Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Arris

NRA PROMOTING VIOLENCE?

Recommended Posts

Associated Press

 

"ATLANTA (AP) — The election of President Donald Trump and Republican control of Congress meant the National Rifle Association could probably rest easy that gun laws wouldn’t change for at least four years. But the NRA has begun a campaign not against pending legislation but what it sees as liberal forces bent on undoing the progress it’s made — and the political powerhouse is resorting to language that some believe could incite violence.

Using the hashtags #counterresistance and #clenchedfistoftruth, the NRA has put out a series of videos that announce a “shot across the bow,” and say the gun-rights group is “coming for you” and that “elites ... threaten our very survival,” terms that suggest opponents are enemy combatants."

 

“The times are burning and the media elites have been caught holding the match,” NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch says in one video aired on NRATV, the gun lobby’s web video site, as it shows footage of people fighting police, breaking storefront glass and burning the American flag.

Later, she specifically calls out The New York Times: “We’ve had it with your narratives, your propaganda, your fake news. We’ve had it with your constant protection of your Democrat overlords, your refusal to acknowledge any truth that upsets the fragile construct that you believe is real life. And we’ve had it with your tone-deaf assertion that you are in any way truth or fact-based journalism,” Loesch says. “Consider this the shot across your proverbial bow. ... In short? We’re coming for you.”

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, said the tone and language is “overwrought rhetoric” that, viewed by the wrong person, could lead to violence. The kicker on one of the videos — “We’re coming for you” — is straight out of the movies, she said, and “that phrase means that violence is imminent and we will perpetrate it.”

The NRA is taking a page from the Trump playbook.

The friction between the gun lobby and the media isn’t new. But critics of the NRA contend the organization is relying on the “fake news” mantra started by Trump to whip up its followers after a dip in gun sales that has taken place since Trump succeeded President Barack Obama, who favored stricter gun-control laws.

 

They’re not inventing this hyperangry, nasty partisan tone but piggybacking on Trump’s approach. Of course, NRA voters by and large are Trump voters, so they would be sympathetic to that kind of message,” said Robert Spitzer, chairman of the political science department at State University of New York at Cortland, who has examined the firearms industry and Second Amendment issues extensively.

Spitzer, a member of the NRA as well as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said it’s a pattern the NRA has exhibited as the group evolved from an almost exclusive focus on gun safety into a political beacon for conservatives who fear changes to the Second Amendment and the gun industry.

“It was Bill Clinton in the 1990s. In the early 2000s, it was John McCain. It was Hillary Clinton. It was the United Nations. They’ve held up the U.N. as ready to swoop in and take everybody’s guns,” Spitzer said. “The focus of their ire has changed, but the basic message has been the same.”

The NRA declined to comment on the videos to The Associated Press. But the NRA has produced videos saying the left and the media are out of control and feeding a false narrative that tea party conservatives are racists and Trump supporters are “toothless hillbillies.”

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, said this month: “There is no longer any difference between our politicians and the elite media who report on them. ... These elites threaten our very survival, and to them we say: We don’t trust you, we don’t fear you, and we don’t need you. Take your hands off our future.”

Erich Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said it’s been a longtime frustration with journalists who, he contends, “ignore the violence and harsh rhetoric on the left while magnifying and twisting the words of those on the right.”

The NRA videos prompted Mike Nelson, a Democratic congressional candidate in Arkansas and self-described hunter and gun-rights supporter, to label them as “hate speech.” Nelson, whose website lists the NRA among more than two dozen organization he’s supported, said he can no longer back the NRA.

In a Facebook post, Nelson wrote: “If the NRA does not stop their hate campaign, I will call them out on sedition. Sedition is the willful undermining of the legal authority, the Incitement of Violence.”

Some gun owners have cheered the videos and said they give voice to conservatives weary of media attacks on Trump; others say the videos stray from the NRA’s original mission and that the NRA is inviting violence.

Joe Plenzler, a Marine veteran who served overseas and sometimes had reporters accompanying his unit, joined two other veterans in writing an opinion piece for The Daily Beast criticizing the videos.

“The NRA props up the Second Amendment by undermining and vilifying the protections afforded in the First, and paints everyone who may disagree with the current administration, our country’s justice system, or the NRA’s partisan political position with a very dark and unjust broad brush,” Plenzler wrote with Marine veterans Craig Tucker and Kyleanne Hunter.

Plenzler, who has since dropped his NRA membership, said he was disturbed by the videos.

“Lately, it seems like they’ve gone well out of the bounds of any sort of sane responsible behavior. If you want to advocate for the Second Amendment, which I unapologetically believe in, that’s fine,” he said. “But I think at the point where you are going to demonize half the American population in a recruitment effort to get more members, I’ve got a big problem with that.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Arris said:

Associated Press

 

"ATLANTA (AP) — The election of President Donald Trump and Republican control of Congress meant the National Rifle Association could probably rest easy that gun laws wouldn’t change for at least four years. But the NRA has begun a campaign not against pending legislation but what it sees as liberal forces bent on undoing the progress it’s made — and the political powerhouse is resorting to language that some believe could incite violence.

Using the hashtags #counterresistance and #clenchedfistoftruth, the NRA has put out a series of videos that announce a “shot across the bow,” and say the gun-rights group is “coming for you” and that “elites ... threaten our very survival,” terms that suggest opponents are enemy combatants."

 

“The times are burning and the media elites have been caught holding the match,” NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch says in one video aired on NRATV, the gun lobby’s web video site, as it shows footage of people fighting police, breaking storefront glass and burning the American flag.

Later, she specifically calls out The New York Times: “We’ve had it with your narratives, your propaganda, your fake news. We’ve had it with your constant protection of your Democrat overlords, your refusal to acknowledge any truth that upsets the fragile construct that you believe is real life. And we’ve had it with your tone-deaf assertion that you are in any way truth or fact-based journalism,” Loesch says. “Consider this the shot across your proverbial bow. ... In short? We’re coming for you.”

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, said the tone and language is “overwrought rhetoric” that, viewed by the wrong person, could lead to violence. The kicker on one of the videos — “We’re coming for you” — is straight out of the movies, she said, and “that phrase means that violence is imminent and we will perpetrate it.”

