Spurs' Gregg Popovich responds to March For Our Lives, criticizes President Trump

[cd98]

At least with alcohol we can say we tried and it didn't work out, tbh...

Yes, but to turn the tables, how many innocent persons that could have protected themselves with a gun will die at the hands of a criminal because the government took away their guns to "do something" about mass shootings, which have been in decline for the last several years?

[cd98]

There was much debate about the meaning of militia in the part you conveniently don't quote in the Federalist and such ie where Madison etc would argue and explain the constitution and bill of rights.

I know you think it is cut and dry because you are parroting NRA propaganda but it isn't. The whole check on tyranny that you buffoons like to wave your hands at was discussed in the ability of static armed militias to counter tyrants. It wasn't Red Dawn they were thinking. Nevermind they loathed the idea of a standing national army and how modern day conservatives are clueless towards intent.

That is why they included the well regulated language because the intent was not a free for all.

Then of course there is the idea of competing rights. The right to bear arms is enumerated but so is the right to life and the obligation of the state to maintain security. It's all in the constitution. Personally I think they need to close the corporate loophole and put semiautos with the tanks, autos, grenades and rocket launchers.

If you cannot protect your family with a pump action shotgun or a revolver then you have no business with any weapon at all and should jsut call po-po.

Yep, the Po Po will be there in time to recover your corpse and start an investigation with small chance of finding the person who killed you.

[Killakobe81]

Yep, the Po Po will be there in time to recover your corpse and start an investigation with small chance of finding the person who killed you.

if there was a home invasion pretty sure a shotgun or handgun will be sufficient ..
you gonna stand at the top of the stairs and try to pick them off from range? try and funnell them in to your line of sight?

[ducks]

https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/29542901_1687278937987643_4127159410280267111_n.jp g?_nc_cat=0&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=4571aa9c9e31005eef7b22c468a0b634&oe=5B73E2EC

[Nathan89]

https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/29542901_1687278937987643_4127159410280267111_n.jp g?_nc_cat=0&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=4571aa9c9e31005eef7b22c468a0b634&oe=5B73E2EC

Just search New Hampshire demographics and you'll the key contributing factor to that.

[benefactor]

https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/29542901_1687278937987643_4127159410280267111_n.jp g?_nc_cat=0&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=4571aa9c9e31005eef7b22c468a0b634&oe=5B73E2EC
No one is clicking on your horseshit memes you brain damaged faggot

[bic50]

There was much debate about the meaning of militia in the part you conveniently don't quote in the Federalist and such ie where Madison etc would argue and explain the constitution and bill of rights.

I know you think it is cut and dry because you are parroting NRA propaganda but it isn't. The whole check on tyranny that you buffoons like to wave your hands at was discussed in the ability of static armed militias to counter tyrants. It wasn't Red Dawn they were thinking. Nevermind they loathed the idea of a standing national army and how modern day conservatives are clueless towards intent.

That is why they included the well regulated language because the intent was not a free for all.

Then of course there is the idea of competing rights. The right to bear arms is enumerated but so is the right to life and the obligation of the state to maintain security. It's all in the constitution. Personally I think they need to close the corporate loophole and put semiautos with the tanks, autos, grenades and rocket launchers.

If you cannot protect your family with a pump action shotgun or a revolver then you have no business with any weapon at all and should jsut call po-po.
All semi autos? So you even want .22 gone. Wouldn't a revolver technically be a semi auto ?

[coachmac87]

There was much debate about the meaning of militia in the part you conveniently don't quote in the Federalist and such ie where Madison etc would argue and explain the constitution and bill of rights.

I know you think it is cut and dry because you are parroting NRA propaganda but it isn't. The whole check on tyranny that you buffoons like to wave your hands at was discussed in the ability of static armed militias to counter tyrants. It wasn't Red Dawn they were thinking. Nevermind they loathed the idea of a standing national army and how modern day conservatives are clueless towards intent.

That is why they included the well regulated language because the intent was not a free for all.

Then of course there is the idea of competing rights. The right to bear arms is enumerated but so is the right to life and the obligation of the state to maintain security. It's all in the constitution. Personally I think they need to close the corporate loophole and put semiautos with the tanks, autos, grenades and rocket launchers.

If you cannot protect your family with a pump action shotgun or a revolver then you have no business with any weapon at all and should jsut call po-po.



