Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   11/10/22

      Huge thank you to Bellingham based The American Alpine Institute for being our sole sponsor, taking care of our hosting costs,  which is our biggest cost.  @Jason_Martin  of AAI reached out to me, and really wanted to support the forums.  They have supported us in the past,  and now stepped up to support us again.  They will be our sole sponsor for 6 months.   Big time, and they are a local climbing related company to boot!  
Sign in to follow this  
pink

UTTER BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Recommended Posts

I read yr whole post, Bill. I guess I just don't subscribe to the chicken little school of political science, wherein the federal government is sekretly trying to unburden us of our civil rights. I agree that civil liberties need to be constantly defended. Yeah, and sometimes it takes time to challenge disenfranchising lagislation. But it happens, and we do what needs to be done.

 

In the end, things always seem to come out right. Our country is better now than it has ever been, IMO. Sure, we've got our problems -- but we always will. We'll get through these, too, and I don't see any evidence that things will stop getting better.

 

How's that?

 

Well said Rob. Just wait till you get old and crotchety like me. Then you look back and see a little here, a little there: all quietly moving in what appears to be 1 direction. Rights are being taken away from us. Things we take for grated that are just privileges as well. Thanks for the reminder that it's not all gloom and doom. You are right on that. All of the issues I bring up are being dealt with in the system....gradually. However, the Bush admin seems to be able to toss them faster than the system can say "STOP" or "NO WAY".

 

I have hope that the Obama admin slows it down or reverses course so that the Constitution, which every President swears to up hold, is not continually shit on.

 

I recall during the Nixon years, as dark as they were, that deep constitutional issues WERE dealt with successfully, and the prick was forced to resign, and eventually it was reaffirmed that he was under the same laws as the rest of us, rather than be the king over all of us which he wished to be.

___________________________________________________________

 

On the South African thing, lets just ask Bobby Model who was there more recently than any of us and can discuss cement blocks and other projectile things. opps, tasteless.

 

Take care all

 

:wave:

Edited by billcoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, your "frogs in the pot" analogy would be a great one, if only we were frogs, and if gun control were a pot of boiling water.

 

I really don't get the point of this popular little analogy. "Frogs will sit in water and boil to death if the temperature is increased slowly. This proves that the gummint will take away our guns eventually."

 

I don't get it. It sounds like pretty retarded logic.

 

Here's something new for you to try Rob. Read the entire post. Do so with an open mind and without prejudging the contents. Then lets see if you have a different response.

 

oh rob, you get confused when a cop gives you a ticket for asking stupid questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is a little late, but how the hell has no one mentioned the chris rock/tucker standup about making bullets fuckin expensive to lower murder rates?!? This is EXACTLY that! you'll think a little harder about shooting shit when the bullets cost $400 a piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, your "frogs in the pot" analogy would be a great one, if only we were frogs, and if gun control were a pot of boiling water.

 

I really don't get the point of this popular little analogy. "Frogs will sit in water and boil to death if the temperature is increased slowly. This proves that the gummint will take away our guns eventually."

 

I don't get it. It sounds like pretty retarded logic.

 

 

 

Here's something new for you to try Rob. Read the entire post. Do so with an open mind and without prejudging the contents. Then lets see if you have a different response.

 

oh rob, you get confused when a cop gives you a ticket for asking stupid questions.

 

1171f41373kb3m73oc8c2be1ccc50252d1cc6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know this is a little late, but how the hell has no one mentioned the chris rock/tucker standup about making bullets fuckin expensive to lower murder rates?!? This is EXACTLY that! you'll think a little harder about shooting shit when the bullets cost $400 a piece.

 

stupid, stupid, stupid. chris rock is not even funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stupid, stupid, stupid. chris rock is not even funny.

now we know you've gone 'round the bend - chris rock is funnier'n'hell!

 

i like my gun control solution more - the only guns allowable should be ones that use the technology extant at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment - single shot, black powder muskets - hell, they can even drop the bar-coding yer shot shit if'n they'll do that - let's see someone take on a whole mall, 1776 style!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that you guys think you can be safe by restricting guns surprises me as I thought you were all smarter than that. Mexico restricted them in 1968, yet when you look at the Juarex/El Paso situation it is clear what can occur.