The NRA is taking a page from the Trump playbook.

The friction between the gun lobby and the media isn’t new. But critics of the NRA contend the organization is relying on the “fake news” mantra started by Trump to whip up its followers after a dip in gun sales that has taken place since Trump succeeded President Barack Obama, who favored stricter gun-control laws.

 

They’re not inventing this hyperangry, nasty partisan tone but piggybacking on Trump’s approach. Of course, NRA voters by and large are Trump voters, so they would be sympathetic to that kind of message,” said Robert Spitzer, chairman of the political science department at State University of New York at Cortland, who has examined the firearms industry and Second Amendment issues extensively.

Spitzer, a member of the NRA as well as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said it’s a pattern the NRA has exhibited as the group evolved from an almost exclusive focus on gun safety into a political beacon for conservatives who fear changes to the Second Amendment and the gun industry.

“It was Bill Clinton in the 1990s. In the early 2000s, it was John McCain. It was Hillary Clinton. It was the United Nations. They’ve held up the U.N. as ready to swoop in and take everybody’s guns,” Spitzer said. “The focus of their ire has changed, but the basic message has been the same.”

The NRA declined to comment on the videos to The Associated Press. But the NRA has produced videos saying the left and the media are out of control and feeding a false narrative that tea party conservatives are racists and Trump supporters are “toothless hillbillies.”

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, said this month: “There is no longer any difference between our politicians and the elite media who report on them. ... These elites threaten our very survival, and to them we say: We don’t trust you, we don’t fear you, and we don’t need you. Take your hands off our future.”

Erich Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said it’s been a longtime frustration with journalists who, he contends, “ignore the violence and harsh rhetoric on the left while magnifying and twisting the words of those on the right.”

The NRA videos prompted Mike Nelson, a Democratic congressional candidate in Arkansas and self-described hunter and gun-rights supporter, to label them as “hate speech.” Nelson, whose website lists the NRA among more than two dozen organization he’s supported, said he can no longer back the NRA.

In a Facebook post, Nelson wrote: “If the NRA does not stop their hate campaign, I will call them out on sedition. Sedition is the willful undermining of the legal authority, the Incitement of Violence.”

Some gun owners have cheered the videos and said they give voice to conservatives weary of media attacks on Trump; others say the videos stray from the NRA’s original mission and that the NRA is inviting violence.

Joe Plenzler, a Marine veteran who served overseas and sometimes had reporters accompanying his unit, joined two other veterans in writing an opinion piece for The Daily Beast criticizing the videos.

“The NRA props up the Second Amendment by undermining and vilifying the protections afforded in the First, and paints everyone who may disagree with the current administration, our country’s justice system, or the NRA’s partisan political position with a very dark and unjust broad brush,” Plenzler wrote with Marine veterans Craig Tucker and Kyleanne Hunter.

Plenzler, who has since dropped his NRA membership, said he was disturbed by the videos.

“Lately, it seems like they’ve gone well out of the bounds of any sort of sane responsible behavior. If you want to advocate for the Second Amendment, which I unapologetically believe in, that’s fine,” he said. “But I think at the point where you are going to demonize half the American population in a recruitment effort to get more members, I’ve got a big problem with that.”

The NRA is a marketing tool for the gun manufacturers. This current effort by them is to promote gun sales that have fallen off significantly since the elections last year. They can't sell guns without a liberal boogeyman that is coming to take their customers rights away. The best thing liberals can do is be silent about gun regulations right now as the environment is to toxic to support it. Right now you just want to be a giant spotlight that points out just who their customers are. The nazis showing up at protests with their big guns and their little penises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, skews13 said:

The NRA is a marketing tool for the gun manufacturers. This current effort by them is to promote gun sales that have fallen off significantly since the elections last year. They can't sell guns without a liberal boogeyman that is coming to take their customers rights away. The best thing liberals can do is be silent about gun regulations right now as the environment is to toxic to support it. Right now you just want to be a giant spotlight that points out just who their customers are. The nazis showing up at protests with their big guns and their little penises.

I own a gun for protection, does that make me just like them?  Don't lump all gun owners into one boat.  I carry it to protect myself against rapists (my area is not the nicest place) and I'm a realist that knows the average man is much stronger than the average woman. I'm all for sensible gun control (like banning bayonet lugs and all detachable magazine fed weapons). A revolver is more than adequate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, DumptheTrump said:

Absolutely disgusting.  They are a terrorist organization and should be dealt with as such. 

 

No, they are, at their heart, a civil rights organization, and should be dealt with as such.  I don't  support the tenor of their most recent videos, and I don't like the anti-liberal rhetoric they've resorted to lately; I remember when they were non-partisan, supporting politicians of both parties so long as they acted to protect 2nd Amendment rights.  As a NRA life member and a liberal, I have written the NRA to express my dismay at their growing partisan slant, but that doesn't mean I don't support their core mission: protection of our 2nd Amendment civil rights.

 

48 minutes ago, DumptheTrump said:

I own a gun for protection, does that make me just like them?  Don't lump all gun owners into one boat.  I carry it to protect myself against rapists (my area is not the nicest place) and I'm a realist that knows the average man is much stronger than the average woman. I'm all for sensible gun control (like banning bayonet lugs and all detachable magazine fed weapons). A revolver is more than adequate.  

 

I'm sorry; I don't see how banning cosmetic features like bayonet lugs accomplishes anything, and I do believe that properly configured carbines are optimum self-defense tools depending upon where you live in the country.  I can also tell you that detachable magazine pistols are the most popular (and most effective) defensive sidearms in existence... and while a good revolver is certainly an excellent tool for the average defensive situation it has limitations to it that make more seriously trained people reject them as an option.  Remember: 50% of self-defense situations are worse than the "average" defensive scenario.  In these days of multiple assailant attacks, gang violence, civil unrest, etc., combined with widespread availability of reality-altering drugs that can make an assailant capable of absorbing more damage without obvious effect, the revolver's essential obsolescence as a primary defensive sidearm is clear.  I use a revolver as a backup gun, but rarely as a primary carry weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, skews13 said:

The NRA is a marketing tool for the gun manufacturers.