Crazy people will then just kill people with revolvers and pumps....

Cool story bro

[spurraider21]

Your lack of understanding of our history and what the Constitution means to our representative republic is appalling. The Constitution is the highest and most powerful document in our country. You act like it is toilet paper written by fossils.
:sleep

This is just a throwaway emotional rant like whining about tide pods. I know what the constitution is. You confused it with the Declaration of Independence and started getting religious about it. All of these rights are given by the founding fathers.

Even with constitutional rights, they have always, always been subject to limitation and regulation.


I will never understand the left's fetish with banning guns, I own several and am highly trained and skilled in using them and may save your ass one day. And how ironic that abortion kills many many multiples more of children every year but I dont see a March for Life to stop abortion. Leftist are hypocrites and the worst kind, the self righteous ones that will try and bully you with "think of the children" arguments and simultaneously ignore the fact that they support baby killing. But hey you dont see me belly aching about repealing your Constitutional rights to abortion (that doesnt exist). Imagine the outcry. Go read a history book please.
You are bellyaching about a right to abortion that you say doesn’t exist while saying you don’t bellyache about abortion. Not to mention that bringing up abortion is a total red herring in a conversation about gun control.

The fetish with gun control (not banning all guns or confiscating all guns. You can keep saying that, but doesn’t make it true) comes from the realization that committing murder and more specifically, mass murder, is maddeningly easy in this country compared to any other western industrialized country which is why we have more of these incidents than any other western industrialized country.

[spurraider21]

Again, I'll never own an AR-15, but you are in favor of banning all AR-15s in hopes that it might stop one incident and that is good enough to pass a law. First, if you ban AR-15s, that doesn't mean that the minority of people that would commit violent crimes with them can't get their hands on it and even if it is hypothetically more difficult, we don't know how difficult. Drugs are illegal and they aren't that hard to get. Also, when you start passing laws because it might save one life, then you go down a slippery slope. There are lots of things that could be banned if it could just save one life. Yet you wouldn't ban swimming pools or certain types of cars or any number of things that take more lives (intentionally and accidentally) than guns.

I'm not a gun advocate and I'll never own a gun, but I just think its bad public policy to ban something that has little to no impact just for the sake of saying you are "doing something." I favor any reasonable gun control that will be effective for stopping gun violence. If banning AR-15s meant no more mass murders, then I'd be all for it. But the problem is that banning AR-15s won't stop them from being accessible on the black market and there will always be other weapons that take the place of the AR-15s.

And even if AR-15s stopped the mass gun violence, you would move the markers. Let's say there is gun violence where someone shoots 3 people on campus instead of 15. Aren't those three lives just as important as the 15. So how do we stop those three people from being shot? What guns can we ban to stop that?
I think the conversation specific to assault weapon regulation is designed to accomplish exactly the scenario you described. To mitigate damage. We can’t legislate away murder. Evil intent will always be there. But why make weapons of mass destruction so easily available to anybody who can snap at a moments notice and pull a Vegas.

[ducks]

Takes 5 minutes sometimes more to get to
Schools
Have teachers that pass concealed carry permits be allowed to carry in schools
They can stop the mass shootings

[Spurs 4 The Win]

:sleep

This is just a throwaway emotional rant like whining about tide pods. I know what the constitution is. You confused it with the Declaration of Independence and started getting religious about it. All of these rights are given by the founding fathers.

Even with constitutional rights, they have always, always been subject to limitation and regulation.


You are bellyaching about a right to abortion that you say doesn’t exist while saying you don’t bellyache about abortion. Not to mention that bringing up abortion is a total red herring in a conversation about gun control.

The fetish with gun control (not banning all guns or confiscating all guns. You can keep saying that, but doesn’t make it true) comes from the realization that committing murder and more specifically, mass murder, is maddeningly easy in this country compared to any other western industrialized country which is why we have more of these incidents than any other western industrialized country.

We also have the most freedom of any country in the world and actually have free speech. Look at England, take the guns and people will be jailed over facebook posts. Try to think past the nose on your face. There are serious consequences to confiscating all guns.

[Spurs 4 The Win]

Takes 5 minutes sometimes more to get to
Schools
Have teachers that pass concealed carry permits be allowed to carry in schools
They can stop the mass shootings

Thank you

[Spurs 4 The Win]

I think the conversation specific to assault weapon regulation is designed to accomplish exactly the scenario you described. To mitigate damage. We can’t legislate away murder. Evil intent will always be there. But why make weapons of mass destruction so easily available to anybody who can snap at a moments notice and pull a Vegas.