 

Consider:

 

On the side of the border where guns were restricted: heavily armed drug dealers are running crazy in the area, honest people who chose to have a weapon are criminals and the police and politicians are corrupt. Murders are rampant.

 

While on the other side of the border, despite the fact that every damn Texan seems to have gun and they are available on every street corner including Sears and Wal Mart and despite that availability is a peaceful respite next to Juarez. I know that there are places where the reverse is true as well. However, for you to want to voluntarily give up one more check in the checks and balance of power equation both saddens and causes displeasure for me. It's not a good thing to change the way we've successfully integrated this over the last 236 years since the founding of the country. I'm joining the NRA today as one more small measure of that commitment.

 

From wikipedia:

"Crime

 

[edit] Drug cartel violence

 

Recent violence among rival drug cartels has resulted in more than a quarter of the country's 3,800 drugs-related murders reported to have taken place there since the start of the year; Juarez has one of the highest murder rates of cities in Mexico.[12] Recent murders in the city have grown not only in numbers, but also in barbarity. A man recently was found near a school hanging from a fence with a pig's mask on his face, and another one was found beheaded hanging from a bridge in one of the busier streets of the city.[13] Journalist Charles Bowden, in an August 2008 GQ article, wrote that multiple factors, including drug violence, government corruption, and poverty have unleashed a disordered violence that now permeates the city.[14] [15]

 

In January 2004, police unearthed a grave containing 12 bodies in a Ciudad Juarez backyard.[16] Mexican investigators found 19 more bodies buried in the backyard of a house in Ciudad Juarez, increasing the tally of corpses found there to 36, officials said March 15, 2008. Federal agents began digging in the yard on March 1, 2008, initially finding six dismembered bodies. Ciudad Juárez has been plagued by violence as Mexico's crackdown on powerful drug cartels stokes turf wars among traffickers who have been linked to hundreds of killings in the years 2006 and 2007.[17]

 

[edit] Female sexual homicides

 

Main article: Female homicides in Ciudad Juárez

 

Over the past 10 years Juárez has seen over 400 women fall victims to sexual homicides, their bodies often dumped in ditches or vacant lots. In addition, grassroots organizations in the region report that 40 remain missing. Despite pressure to catch the killers and a roundup of some suspects, few believe the true culprits have been found. A controversial 2007 book called The Daughters of Juarez, by Teresa Rodriguez.[18] implicates high-level police and prominent Juárez citizens in the crimes."

 

This is in a country where purchasing any weapon is highly restrictive. You want that here? It could happen. Why change what has been working for 236 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Ive told this story before but here it goes again.

When my step son was about 12, his father's Schitzophrenia acted up and he was hearing the voices of "5 evil demons" (not good demons mind you) telling him to kill his own son.

My daughters were 2ys and 2 months respectively.

My wife at the time, mother of all three kids, was in denial and would not try to have the guy locked up.

One night at about 11PM the front door started thumping loudly as though someone were trying to kick it in.

Sure enough, there is the ex-hubby holding a tire iron and standing about 6'2" in my front hall.

Of course, I knew what was going on and had thought out every scenario I could and planned what I would do if this happened. So I had the mother take all the kids into a back bedroom when the thumping started and had her call 911.

Then I sat at the top of the stairs with my loaded pistol wondering if I was going to have to shoot my stepson's father.

When he came through the kicked in door I had the legal right to shoot him dead in self defense.

But that did not seem like the best thing for the whole family scene. So I called his name and showed him the pistol and told him the police were on their way. He stood there looking confused for about 20 seconds which is a really long time. I had planned that if he started up the stairs, I would have no choice.

Finally, the police showed up and he ran away. They didn't catch him that night.