 

I see this assertion regularly, and it's simply not true.  The NRA is made up of literally millions of Americans, from every walk of life and political viewpoint, whose sole agenda is preserving 2nd Amendment rights.

 

21 hours ago, skews13 said:

The best thing liberals can do is be silent about gun regulations right now as the environment is to toxic to support it. 

 

I agree completely.  There are a lot of Americans who vote against Democrats for one reason and one reason only: their gun control stance.  Gun control hurts liberal politicians all over the country, but nowhere more than in Presidential elections.  Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton all would have won the Presidency handily if not for their gun control stances, and I think that we, as liberals, would have many opportunities to create an unstoppable political machine if only we would drop gun control as a political issue.

 

21 hours ago, skews13 said:

The nazis showing up at protests with their big guns and their little penises.

 

The individuals who showed up at Charlottesville armed for the most part were not Nazis but a different segment of conservative politics, the so-called "Patriot" movement.  I even have a friend from my LE days who went... and he's black, and went as part of a Patriot Group that was nearly 50% black or African American and 100% military veterans.  They went, not to stand with the Nazis, but specifically to show that being a pro-gun conservative did not make you a Nazi or a white supremacist, and to hopefully act as a deterrent for violence through a show of force.  I don't agree with his particular agenda (I'm WAY more liberal politically than he is), but I have nothing but respect for the man as an individual and know I can trust him with my life.

 

Whenever gun control advocates try to draw correlation between gun ownership and sexual insecurities, they cost themselves credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

I see this assertion regularly, and it's simply not true.  The NRA is made up of literally millions of Americans, from every walk of life and political viewpoint, whose sole agenda is preserving 2nd Amendment rights.

 

 

I agree completely.  There are a lot of Americans who vote against Democrats for one reason and one reason only: their gun control stance.  Gun control hurts liberal politicians all over the country, but nowhere more than in Presidential elections.  Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton all would have won the Presidency handily if not for their gun control stances, and I think that we, as liberals, would have many opportunities to create an unstoppable political machine if only we would drop gun control as a political issue.

 

 

The individuals who showed up at Charlottesville armed for the most part were not Nazis but a different segment of conservative politics, the so-called "Patriot" movement.  I even have a friend from my LE days who went... and he's black, and went as part of a Patriot Group that was nearly 50% black or African American and 100% military veterans.  They went, not to stand with the Nazis, but specifically to show that being a pro-gun conservative did not make you a Nazi or a white supremacist, and to hopefully act as a deterrent for violence through a show of force.  I don't agree with his particular agenda (I'm WAY more liberal politically than he is), but I have nothing but respect for the man as an individual and know I can trust him with my life.

 

Whenever gun control advocates try to draw correlation between gun ownership and sexual insecurities, they cost themselves credibility.

What the hell does anyone need a bayonet lug for? Are you going to charge at someone with a knife attach to a gun after you run out of ammo?  Agree to disagree I guess.  And you have a life membership with them?  Considering how they are promoting violent confrontation against groups like BLM how can you support them?  I watched a video when Tom Selleck was on Rosie O'Donnell's show awhile back and his talking points were just ridiculous.  How a real liberal can be for people owning fully automatic assault weapons is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, DumptheTrump said:

What the hell does anyone need a bayonet lug for? Are you going to charge at someone with a knife attach to a gun after you run out of ammo?  Agree to disagree I guess. 

 

What the hell good does it do, passing laws that are so arbitrary and capricious?  When the hell did drive-by stabbings become a problem?  Can you name even one incident where a law banning bayonet lugs saved lives??  I sure can't.  I do know people who have light attachments for their rifles that use the bayonet lug and enable them to have proper tactical lights attached without having to invest in a full quad rail system, so I have no problem with it.  I'm sorry, but bans on cosmetic features like bayonet lugs and barrel shrouds and pistol grips are all completely inane and achieve exactly nothing regarding real-world problems, other than completely destroying the credibility of those who support them.

 

38 minutes ago, DumptheTrump said:

And you have a life membership with them? 

 

Yes, I do.  Ever since 1994.  I had been an annual member before then, but the Cinton-era enactment of gun control I found inappropriate motivated me to invest more in the organization..

 

43 minutes ago, DumptheTrump said:

Considering how they are promoting violent confrontation against groups like BLM how can you support them?  

 

I have not seen anything from the NRA promoting violent confrontation.  They've used some uncompromising rhetorical commentary, but far less confrontational and violent then some have resorted to.  Much was made of the "clenched fist of truth" rhetoric of Dana Loesch, but she was talking about uncompromisingly confronting dishonesty and falsehoods regarding firearms and the 2nd Amendment propagated by the media and gun control organizations.  Loesch is way too off to the right for me on most issues, but on the 2nd Amendment I am in full agreement with her.  I admit, I don't like the way the NRA has chosen to style itself now as a right-wing organization, as I think Constitutional rights are a nonpartisan issue, but since the majority of the attacks on the 2nd Amendment come from the left (much to my chagrin) I suppose the evolution was inevitable.

 

44 minutes ago, DumptheTrump said:

I watched a video when Tom Selleck was on Rosie O'Donnell's show awhile back and his talking points were just ridiculous.  

 

We'll agree to disagree.  I thought his responses to an unprovoked ambush interview when he was expecting to be talking about a movie he was promoting were actually rather well articulated.  He wasn't a spokesman for the NRA, and I thought her attacks on him were inappropriate.

 

44 minutes ago, DumptheTrump said:

How a real liberal can be for people owning fully automatic assault weapons is beyond me.