It is a micro percentage of a micro percentage, that is why and you dont make laws because of a couple of loons that punish law abiding citizens.

Lol, in the future people will be 3D printing guns and you are worried about stupid shit like "weapons of mass destruction" (what the fuck, do you think a semi auto rifle is a weapon of mass destruction?), get a grip. Do you know what "mass destruction" means lol

[ElNono]

Yes, but to turn the tables, how many innocent persons that could have protected themselves with a gun will die at the hands of a criminal because the government took away their guns to "do something" about mass shootings, which have been in decline for the last several years?

zero? regulating is not outright banning.

[Nathan89]

978339917829779456

March for our lives should be a march against bullying not against your right own guns. Damn shame that root issue isn't being focused on.

[Nathan89]

The end result of getting mercilessly bullied for over half a decade isn't pretty. Who would've thought?

[spurraider21]

It is a micro percentage of a micro percentage, that is why and you dont make laws because of a couple of loons that punish law abiding citizens.

Lol, in the future people will be 3D printing guns and you are worried about stupid shit like "weapons of mass destruction" (what the fuck, do you think a semi auto rifle is a weapon of mass destruction?), get a grip. Do you know what "mass destruction" means lol
Wasn’t referring to it in the GWB sense. It’s a capability to produce carnage on an unnecessary scale

[spurraider21]

We also have the most freedom of any country in the world and actually have free speech. Look at England, take the guns and people will be jailed over facebook posts. Try to think past the nose on your face. There are serious consequences to confiscating all guns.
That’s an insane leap.

If the British had guns their speech laws would be magically different? Would citizens be holding parliament at gunpoint? :lol... this is an absurd point

[Pavlov]

He said the policies proposed were ineffective. Why would respond as if it's absurd that they didn't support them?
So they support no proposed gun regulations and propose none of their own.

[Pavlov]

Again, it is the second amendment and if you knew history, the 2nd amendment was regarded as one of the most vital to viability of our country by the Founders. Additionally, you are correct, amendments have been made, but again it would take a 75% vote by the states to repeal it. I wish you luck on that journey should you decide to take it because it will be the death of the liberal party. There will not be 75% agreement on that issue in my lifetime.

What did that stupid outdated fossil George Washington say "“A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them. Which would include their own government.”


Long-term thinker that George Washington. Glad he set the precedent for two terms as well tbh.

On the other hand did he factor in the death of 17 kids? Surely that would change the equation drastically.:lol fake quote

Your side always ends up lying. It's inevitable.

[Spurs 4 The Win]

So they support no proposed gun regulations and propose none of their own.

Good news is, 2nd amendments keeps us from having to accept a bunch of regulations your side proposes without overwhelming support of the populace, which you dont have. The Democrat party is at its weakest point in decades, maybe its because you overreach and try to limit our freedoms and God given rights as Americans, maybe you should try a new strategy. Communism and gun grabbing isnt working too well for you.

[Pavlov]

Good news is, 2nd amendments keeps us from having to accept a bunch of regulations your side proposes without overwhelming support of the populace, which you dont have. The Democrat party is at its weakest point in decades, maybe its because you overreach and try to limit our freedoms and God given rights as Americans, maybe you should try a new strategy. Communism and gun grabbing isnt working too well for you.Making straw men and posting fake quotes isn't working well for you here tbh.

[ElNono]

:lol fake quote

Your side always ends up lying. It's inevitable.

George was really thinking that, even if he really didn't say it, tbh

[Nathan89]

:lol fake quote

Your side always ends up lying. It's inevitable.

You are correct it's a fake quote.

I never saw that quote before that dude posted it. I didn't need that quote prior to seeing it to come to my conclusion therefore it being fake changes nothing. I didn't need to lie. It was simply a mistake. "My side":lol As opposed to your side that includes suicide statistics to magnify and mislead? Meanwhile, I simple saw a quote that's insignificant to my position and liked it. Which you then proceeded to make a bigger deal than necessary to muddy the waters.

[Nathan89]

978339917829779456

March for our lives should be a march against bullying not against your right own guns. Damn shame that root issue isn't being focused on.

