SABRES 0311

There you go again. It most certainly was a joke. And by the way I'm not some far right nut running around saying they are going to take our guns. My point has always been no restriction will completely stop these things from happening. Therefore I would guess people will continue to call for restrictions but at what point would the line be drawn? Furthermore, when the other poster I was predominately going back and forth with made their point of view very clear you equate it to an evolved mindset. Now I will admit that I may be taking it the wrong way but it sounded as though you were indirectly saying any other thinking is archaic. In another post I mentioned I thought it was interesting May's announcement of her departure came very close to the time Trump announced decalss of FISA docs. You then equate it to illuminati conspiracy theories even though I only mentioned it was interesting but did not say one was the result of the other. Prior to that I got pissed about AOC's scare tactics about the world ending in 12 years and called her a name which I admit was unbecoming of both proper etiquette and my profession. I get you have some obligation for this site and from time to time a reminder needs to be sent out. What I don't need is a scolding followed with an "Are we clear" like I'm your kid. I am not looking to change anyone's mind on any issue. To be honest posters here have made me think about some things in a different light and I get some topics can get heated where a taking a step back is the right thing to do. You on the other hand seem to have a particular issue with me. I'm not looking to have a drink with you but I am more than willing to give you an opportunity to deal with whatever personal issue you have like a man rather than online. That's cool if you don't agree with my POV but don't sit there and come at someone like that and not expect to get called out.

Seeing as it’s D-Day I recommenced the movie “Ike”. If you haven’t seen it it’s the behind the scenes planning of Operation Overlord. From the appointment of Eisenhower as Supreme Allied Commander to execution of the operation. It even has General Patton.

I’ve said a few times I respect someone else’s differing opinion or even admitted to agreeing with them. In this instance I agreed with someone on a topic where on other aspects we did not. As soon as he saw a little bit of two sides building a commonality he jumps in. Then when I make a clear joke in response to a question I cannot answer he gives a dbag response. He has asked on two occasions if I understand his directions as those he is some moral authority with superior ideology in life. Apparently I do not so if the opportunity is there for him to better explain why would I deny that opportunity. I don’t know how you took it.

It was a joke. But there are plenty of videos of ANTIFA using those words to shout people down they don't agree with. You can delete what you want. In case I’m not understanding or digging I will be in WNY by 10 July. As this is the second time you have gone that route with me maybe I need an in person explanation.

A lot of SJWs blocking traffic at state lines. ANTIFA can force people to consent to searches by using all the buzzwords like bigot, racist, fascist, and homophobe. I dunno how you stop illegal transfers. Do I look like LE to you? How do you think it should be done?

I agree illegal transfers are a huge factor in gun related violent crimes.

So you have an issue with multiple states’ voter laws and/or their initiatives. Since you can’t do anything about it because you are not a resident of those states you want the federal government to step in and take care of it for you. You want the same organization who didn’t do anything about Russian interference to have even more say in how things go for voting. I don’t know if you have noticed but the government is historically unreliable on voting rights and security. What I really don’t understand is why people are all about more federal laws. If you don’t like what is happening in your state then convince your state to change its laws. If it’s not your state then let the residents there figure out what works for them. Take gun laws for example. People don’t like 15 and 30 round mags because of mass shootings. They want DC to save the day and pass more laws. Well if those laws work for your state it’s great. What if those laws don’t sit too well in another? Prople don’t agree with what a state they don’t live in is doing on voting rights so they want someone to make it right in their eyes. Better run the government to make me feel better.

Then who do you think should decide and what do you think the answer is?

Looks like initial reports about this guy were a little off. Either way I don’t think he will be participating in discussions anytime soon. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/06/03/asia/north-korea-diplomats-intl/index.html

I dunno. I would guess those answers would come from a state legislature. What’s your plan? Thats cool if you value voting more than owning a gun. I’d say they are equally important.

Bold prediction. I like it and if you are right we are going to have a chat about lottery numbers.

I appreciate your confidence in my marksmanship capabilities against potentially multiple moving targets while under stress. Call me selfish all you want. You don’t know me anymore than I know you. You are probably right in one sense though and I’ll accept it.

Well I haven’t paid a price yet. Correction. I have submitted to Japanese and U.S. laws by not bringing whatever weapon(s) I have into Japan.

Hey I never said you need to agree. I’m keeping what I have and know how to use responsibly. You can do what you want.