 

I suppose it depends on how you define a "real liberal".  I am a fierce liberal, and a Constitutionalist.  I believe the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the people against governmental overreach; this is why the ACLU has always sought to see the provisions of the Bill of Rights interpreted as broadly as possible...but the ACLU balks at defending the 2nd Amendment with the same zeal, for reasons that are a mystery to me.  It is clear that the Founders of this country wanted the American people to have access to the very same small arms as the standard soldier, that they could act as one more of the checks and balances against tyranny and authoritarianism built into our system.  I believe in a woman's right to choose what happens with her own body, and the Supreme Court agreed based upon the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Clearly, there is nothing specifically in the Fourteenth Amendment regarding reproductive rights, but the courts ruled it was nevertheless covered and I agree with that assessment, as do most people with liberal political views.  Yet somehow, even though the right to bear arms is specifically enumerated in the 2nd Amendment, people want to argue that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect that right??  Sorry, but no.  I believe the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of all citizens to own the same small arms as an average infantry soldier.  In 1791 it was a flintlock musket and pistol.  Today, it's a select-fire M4 carbine and a 9mm semiautomatic pistol.  I believe gun control is at best a short-sighted and simplistic approach to dealing with the realities of crime and violence, and I feel it violates the intent of the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

What the hell good does it do, passing laws that are so arbitrary and capricious?  When the hell did drive-by stabbings become a problem?  Can you name even one incident where a law banning bayonet lugs saved lives??  I sure can't.  I do know people who have light attachments for their rifles that use the bayonet lug and enable them to have proper tactical lights attached without having to invest in a full quad rail system, so I have no problem with it.  I'm sorry, but bans on cosmetic features like bayonet lugs and barrel shrouds and pistol grips are all completely inane and achieve exactly nothing regarding real-world problems, other than completely destroying the credibility of those who support them.

 

 

Yes, I do.  Ever since 1994.  I had been an annual member before then, but the Cinton-era enactment of gun control I found inappropriate motivated me to invest more in the organization..

 

 

I have not seen anything from the NRA promoting violent confrontation.  They've used some uncompromising rhetorical commentary, but far less confrontational and violent then some have resorted to.  Much was made of the "clenched fist of truth" rhetoric of Dana Loesch, but she was talking about uncompromisingly confronting dishonesty and falsehoods regarding firearms and the 2nd Amendment propagated by the media and gun control organizations.  Loesch is way too off to the right for me on most issues, but on the 2nd Amendment I am in full agreement with her.  I admit, I don't like the way the NRA has chosen to style itself now as a right-wing organization, as I think Constitutional rights are a nonpartisan issue, but since the majority of the attacks on the 2nd Amendment come from the left (much to my chagrin) I suppose the evolution was inevitable.

 

 

We'll agree to disagree.  I thought his responses to an unprovoked ambush interview when he was expecting to be talking about a movie he was promoting were actually rather well articulated.  He wasn't a spokesman for the NRA, and I thought her attacks on him were inappropriate.

 

 

I suppose it depends on how you define a "real liberal".  I am a fierce liberal, and a Constitutionalist.  I believe the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the people against governmental overreach; this is why the ACLU has always sought to see the provisions of the Bill of Rights interpreted as broadly as possible...but the ACLU balks at defending the 2nd Amendment with the same zeal, for reasons that are a mystery to me.  It is clear that the Founders of this country wanted the American people to have access to the very same small arms as the standard soldier, that they could act as one more of the checks and balances against tyranny and authoritarianism built into our system.  I believe in a woman's right to choose what happens with her own body, and the Supreme Court agreed based upon the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Clearly, there is nothing specifically in the Fourteenth Amendment regarding reproductive rights, but the courts ruled it was nevertheless covered and I agree with that assessment, as do most people with liberal political views.  Yet somehow, even though the right to bear arms is specifically enumerated in the 2nd Amendment, people want to argue that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect that right??  Sorry, but no.  I believe the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of all citizens to own the same small arms as an average infantry soldier.  In 1791 it was a flintlock musket and pistol.  Today, it's a select-fire M4 carbine and a 9mm semiautomatic pistol.  I believe gun control is at best a short-sighted and simplistic approach to dealing with the realities of crime and violence, and I feel it violates the intent of the Constitution.

Unless you are planning on fighting the government then what do you really need weapons of war for?  However, I will agree that to fight tyranny you do need such weapons.  Maybe my reasons are off, but I just don't understand the need for a military grade weapons for people unless it's to revolt (in which case, count me in!) 

 

We are in a time where, let's face it, the right is arming up much more than the left. I have co-workers that brag about their gun arsenals and how they are ready to kill the Anti-Facists and liberals that want to take their guns. It sounds that they are just itching for a fight. We are pushing hard to make our country great and they are ready to shoot us over it.  Maybe I do need to get an assault rifle lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, DumptheTrump said:

Unless you are planning on fighting the government then what do you really need weapons of war for?  However, I will agree that to fight tyranny you do need such weapons.  Maybe my reasons are off, but I just don't understand the need for a military grade weapons for people unless it's to revolt (in which case, count me in!) 

 

Well, fighting against tyranny is indeed part of the reason for the 2nd Amendment.  I'm also a former law enforcement officer with extensive training with firearms, and I know how effective a tactical carbine is as a personal defensive weapon.  My wife, for instance, can run an M4 pattern rifle with incredible skill, owning every distance from point blank range to 300 meters, but the recoil of a shotgun is too much for her to train effectively with.  Especially with the growing numbers of multiple-assailant home-invasions, a solid tactical carbine can be a much better choice than other options. 

 

57 minutes ago, DumptheTrump said:

We are in a time where, let's face it, the right is arming up much more than the left. I have co-workers that brag about their gun arsenals and how they are ready to kill the Anti-Facists and liberals that want to take their guns. It sounds that they are just itching for a fight. We are pushing hard to make our country great and they are ready to shoot us over it.  Maybe I do need to get an assault rifle lol

 

I would not be surprised if we were on a path to Civil War.  There are now groups of Antifa that are taking up arms and trying to train in militia tactics too.  Sooner or later I fear we'll see rallies and counter-rallies devolving into open combat that will make Charlottesville look like a church social.  I hope I'm wrong, but we may be approaching the point of no return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

Well, fighting against tyranny is indeed part of the reason for the 2nd Amendment.  I'm also a former law enforcement officer with extensive training with firearms, and I know how effective a tactical carbine is as a personal defensive weapon.  My wife, for instance, can run an M4 pattern rifle with incredible skill, owning every distance from point blank range to 300 meters, but the recoil of a shotgun is too much for her to train effectively with.  Especially with the growing numbers of multiple-assailant home-invasions, a solid tactical carbine can be a much better choice than other options. 