"The Department of Health and Human Services’s Stopbullying.gov (http://www.stopbullying.gov/index.html)website reports that the perpetrators of 12 of 15 school shootings in the 1990s had a history of being bullied."

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/bullying-victims-carry-weapons-guns/

smdh focusing on the wrong issues.

[Pavlov]

You are correct it's a fake quote.

I never saw that quote before that dude posted it. I didn't need that quote prior to seeing it to come to my conclusion therefore it being fake changes nothing. I didn't need to lie. It was simply a mistake. "My side":lol As opposed to your side that includes suicide statistics to magnify and mislead? Meanwhile, I simple saw a quote that's insignificant to my position and liked it. Which you then proceeded to make a bigger deal than necessary to muddy the waters.It was a lie you had no problem complimenting.

[Nathan89]

It was a lie you had no problem complimenting.

It was insignificant to my position. I had no reason to lie. You're just trying to muddy the waters.

"OMG, that's a lie. Your side always lies. You position basically built on lies."

Control yourself. It was insignificant. Next time just pointing out that something isn't accurate will be fine. Anything beyond that is childish.

[Uriel]

I love Pop and I agree with almost everything he says politically. But we're having a terrible season so I wish he would just focus on basketball.

[tholdren]

It was insignificant to my position. I had no reason to lie. You're just trying to muddy the waters.

"OMG, that's a lie. Your side always lies. You position basically built on lies."

Control yourself. It was insignificant. Next time just pointing out that something isn't accurate will be fine. Anything beyond that is childish.

Meltdown hours later. Youve got problems. I hope someone takes your guns

[K...]

. Even if they changed the age limit, it’s all a Band-Aid,” he said. “The obvious elephant in the room is the guns, weapons of war, the magazines. The real discussion should be about the Second Amendment. Is it useful? Does it serve its purpose the way it was supposed to do in the beginning? That discussion should be had.”

http://fxn.ws/2pLcKy9

Pop going in on deletion the 2a, good shit

[Spurs 4 The Win]

http://fxn.ws/2pLcKy9

Pop going in on deletion the 2a, good shit

Pop is borderline senile and in a constant state of intoxication. Please make the midterms about repealing the 2A and see what happens. Republicans will bury the Dems.

[cd98]

http://fxn.ws/2pLcKy9

Pop going in on deletion the 2a, good shit

It's funny because Pop is the real coward. Why isn't he calling out Obama for doing no gun reform when he had a super majority? Instead, he only raises his voice when its Trump because he knows the media will worship him for it. I'll give Pop some cred as a woke warrior when I hear him say Obama was a coward for not passing gun control laws when he had the opportunity. But we all know Pop doesn't have the courage to say anything that won't be instantly worshiped by the sycophant media that he pretends not to adore.

[Pavlov]

It was insignificant to my position. I had no reason to lie. You're just trying to muddy the waters.

"OMG, that's a lie. Your side always lies. You position basically built on lies."

Control yourself. It was insignificant. Next time just pointing out that something isn't accurate will be fine. Anything beyond that is childish.Your whining is insignificant. Your lying is significant.

[tholdren]

Your whining is insignificant. Your lying is significant.

Hes unable to converse without a meltdown

[Killakobe81]

It's funny because Pop is the real coward. Why isn't he calling out Obama for doing no gun reform when he had a super majority? Instead, he only raises his voice when its Trump because he knows the media will worship him for it. I'll give Pop some cred as a woke warrior when I hear him say Obama was a coward for not passing gun control laws when he had the opportunity. But we all know Pop doesn't have the courage to say anything that won't be instantly worshiped by the sycophant media that he pretends not to adore.

Even with a majority Obama's ass couldnt get any strict gun reform through. That majority will always put re-election above reform ..and we Americans love our guns.

[Bill_Brasky]

ITT: gun owners changing the argument and not addressing very simple, good points that favor better regulations for guns

[bic50]

http://fxn.ws/2pLcKy9

Pop going in on deletion the 2a, good shit
What weapons of war? :lol Pop is full of shit. The real elephant in the room is what's making these people want kill a mass of other people. Why doesn't pop want to discuss that?

[bic50]

ITT: gun owners changing the argument and not addressing very simple, good points that favor better regulations for guns
Because we all know what this is all about and what is going to lead to. It's obvious anti gun people want to just ban guns.

[Nathan89]

Pop is one of those people trying to ban all guns that you idiots say don't exist. :lmao

[Nathan89]

I wonder if he's going to take a hard stand against alcohol. Thousands die every year because of it.