 

Tell me that you would not have wanted to have a gun for the rest of that night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill's implication: It WILL happen here if we restrict guns because:

 

a) The events in Mexico happened AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE RESTRICTION OF GUN OWNERSHIP IN !968. OF COURSE, THERE WAS A LONG GESTATION PERIOD....and

 

b) the USA is EXACTLY LIKE MEXICO and

 

c) if two countries are exactly alike then the same type of policy will produce EXACTLY THE SAME RESULT.

 

d) (My personal favorite) The 1968 gun law made the following (not concurrent) generation of Juarezian's EXTRA HORNY. DENYING AGING FATHERS THE RIGHT TO FREELY OWN GUNS DRIVES SONS TO RAPE AND MURDER.

 

This kind of wisdom is essential for making voting wisely. Consider Bill's choice for president, for example.

Edited by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I specifically used the word Could. You are having reading comprehension issues again.

 

If you want to roll over and let politicians pound sand up your un-lubricated ass, then you go right ahead, but keep me out of it. :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill's implication: It WILL happen here if we restrict guns because:

 

a) The events in Mexico happened AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE RESTRICTION OF GUN OWNERSHIP IN !968. OF COURSE, THERE WAS A LONG GESTATION PERIOD....and

 

b) the USA is EXACTLY LIKE MEXICO and

 

c) if two countries are exactly alike then the same type of policy will produce EXACTLY THE SAME RESULT.

 

This kind of wisdom is essential for making voting wisely. Consider Bill's choice for president, for example.

 

The problems with this line of reasoning also apply to your examples of gun violence in other countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want to roll over and let politicians pound sand up your un-lubricated ass, then you go right ahead, but keep me out of it. :lmao:

 

Sounds fun Bill.

Sign me up for the next Republican party in your neighborhood. :laf:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK. Ive told this story before but here it goes again.

When my step son was about 12, his father's Schitzophrenia acted up and he was hearing the voices of "5 evil demons" (not good demons mind you) telling him to kill his own son.

My daughters were 2ys and 2 months respectively.

My wife at the time, mother of all three kids, was in denial and would not try to have the guy locked up.

One night at about 11PM the front door started thumping loudly as though someone were trying to kick it in.

Sure enough, there is the ex-hubby holding a tire iron and standing about 6'2" in my front hall.

 

 

Of course, I knew what was going on and had thought out every scenario I could and planned what I would do if this happened. So I had the mother take all the kids into a back bedroom when the thumping started and had her call 911.

Then I sat at the top of the stairs with my loaded pistol wondering if I was going to have to shoot my stepson's father.

When he came through the kicked in door I had the legal right to shoot him dead in self defense.

But that did not seem like the best thing for the whole family scene. So I called his name and showed him the pistol and told him the police were on their way. He stood there looking confused for about 20 seconds which is a really long time. I had planned that if he started up the stairs, I would have no choice.

Finally, the police showed up and he ran away. They didn't catch him that night.

 

Tell me that you would not have wanted to have a gun for the rest of that night.

 

Had you raped and shot your wife prior to marriage, you would not have had this issue. I think "Do not marry insane people" is probably the take away here, no?

 

Some of us choose to nip certain problems at the bud, so that we do not have to shoot our way out of them later.

Edited by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I specifically used the word Could. You are having reading comprehension issues again.

 

If you want to roll over and let politicians pound sand up your un-lubricated ass, then you go right ahead, but keep me out of it. :lmao:

 

UM...my ass is already pretty raw from the idiot dumbshits like you voted in twice there, Bill.

Edited by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I specifically used the word Could. You are having reading comprehension issues again.

 

If you want to roll over and let politicians pound sand up your un-lubricated ass, then you go right ahead, but keep me out of it. :lmao:

 

Then again you could wake up one morning and find that you've been transformed into a cockroach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something I don't understand. Maybe you can explain it to me. I'm reading the recent biography on Ben Franklin. Self made man and arguably one of the smartest guys in the colony's.

 

In 1747 he got just a few of his peeps together and formed a militia in Pennsylvania. Yet there was already plenty of British Soldiers in the area.

 

Why would he do that?

 

Why would the framers insist that is a right any and all of us should have? The book only makes note of him doing it, not any reason behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a simplistic, callous, and ignorant response.