I’ll stick with 15 in the mag and one in the chamber. The reality is those who are prepared win.

I honestly have spent about five minutes total listening to what the NRA has to say and that is only from the news. My thoughts are my own. With that said I respect your opinion and respectfully disagree on some points. I don't think "the sky is falling" I just see people calling for more and more restrictions if/when shootings continue with restrictions in place even if those shootings are smaller in scale due those restrictions. If anything people will say the restrictions had a positive impact which justifies more and more restrictions. Sounds like you have an accepted set of controls you would like to see enforced as do I. I think you should be required to attend formal training and I support a criminal background check. So the question is where do we draw the line on gun restrictions? As with guns I support voter ID laws. That doesn't mean I support everything but you should have to prove you are a U.S. citizen. I would think a drivers license could do that but I don't know every states requirements for issuing a license. If you had to prove your citizenship prior to issue it should be accepted. Maybe states could issue state IDs like the military does for its personnel and their dependents. This would at least cover those people who do not or cannot obtain a drivers license. Bottom line is there should be laws that ensure your rights are protected while also protecting against criminal behavior.

Sounds like a good topic for a separate thread. I’ll bite though. What is an acceptable voter registration criteria? What do you not agree with for each southern state?

Take away guns or restricting access and crazy people/criminals will find a way. Then comes the call for more restrictions and the cycle continues. Where is the line drawn? How far are we willing to go in sacrificing rights for a sense of perceived/promised security? To your last comment I completely disagree with that assessment. Every force has its centers of gravity and vulnerabilities. In this case I think the biggest factor is moral appeal to the military. Essentially is the citizen’s cause in line with the individual service member’s values. As for violence of action and efficiency, that revolves around skill and mindset. Both can be taught. The type and effectiveness of weaponry is 100% dependent on the willingness to employ which for this scenario would be heavily degraded for all parties involved with the exception of war mongers. This reminds me of Swalwell’s comments a while back.

Skinner and Eichel after getting matching Stanley Cup Champions tattoos.

At this point they are trying to separate themselves from each other and get ahead. If they all say the same thing it makes it harder to stand out. With the exception of Robert O'Rourke they are low energy people so I think Biden gets the nod from the DNC as the safest bet.

For me it’s not just what the law says. Criminals will ignore it so essentially it would impact law abiding citizens. Even then some would choose to become criminals rather than obey something they perceive as infringement on 2A. I just think at the state level a person’s voice would be louder than it is in DC. For criminals the black market prices would go up but won’t deter violent acts. We see it in Europe and in Boston that you don’t need a gun if you are a determined psycho. Therefore, why should a good person, trained in firearms be subjected to more restrictions when the people those restrictions are meant to deter will simply ignore them. We already have laws against murder. Don’t make more laws impacting good people’s ability to defend themselves. Im not disagreeing on the interstate issue or the corruption of the industry. Just putting my point of view out there.

In light of the VA Beach shooting the issue of gun control is back in the lime light. Well, sort of. It seems like it’s not being talked about as much as it was after the Parkland shooting. Or maybe I’m not watching TV enough. I agree there are some people who should not have a firearm be it mental instability or history of violent crimes. What I don’t agree with is more federal laws. Instead I think it should be on the states individually to enforce/enact whatever laws they see fit. What works for the residence of Texas may not be the same as New York.

Haha Richard Noggin.

Trump Train. Specifically I like how he is at least trying something different with NOKO. It may not work but if you send young guys to fight it should be the last resort. He openly stated he doesn’t want regime change in Iran which I also like because nation building sucks. He seems to really support Israel too. I get they have political issues in their own country but their people live in the lion’s den and historically dealt with a lot of hardships. They are fighters and resilient which I respect. I think the Republicans will continue backing him so long as the Russia thing can be spun. Right now the message is no wrong doing on his part but massive corruption in the DoJ and intel community. If that well dries up I see them jumping ship. Honestly I can’t support any party as a whole. The joker said it best in the Dark Knight when speaking to Harvey Dent. Best example I could think of. However I do not like the tariffs. I think they are a waste of time. That said I myself don’t have a solution so it probably makes me sound like a whiner.

If we were to get an experienced 2C to pair Sam with I might just cry. Eichel/Skinner and Sam/2C. It’s like a Katy Perry teenage dream.