[Phenomanul]

Simple points?

Like the fact that we already have laws against murder? But that those laws don't stop criminals from perpetrating crimes?

Simple enough like that one?

Or how about...

Crimes exist (home break-ins, assaults, theft, etc...) THEREFORE, our local law enforcement agencies aren't 100% effective at responding to crimes (expeditiously or otherwise). THE FACT THAT CRIMES EXIST at any rate above zero validates the notion that the government can't be depended on A) to protect every one, and B) to prevent all violent crime.

It's a simple truth that gun control proponents turn a blind eye to, because it justifies the need for citizens to protect themselves.

To punish law abiding folk with laws meant to target criminals is asinine. BECAUSE CRIMINALS INHERENTLY BREAK THE LAW. THEY DON'T CARE TO BREAK ONE MORE.

Gun control proponents simply don't have a logical retort for that argument. Their only argument on that front is: "if we restrict certain weapons from everybody, we don't care if it limits the freedoms of law-abiding citizens so long as 'bad' people have restricted access to them". The argument is rubbish because 'restricted access' means nothing to criminals. All that such laws would do is give criminal folk the upper hand against law-abiding folk.

Again, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS telling law-abiding, responsible folk, how best to protect themselves.

Gun control proponents don't have to like it. You all don't have to like it.

[Bill_Brasky]

I wonder if he's going to take a hard stand against alcohol. Thousands die every year because of it.

The fact that you cling to this weak non-argument is proof that you have no real point. Just stupid all around really.

[Bill_Brasky]

Simple points?

Like the fact that we already have laws against murder? But that those laws don't stop criminals from perpetrating crimes?

Simple enough like that one?

Or how about...

Crimes exist (home break-ins, assaults, theft, etc...) THEREFORE, our local law enforcement agencies aren't 100% effective at responding to crimes (expeditiously or otherwise). THE FACT THAT CRIMES EXIST at any rate above zero validates the notion that the government can't be depended on A) to protect every one, and B) to prevent all violent crime.

It's a simple truth that gun control proponents turn a blind eye to, because it justifies the need for citizens to protect themselves.

To punish law abiding folk with laws meant to target criminals is asinine. BECAUSE CRIMINALS INHERENTLY BREAK THE LAW. THEY DON'T CARE TO BREAK ONE MORE.

Gun control proponents simply don't have a logical retort for that argument. Their only argument on that front is: "if we restrict certain weapons from everybody, we don't care if it limits the freedoms of law-abiding citizens so long as 'bad' people have restricted access to them". The argument is rubbish because 'restricted access' means nothing to criminals. All that such laws would do is give criminal folk the upper hand against law-abiding folk.

Again, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS telling law-abiding, responsible folk, how best to protect themselves.

Gun control proponents don't have to like it. You all don't have to like it.

You're dumb.

Law abiding citizens would still be able to own guns with regulations you dipshit.

And yeah, since people still get murdered we should make murder not a crime. In fact, let's just not have any laws at all. Because obviously they aren't effective.

[bic50]

You're dumb.

Law abiding citizens would still be able to own guns with regulations you dipshit.

And yeah, since people still get murdered we should make murder not a crime. In fact, let's just not have any laws at all. Because obviously they aren't effective.
What kind of regulations?

[SupremeGuy]

I wonder if he's going to take a hard stand against alcohol. Thousands die every year because of it.:lmao

[Phenomanul]

You're dumb.

Law abiding citizens would still be able to own guns with regulations you dipshit.

And yeah, since people still get murdered we should make murder not a crime. In fact, let's just not have any laws at all. Because obviously they aren't effective.

Such reductionist stupidity.

The laws against murder carry the heftiest sentence across the land, BUT it still doesn't stop those hell bent on perpetrating murder.

The existence of those laws is absolutely necessary. You are making a false equivalence in suggesting that because criminals break the law, that then those laws aren't necessary. The opposite is true, but it doesn't suit your narrative. IT'S because criminals break the law AND because the government cannot protect every citizen that THEN the citizen has a right to protect himself/herself.

Only you would read what I said and come away with such idiocy.

As for regulation, IT will only infringe the rights of responsible gun owners. Those that don't care will break the law regardless.

The government should not give criminals an advantage against law-abiding folk. ANY regulation (aside from sensible background checks) would ultimately have that effect.