Let's forget that I participated here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stupid, stupid, stupid. chris rock is not even funny.

now we know you've gone 'round the bend - chris rock is funnier'n'hell!

 

i like my gun control solution more - the only guns allowable should be ones that use the technology extant at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment - single shot, black powder muskets - hell, they can even drop the bar-coding yer shot shit if'n they'll do that - let's see someone take on a whole mall, 1776 style!

 

Sure. If the Army would only have that too. Would defeat the purpose if it didn't. This is the most ridiculous argument I have heard on 2nd amendment rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look your basic argument is that if everybody had a gun, then no one would use them for crimes, right?

 

Unfortunately, that 'everyone' includes the criminally insane, as well as just the criminal.

 

This also assumes that criminals would be deterred by the fear of being shot. Um...I think the pervasiveness of gang violence kind of counters that one.

 

In addition, it assumes that a critical mass of potential victims, women by your implication, will carry guns. Ever talk to many women? Just a little hint: guns are a guy thing, dude. Kind of like talking about your poo. So no critical mass will ever be possible for this 'deterrent' effect, which is probably mythical anyway, considering the experience of other countries like S.A., to have an effect.

 

Well, women and everyone else CAN carry guns here, yet America still boasts one of the highest violent crime rates in the world, particularly the 1st world.

 

It think it's being proven as we speak that the key to lowering the crime rate, which is after all, the real issue here, is to support policies that healthier parenting and enable people to live above the poverty line and have opportunities to improve their station in life. Thanks for voting for Bush twice, BTW.

 

Discussing the inentions of the "Founding Fathers", those all-wise, infallible SuperBeings, doesn't fly either. Who the fuck cares? If it were up to the original ideas of the Founding Fathers, congress would vote in our president, not us. We'd still be slave owners. Only white male landowners would be able to vote...and on and on....

Edited by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It shocks me that these guys trust politicians more than they trust each other. Frankly, I trust the people I know to do the right thing much more than any politician, some of whom are great and honest people, but too many of whom are drawn to politics just for the power and the desire to control others.

 

For me, that's the crux of the nut. Do you trust the people you know more than politicians?

 

I do. Tvash doesn't.

 

__________________________________________________________

Take care Bug, don't let them get ya down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting perspective Bill.

 

i'm just not sure i need people tracking how much ammo i don't buy. this is just one of those things that reeks of another "watch list". i don't appreciate the gov't being able to listen to my phone conversations just cuz and i don't think they need to know and by extrapolation potentially decide i'm a threat b/c of how much ammo i own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It shocks me that these guys trust politicians more than they trust each other. Frankly, I trust the people I know to do the right thing much more than any politician, some of whom are great and honest people, but too many of whom are drawn to politics just for the power and the desire to control others.

 

For me, that's the crux of the nut. Do you trust the people you know more than politicians?

 

I do. Tvash doesn't.

 

__________________________________________________________

Take care Bug, don't let them get ya down.

 

I don't trust anyone; especially politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, how are they going to deal with import ammo? A large portion of ammunition is imported. Also, do you really think that someone will not be able to get banned ammo to commit a crime? Or steal some that is under someone else's name?

 

Violence is a large and complex problem that cannot be solved by any one radical idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill's implication: It WILL happen here if we restrict guns because:

 

a) The events in Mexico happened AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE RESTRICTION OF GUN OWNERSHIP IN !968. OF COURSE, THERE WAS A LONG GESTATION PERIOD....and

 

b) the USA is EXACTLY LIKE MEXICO and

 

c) if two countries are exactly alike then the same type of policy will produce EXACTLY THE SAME RESULT.

 

This kind of wisdom is essential for making voting wisely. Consider Bill's choice for president, for example.

 

The problems with this line of reasoning also apply to your examples of gun violence in other countries.

 

And I always frame these examples solely for illustrative purposes to counter 'conventional wisdom', without trying to make ridiculous causal links between, say, legislation in the 60's and specific events nearly a half century later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×