 

 

I would not be surprised if we were on a path to Civil War.  There are now groups of Antifa that are taking up arms and trying to train in militia tactics too.  Sooner or later I fear we'll see rallies and counter-rallies devolving into open combat that will make Charlottesville look like a church social.  I hope I'm wrong, but we may be approaching the point of no return.

Well then who do you side with?  Antifa and groups like BLM or trump supporters??  Can't have it both ways.  Being former LEO, I already know the answer : /

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DumptheTrump said:

Well then who do you side with?  Antifa and groups like BLM or trump supporters??  Can't have it both ways.  Being former LEO, I already know the answer : /

 

Don't make assumptions.  I don't side with either one.  There is a third faction: honest people with honest convictions who hate racism and bigotry regardless of who it comes from, and who recognize that condemning Nazism while wearing the hammer and sickle of the old Soviet Union (which slaughtered even more people) is hypocrisy of the highest order.  I hate Donald Trump and those who act like he's anything other than a megalomaniacal buffoon, along with the racists that proclaim him their champion; but that does not compel me to embrace the extremists on the other side of the equation who openly embrace violence and the extremist tactics of fascism even as they claim to be decrying fascism.

 

I instead, side with true liberals, who care about the well-being and equality of all people, and want to protect all the Freedoms and political Liberties enumerated under the Constitution and not just the ones I find convenient.  I detest the poisoned political discourse in the country today, and I am disgusted by the actions of people who are choosing to incorporate violence into their agendas.

 

My decision to become a law enforcement officer was based on the values I learned from my grandfather, who spent 40 years on The Job.  It was about acknowledging that honest people needed to be protected, and there had to be those willing to put their own lives on the line to offer that protection.  When I see people afraid of the police because they happen to be a different race, that saddens me deeply, because that violates the core of what being a law enforcement officer is.  The law is and should be colorblind, and everyone deserves the same level of protection from the dangers of crime and violence.  I never based my actions on the race or ethnicity of those who needed help, and I never prejudged someone for it either.  As I've mentioned, the best friend I have from my LEO days is a different color than I, but we are brothers nonetheless who would die to protect each other... and when I see BLM chanting: "What do we want?  DEAD COPS!  When do we want it?  NOW!" that gets my back up... and it gets HIS back up, too!  We were talking on the phone just a couple of days ago, and he said, "BLM doesn't speak for me!" and spent several minutes lamenting to me how many friends and family have condemned him because he's tried to express his opinion that he sees BLM as just another group with a racist agenda.  I made a gently good-natured gibe about how I was glad he was the one who'd said it, and he said: "If it's truth when I say it, why isn't it truth when YOU say it???"  There was some discussion of the famous aphorism of "I may not agree with what you say but I shall defend to the death your right to say it," and lamenting that our nation seems to have forgotten how important that can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your partner doesn't side with BLM and he's African American?  Obviously being  in a position of power has clouded his mind.  I bet in a heartbeat if black police officers were gunning down whites in the street simply because they did not want to be arrested that you would protest and cry racism in a heartbeat.

 

As for your obsession with guns, gun culture is tantamount to toxic masculinity and you might not know it, but you are part of the problem. I can understand 1 gun for protection, by bragging about how well you and your wife can shoot and how far is dangerous.  Planning on killing from a distance?? That's murder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DumptheTrump said:

So your partner doesn't side with BLM and he's African American?  Obviously being  in a position of power has clouded his mind.  I bet in a heartbeat if black police officers were gunning down whites in the street simply because they did not want to be arrested that you would protest and cry racism in a heartbeat.

 

As for your obsession with guns, gun culture is tantamount to toxic masculinity and you might not know it, but you are part of the problem. I can understand 1 gun for protection, by bragging about how well you and your wife can shoot and how far is dangerous.  Planning on killing from a distance?? That's murder

 

There are a lot of blacks and African Americans who don't support BLM; not only don't support, but openly oppose due to their extremist rhetoric and actions.  No, police should NEVER base their actions on race, and yes, it happens and officers who engage in it should not only be fired but prosecuted for civil rights violations.  But, when BLM stands up, engaging in calls for violence in response to legally justifiable police shootings where officers used deadly force legitimately, that's not right either.

 

And forgive me, but I just roll my eyes when people speak of my "obsession" with guns, or try to feed me catch phrases like "toxic masculinity."  It's just more hyperbole and empty rhetoric.  You say I'm "part of the problem" but honestly the far more dangerous and insidious problem is the attitude that finds being knowledgeable about firearms and tactics distasteful.  It's ironic we've been talking about this, because I just had a huge example get thrown in my face; my wife just began a new job at the local middle school working with special needs children. Classes start next week, so she is going through orientation this week. The first thing on the agenda as they began the orientation yesterday was a training class on dealing with a possible violent event at the school. My wife, who spent years in the private security field and is as formidable as she is beautiful, was excited to be involved, as the instructors were high level SWAT officers and it looked to be very advanced and substantive training.

Good part of it: she wowed the instructors with what she was capable of. In the very first scenario she ambushed the "gunman" as he came through the classroom door, caught the barrel of the simulated rifle, delivered two hard shots to the throat area (the "bad guy" was in protective gear), one to the groin, and she was now the one holding the rifle as the "bad guy" was down on the ground looking up at her astonishment. The SWAT guys loved it, but the other school personnel looked at my wife like she had a second head. The teachers and school staff whined and complained about being subjected to such a thing, to the extent that several said they were going to file protests with the union for being forced to take training that made them feel "triggered" due to the "implied violence". They were horrified that my wife should know what she knows. They would talk about trying to "talk the shooter down" and how to "establish a dialogue". One scenario involved the shockingly easy task of choosing which door to go through to get out of the building, and my wife went to the door that kept her from being exposed to incoming fire... and the rest of the staff kept running into the line of fire because the door that exposed them to the gunman was closer by three steps! Teachers said they would run out and leave the kids because they weren't "paid enough" to "worry about someone else's kids!" One of the cops almost had a stroke, as his own child is starting classes there this year! I find myself disgusted by the whole thing, that such a mindset as these people demonstrated should ever have been allowed to become acceptable.  I mean, seriously! "Triggered"?? Really??  It's a rationalization for cowardice, plain and simple; something I find offensive in the extreme.