[Nathan89]

The fact that you cling to this weak non-argument is proof that you have no real point. Just stupid all around really.

Thousands of people die every year from alcohol. It's not stupid. Pushing restrictive policy over 17 lives is stupid.

[gambit1990]

The fact that you cling to this weak non-argument is proof that you have no real point. Just stupid all around really.

[tholdren]

Thousands of people die every year from alcohol. It's not stupid. Pushing restrictive policy over 17 lives is stupid.
I agree. But there should be restrictions on alcohol. Just like people shouldnt own aks or wmds.

[Proxy]

Such reductionist stupidity.

The laws against murder carry the heftiest sentence across the land, BUT it still doesn't stop those hell bent on perpetrating murder.

The existence of those laws is absolutely necessary. You are making a false equivalence in suggesting that because criminals break the law, that then those laws aren't necessary. The opposite is true, but it doesn't suit your narrative. IT'S because criminals break the law AND because the government cannot protect every citizen that THEN the citizen has a right to protect himself/herself.

Only you would read what I said and come away with such idiocy.

As for regulation, IT will only infringe the rights of responsible gun owners. Those that don't care will break the law regardless.

The government should not give criminals an advantage against law-abiding folk. ANY regulation (aside from sensible background checks) would ultimately have that effect.

lets make it legal for kids to carry guns then, they should have the right to protect themselves at school

[tholdren]

lets make it legal for kids to carry guns then, they should have the right to protect themselves at school

Yep. Make them take a conceal carry and gun safety at the end of middle school so they can have all weapons they need for jr high. If we sell decals to personalze their weapons we could be rich. How about holsters and gunbags too? Thos idea is considered patented by me

[Nathan89]

I agree. But there should be restrictions on alcohol. Just like people shouldnt own aks or wmds.

We've already banned automatics and certainly can't get wmds or even much lesser explosive devises.

[spurraider21]

George was really thinking that, even if he really didn't say it, tbh
"it's true in spirit"

[Clipper Nation]

http://fxn.ws/2pLcKy9

Pop going in on deletion the 2a, good shit
Speaking of discussions that need to be had, how about a discussion on the 50Mills loyalty contract, the shit coaching job Poop has done this year, and Porker throwing Kawhi under the bus... you know, things that actually pertain to his job?

[spurraider21]

We've already banned automatics and certainly can't get wmds or even much lesser explosive devises.
but surely the criminals are still using automatics and wmds because those laws only stop the good guys from getting those weapons right?

yeah... i remember all the recent shootings with automatic weapons and bombings with wmds

[cd98]

Even with a majority Obama's ass couldnt get any strict gun reform through. That majority will always put re-election above reform ..and we Ameticans love our guns.

That's fine, but then you can't call out Trump. If Obama has clean hands because he and his party favor winning elections over gun reforms, then he is no different than Trump. That's Pop's hypocrisy.

[spurraider21]

You are making a false equivalence in suggesting that because criminals break the law, that then those laws aren't necessary. The opposite is true, but it doesn't suit your narrative.

agreed whole-heartedly... take it up with this guy


But that those laws don't stop criminals from perpetrating crimes?

The argument is rubbish because 'restricted access' means nothing to criminals. All that such laws would do is give criminal folk the upper hand against law-abiding folk.

[spurraider21]

Criminals dont care about gun laws, so gun laws won't work!

but at the same time

It's wrong to say that just because criminals break the law, then those laws aren't necessary!

[ElNono]

"Even if they changed the age limit, it’s all a Band-Aid,” he said. “The obvious elephant in the room is the guns, weapons of war, the magazines. The real discussion should be about the Second Amendment. Is it useful? Does it serve its purpose the way it was supposed to do in the beginning? That discussion should be had.”


Pop is one of those people trying to ban all guns that you idiots say don't exist. :lmao

Having a discussion about the 2nd amendment = ban all guns... got it...

[cd98]

I agree. But there should be restrictions on alcohol. Just like people shouldnt own aks or wmds.

Ok, but demonizing the gun lobby that is responsible for less deaths than alcohol is the height of hypocrisy. The far left is saying that if you want your AR-15, you are complicit in killing children and you have blood on your hands, even if you are a law abiding citizen that has never used your gun improperly. But turn the tables, if you favor banning say AR-15s that are responsible for only a tiny portion of deaths related to guns, then blood is on your hands if you aren't crying more about banning alcohol or pools or whatever.

