered.
The Columbine shooters broke over 50 different gun laws before and during their rampage. Would another gun law have made the difference? Likely not.
2nd amendment advocates assert that had one or more persons had their concealed weapon on them during the tragic Aurora Colorado theatre shootings, then many deaths could have been averted. In that scenario, the armed person would whip out their gun and take down a fully armored assailant with superior weaponry that had the element of surprise and complete intent to kill anyone and anything that moved? This is combined with the fact that their were likely people running in all directions in a dark theatre. Unless your name is John Rambo, this isn't happening and the awful result would have remained the same.
You are blatantly ignoring the psychology of mass shooters like James Holmes. Most of them usually commit suicide when they are confronted by police officers whom often the shooter outguns. These type of *cu nts* don't have what it takes to actually shoot at someone who is capable of shooting back, they specifically shoot at defenseless, helpless unarmed civilians.
And actually there have been multiple cases where someone attempted to go on a shooting rampage and was stopped by a lone "Rambo".
http://citizensvoice.com/news/police-bar-patron-shot-plymouth-homicide-suspect-1.1371076