Long story short, my wife was approached and asked if she was willing to take the training to act as the school's "Resource Officer" (basically supplemental security). She'll get her own sidearm, provided by the city, to keep in a lockbox at the school that she'll be able to access in the event of an emergency. The city hasn't approved certification of actual concealed carry, but they've wanted to find someone to handle the position for five years and none of the other school personnel were interested. I guess we can be happy she'll at least get a pay differential for it.

 

As far as your comments about my "bragging".  Sorry, I don't see where I ever "bragged."  I am knowledgeable about firearms, yes.  I have a lifetime of experiences with them, due to having a police officer grandfather and a personal history of work in the security and law-enforcement fields.  Yes, I do pursue excellence in my skills with firearms.  I always remember my grandfather talking about how if his gun was being drawn that meant lives were at stake, and if you were going to carry a gun it was your duty to make sure you were as skilled and capable with that firearm as you could be.  Like anyone who studies a martial art (and yes, tactical and defensive shooting is rightfully considered part of of martial arts) I'm proud of the skill I've developed over the years.  And speaking of being able to shoot with skill at longer ranges, as is common in competition and field shooting, is not "dangerous".  It is not indicative of any desire to "kill from a distance"; unless one is talking about hunting, of course.  On the other hand, I know an individual who was also a LEO who was engaged by a felon with a hunting rifle from 250 yards and returned fire with his personally owned carbine, terminating the threat.  That wasn't murder; it was self-defense, and it was ruled justifiable.

 

Just an alternate viewpoint for you to consider. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with you about the BLM stuff you said in the beginning, but I have no counter argument about anything else you said.  I guess you make some valid points.  And your wife sounds badass! :)

 

How would you recommend going about getting more comfortable with firearms? Maybe o just need to try shooting with more women

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, DumptheTrump said:

I disagree with you about the BLM stuff you said in the beginning, but I have no counter argument about anything else you said.  I guess you make some valid points.  And your wife sounds badass! :)

 

I do appreciate that!  And my wife is indeed one badass and amazing lady!  ;)   I met her when we were both working in private security; I was the patrol officer on duty and she was working at a local hotel.  She radioed in to say she was dealing with a couple of unpleasant drunks, and needed backup.  When I arrived, I found this beautiful woman with a no-nonsense expression on her face, with one knee on the back of a handcuffed subject facedown on the floor, and a second individual sitting on a chair holding ice to his broken nose.  She's all of 5 foot 4, and the shortest of the guys was 6'2" and both guys were over 200 pounds.  The security camera footage showed them being belligerent and shoving other patrons around.  She steps in to talk them down, and they tried to high/low her.  In about a half second she'd dropped both.  I knew I'd found the lady for me!  LOL!

 

17 hours ago, DumptheTrump said:

How would you recommend going about getting more comfortable with firearms? Maybe o just need to try shooting with more women

 

I think the best thing here is to achieve familiarity is good, patient instruction.  I joke that I was the "Sorority Firearms Instructor" in college, because I took a lady I had a Criminal Justice class with out to introduce her to shooting, and she had such a good time she told all her sorority sisters about it and I spent the next semester taking an ever-evolving series of women to the range.  Every one of them had stories about some idiotic father/uncle/brother/boyfriend taking them out, handing them some firearm that was way too much for a beginning shooter, giving them no instruction whatsoever, and then laughing uproariously when it inevitably went badly.  I guess you can look at such behavior as that, and the term "toxic masculinity" definitely can apply!

 

I would start them off with the basics, with a firearm perfectly suited for a new shooter, and by the end of the day had them firing full-powered, substantial firearms with confidence and accuracy.  All it took was doing it the right way.  As a former LEO I often get asked by people what's a good "lady's gun" and my response to that is usually, "depends on the lady."  After all, with proper training a woman can handle any firearm a man can...and generally, all else being equal, if you have a woman and a man with the same level of training and experience, the woman will outshoot the man more often than not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spartan said:

 

I do appreciate that!  And my wife is indeed one badass and amazing lady!  ;)   I met her when we were both working in private security; I was the patrol officer on duty and she was working at a local hotel.  She radioed in to say she was dealing with a couple of unpleasant drunks, and needed backup.  When I arrived, I found this beautiful woman with a no-nonsense expression on her face, with one knee on the back of a handcuffed subject facedown on the floor, and a second individual sitting on a chair holding ice to his broken nose.  She's all of 5 foot 4, and the shortest of the guys was 6'2" and both guys were over 200 pounds.  The security camera footage showed them being belligerent and shoving other patrons around.  She steps in to talk them down, and they tried to high/low her.  In about a half second she'd dropped both.  I knew I'd found the lady for me!  LOL!

 

 

I think the best thing here is to achieve familiarity is good, patient instruction.  I joke that I was the "Sorority Firearms Instructor" in college, because I took a lady I had a Criminal Justice class with out to introduce her to shooting, and she had such a good time she told all her sorority sisters about it and I spent the next semester taking an ever-evolving series of women to the range.  Every one of them had stories about some idiotic father/uncle/brother/boyfriend taking them out, handing them some firearm that was way too much for a beginning shooter, giving them no instruction whatsoever, and then laughing uproariously when it inevitably went badly.  I guess you can look at such behavior as that, and the term "toxic masculinity" definitely can apply!

 

I would start them off with the basics, with a firearm perfectly suited for a new shooter, and by the end of the day had them firing full-powered, substantial firearms with confidence and accuracy.  All it took was doing it the right way.  As a former LEO I often get asked by people what's a good "lady's gun" and my response to that is usually, "depends on the lady."  After all, with proper training a woman can handle any firearm a man can...and generally, all else being equal, if you have a woman and a man with the same level of training and experience, the woman will outshoot the man more often than not.

Right now I have an old smith and Wesson model-10 that used to be my "father's".  It's from the 1970's and I shoot it every now and then but I realize that 6 shots is not enough 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, DumptheTrump said:

Right now I have an old smith and Wesson model-10 that used to be my "father's".  It's from the 1970's and I shoot it every now and then but I realize that 6 shots is not enough 

 

My grandfather got me started on S&W revolvers when I was young; they were his preferred duty sidearm, and I've always had a soft spot in my heart for them.  It would be hard to find a serious firearm that's as fundamentally satisfying to shoot as a model 10, or as easy to utilize to introduce someone to shooting.  A good target wadcutter load has very little recoil and blast, and is exceptionally accurate.  I have a Pre-model 15 that was my grandfather's (basically the model 10 with adjustable target sights, called the Combat Masterpiece before S&W went to the model numbering system they use now; the Model 10 was called the "Military & Police"), and that one shoots like a laser with the right loads in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

My grandfather got me started on S&W revolvers when I was young; they were his preferred duty sidearm, and I've always had a soft spot in my heart for them.  It would be hard to find a serious firearm that's as fundamentally satisfying to shoot as a model 10, or as easy to utilize to introduce someone to shooting.  A good target wadcutter load has very little recoil and blast, and is exceptionally accurate.  I have a Pre-model 15 that was my grandfather's (basically the model 10 with adjustable target sights, called the Combat Masterpiece before S&W went to the model numbering system they use now; the Model 10 was called the "Military & Police"), and that one shoots like a laser with the right loads in it.

I went to a local gun range this morning and signed up for a ladies only pistol course on Saturday. Here's the description:

 

Ladies – this class is designed with you in mind. Even with little or no experience you will get firearm training in a professional, yet non-aggressive environment. The goal of this informative class is to practice gun safety techniques, discuss the differences between handguns, understand firearm nomenclature and employ correct shooting fundamentals. The first portion of this class will be dedicated to classroom instruction during which participants are encouraged to ask all the handgun related questions they like. Following the classroom instruction, participants will have the opportunity to shoot a revolver and a semi-automatic handgun. Overall, this class provides a great foundation of knowledge for the beginning woman shooter.

Course Requirements:

  • You must be at least 21 years of age
  • Handguns, ammunition and eye and ear protection will be provided by OnTarget
  • Personal firearms are allowed and encouraged
  • Wear proper shooting attire (crew neck shirt and closed toe, high traction shoes) for range portion of class
  • Bring a readiness to learn and a great attitude!

All inclusive calibers include .22LR, 9mm, .38 SPL, .40 S&W and .45 ACP.

A FOID card is not necessary for introductory courses or out-of-state residents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

My grandfather got me started on S&W revolvers when I was young; they were his preferred duty sidearm, and I've always had a soft spot in my heart for them.  It would be hard to find a serious firearm that's as fundamentally satisfying to shoot as a model 10, or as easy to utilize to introduce someone to shooting.  A good target wadcutter load has very little recoil and blast, and is exceptionally accurate.  I have a Pre-model 15 that was my grandfather's (basically the model 10 with adjustable target sights, called the Combat Masterpiece before S&W went to the model numbering system they use now; the Model 10 was called the "Military & Police"), and that one shoots like a laser with the right loads in it.

I went to a local gun range this morning and signed up for a ladies only pistol course on Saturday. Here's the description:

 

Ladies – this class is designed with you in mind. Even with little or no experience you will get firearm training in a professional, yet non-aggressive environment. The goal of this informative class is to practice gun safety techniques, discuss the differences between handguns, understand firearm nomenclature and employ correct shooting fundamentals. The first portion of this class will be dedicated to classroom instruction during which participants are encouraged to ask all the handgun related questions they like. Following the classroom instruction, participants will have the opportunity to shoot a revolver and a semi-automatic handgun. Overall, this class provides a great foundation of knowledge for the beginning woman shooter.

Course Requirements:

  • You must be at least 21 years of age
  • Handguns, ammunition and eye and ear protection will be provided by OnTarget
  • Personal firearms are allowed and encouraged
  • Wear proper shooting attire (crew neck shirt and closed toe, high traction shoes) for range portion of class
  • Bring a readiness to learn and a great attitude!

All inclusive calibers include .22LR, 9mm, .38 SPL, .40 S&W and .45 ACP.

A FOID card is not necessary for introductory courses or out-of-state residents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DumptheTrump said:

I went to a local gun range this morning and signed up for a ladies only pistol course on Saturday. Here's the description:

 

Ladies – this class is designed with you in mind. Even with little or no experience you will get firearm training in a professional, yet non-aggressive environment. The goal of this informative class is to practice gun safety techniques, discuss the differences between handguns, understand firearm nomenclature and employ correct shooting fundamentals. The first portion of this class will be dedicated to classroom instruction during which participants are encouraged to ask all the handgun related questions they like. Following the classroom instruction, participants will have the opportunity to shoot a revolver and a semi-automatic handgun. Overall, this class provides a great foundation of knowledge for the beginning woman shooter.

Course Requirements:

  • You must be at least 21 years of age
  • Handguns, ammunition and eye and ear protection will be provided by OnTarget
  • Personal firearms are allowed and encouraged
  • Wear proper shooting attire (crew neck shirt and closed toe, high traction shoes) for range portion of class
  • Bring a readiness to learn and a great attitude!

All inclusive calibers include .22LR, 9mm, .38 SPL, .40 S&W and .45 ACP.

A FOID card is not necessary for introductory courses or out-of-state residents.

 

Very nice!  That ought to be a good class!  I'm looking forward to hearing how it goes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

Very nice!  That ought to be a good class!  I'm looking forward to hearing how it goes!

I'll definitely post about it.  Kind of nervous since I bet a lot of right wingers will be there, but I'm putting politics aside 100% for it. I was browsing the web a lot today and I'm amazed on how guns and shooting is being marketed towards women and that they even compete in events!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DumptheTrump said:

I'll definitely post about it.  Kind of nervous since I bet a lot of right wingers will be there, but I'm putting politics aside 100% for it. I was browsing the web a lot today and I'm amazed on how guns and shooting is being marketed towards women and that they even compete in events!!

 

You might be surprised at the makeup of the class, and how inclusive they tend to be.  I've shot competition for years, and have friends from all over the political spectrum who compete as well.  Shooting and gun ownership are not the partisan activities too many make it out to be; though admittedly, at the national level the divide is obvious.

 

I'm happy to see the numbers of women in the shooting sports grow!  I've always known women who were avid shooters and competitors, but they were definitely in the minority.  That is starting to change now, and classes dedicated to addressing the rapidly expanding number of women interested are growing quickly.  Believe it or not, some of our top Olympic athletes are women shooters!  Kim Rhode, for example  She is a six-time medal winner in the Olympics, including three gold medals, and she's a six-time national champion in double trap. She is the most successful female shooter at the Olympics as the only triple Olympic Champion and the only woman to have won two Olympic gold medals for Double Trap. She won a gold medal in skeet shooting in 2012, equaling the world record of 99 out of 100 clays.[  Most recently, she won the bronze medal at the Rio 2016 Olympics, making her the first Olympian to win a medal on five different continents, the first Summer Olympian to win an individual medal at six consecutive summer games, and the first woman to medal in six consecutive Olympics. 

 

Then you have Jessie Duff,  who's recognized as one of the most accomplished competition shooters in the world. She took bronze in the Lady Open division at the 2011 IPSC World Shoot, and is known to be the first female shooter to achieve the rank of Grand Master in the USPSA.  She achieved the rank of GM in USPSA's Open division. In earning this prestigious classification, she had to achieve an average of 95% or higher in the classification courses. Duff competes in multiple shooting disciplines which include USPSA, IPSC, Steel Challenge and NRA Action Pistol. She began shooting in Cowboy Action Shooting and transitioned to more modern disciplines, through 3-Gun and Steel challenge. She has won more championship tiles at the state, regional, national, and world competitions than any other female shooter.

 

So, good luck at your class!  Can't wait to read your review!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

You might be surprised at the makeup of the class, and how inclusive they tend to be.  I've shot competition for years, and have friends from all over the political spectrum who compete as well.  Shooting and gun ownership are not the partisan activities too many make it out to be; though admittedly, at the national level the divide is obvious.

 

I'm happy to see the numbers of women in the shooting sports grow!  I've always known women who were avid shooters and competitors, but they were definitely in the minority.  That is starting to change now, and classes dedicated to addressing the rapidly expanding number of women interested are growing quickly.  Believe it or not, some of our top Olympic athletes are women shooters!  Kim Rhode, for example  She is a six-time medal winner in the Olympics, including three gold medals, and she's a six-time national champion in double trap. She is the most successful female shooter at the Olympics as the only triple Olympic Champion and the only woman to have won two Olympic gold medals for Double Trap. She won a gold medal in skeet shooting in 2012, equaling the world record of 99 out of 100 clays.[  Most recently, she won the bronze medal at the Rio 2016 Olympics, making her the first Olympian to win a medal on five different continents, the first Summer Olympian to win an individual medal at six consecutive summer games, and the first woman to medal in six consecutive Olympics. 

 

Then you have Jessie Duff,  who's recognized as one of the most accomplished competition shooters in the world. She took bronze in the Lady Open division at the 2011 IPSC World Shoot, and is known to be the first female shooter to achieve the rank of Grand Master in the USPSA.  She achieved the rank of GM in USPSA's Open division. In earning this prestigious classification, she had to achieve an average of 95% or higher in the classification courses. Duff competes in multiple shooting disciplines which include USPSA, IPSC, Steel Challenge and NRA Action Pistol. She began shooting in Cowboy Action Shooting and transitioned to more modern disciplines, through 3-Gun and Steel challenge. She has won more championship tiles at the state, regional, national, and world competitions than any other female shooter.

 

So, good luck at your class!  Can't wait to read your review!

 

 

I've decided that I'm going to bring my own revolver with me to get more familiar with it.  I do carry it in my purse (legally, I passed the concealed carry course which involves a shooting portion as well), but I know there are much more modern guns that would probably suit my needs better.  My partner is not really too happy about me going (she disagrees with guns 100%, but she hasnt been through some of the things I've been through).  She actually called me a gun nut last night.  Far from and really uncalled for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2017 at 8:33 AM, DumptheTrump said:

I've decided that I'm going to bring my own revolver with me to get more familiar with it.  I do carry it in my purse (legally, I passed the concealed carry course which involves a shooting portion as well), but I know there are much more modern guns that would probably suit my needs better.  My partner is not really too happy about me going (she disagrees with guns 100%, but she hasnt been through some of the things I've been through).  She actually called me a gun nut last night.  Far from and really uncalled for

 

It's always a good idea to learn your own gun inside and out.  It makes it easier to use when you're under stress and hammering with adrenaline.

 

I'm sorry your partner expressed herself the way she did.  But, some people have such a powerfully negative visceral reaction to them I suppose it's not surprising; I've seen people who love each other say some astonishingly hurtful things when the subject turns to things they have a deep-seated resistance to.  Let's be honest, people fear crime and violence, and some people see guns as the very embodiment of such things; not realizing that guns in the hands of honest citizens can save lives.  If they fear the violence but think the gun itself is the source of it, then they will hate the gun irrationally, and lash out at anyone who so much as implies that a gun might be a beneficial thing to have around... even if that person is someone they care about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No holds barred chat

  • Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • grgle



  • Where’s at @slideman?


  • Hola


  • I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • Where does it say 2?


  • So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • Mine too. 


  • I thought it was my location.. 


  • Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • OK thanks

     



  • Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


  • By teacher

    All lives matter.


  • By teacher

    Double post deleted.


  • By teacher

    Scroll the other way for a while and you'll see me saying that these days the chat box ain't gonna work as one has to be quick on one's feet. The question is posed, there ain't no stinkin time for ya'll to refer to your betters for the answer, ya'll don't understand these things, this political debate, ya'll don't have the answer at hand, ya'll haven't thought this through, ya'll ain't ready for the next question I'll ask,  ya'll can't handle the pace that a bloke such as I can bring it in the chat box, ya'll can't handle this format.

     

    This one is made for me. 


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...