To be honest, I don't own guns, but I get tired of hearing the demonizing. If you want AR-15s banned, fine. I understand taking that position, though I don't think it will stop mass shootings. But stop demonizing those that disagree and obey the law.

[tenbeersbold]

On avg around 70% of USA gun deaths every year are SUICIDES,no gun is gonna stop that,the next highest percentage around 20% are gang crime related,that won't stop either,women being killed by their partners is the next highest group.

All this actually points towards a massive improvement in mental health facilities, infrastructure etc along with improved police training/enforcement of restraining orders combined with firearm restrictions for violent abusers.

[tholdren]

Criminals dont care about gun laws, so gun laws won't work!

but at the same time

It's wrong to say that just because criminals break the law, then those laws aren't necessary!

Yes.

[cd98]

Criminals dont care about gun laws, so gun laws won't work!

but at the same time

It's wrong to say that just because criminals break the law, then those laws aren't necessary!

No, you are talking about two classes of law breaking. Banning an AR-15 owned by who knows how many people because 11 people in our history have used it for violent crimes is more about punishing law abiding citizens than the minority crazies that want to commit mass murders. Criminalizing murder acts as both a deterrent (though not an effective one for crazies), but also as a punishment for those that break the law. People that will always be law abiding citizens are not impacted by murder laws, but they will be impacted by gun grabbing laws.

[Proxy]

Yep. Make them take a conceal carry and gun safety at the end of middle school so they can have all weapons they need for jr high. If we sell decals to personalze their weapons we could be rich. How about holsters and gunbags too? Thos idea is considered patented by me

damn, you're on to something big here

[Proxy]

heart disease kills lots of people but I don't see the left saying jack shit about that, yet they want to take our ARs, fucking hypocrites

[mingus]

Not saying Pop is full of shit on his political views but how can you expect him not to disagree w/ conservatives & Trump when the Lebron James, the best player in the league is so vocal in his disapproval of them/him. How can a white man esp. one his age, in today’s political climate, which mixes with every aspect of American society including sports, be expected to do anything other than get on his knees for the liberal agenda?

I take Pop’s political commentary w/ a big grain of salt. Liberals have made it such that you risk your public rep & being outed as a bigot if you in any way agree w/ any conservative idea or figure esp. if you’re a white man. Because of the demographics of the league, & even it’s followers to a large extent (on both fronts to a greater degree than the other sports), he has to be ultra sensitive to that.

Again not not saying he isn’t being sincere but I have to say that I’m not surprised to see him stand where he stands based on the things I mentioned. He’s got an image, & a job & a legacy to protect. But that’s what it is IMO. At this point you can ask him anything about the Democrats & (modern) liberalism & he’ll drop to his knees.

What’s funny is the very media that reports on his political commentary knows this & is part of a greater media that pressures public figures to lean a certain way. Yet, they keep asking him questions as if they can expect honest answers. “So what do you think about xyz political issues, Mr. Popovich?” They know what he’s going to say. We all do.

Take his political talk for what it is.

[koriwhat]

I wonder what Poop has to say about this?


978455000375468032

biden is as real as his hairline. if manu and parker were children biden would grope and kiss them all over.

[Clipper Nation]

Not saying Pop is full of shit on his political views but how can you expect him not to disagree w/ conservatives & Trump when the Lebron James, the best player in the league is so vocal in his disapproval of them/him. How can a white man esp. one his age, in today’s political climate, which mixes with every aspect of American society including sports, be expected to do anything other than get on his knees for the liberal agenda?
Funny how literally every other coach in the league can do their jobs just fine without going on weekly rants about politics/Trump. And nobody's complaining that other coaches aren't promoting left-wing politics enough. Pop is the only one doing this schtick. I agree that it's at least partially motivated by his image and legacy - as well as diverting attention away from the Spurs' underachievement and drama this season - but I'm not seeing all this media pressure. Pop's choosing to do this.

[dbestpro]

Pop does not get the fact that his opinion and the way he voices it only drives a greater wedge between people and does nothing to solve the social problems at hand. He only makes it worse. He's become the old lady screaming at the villagers with pitchforks chasing Frankenstein.

[spurraider21]

crofl that biden meme. the gun free school zone act prohibited UNAUTHORIZED individuals from bringing a gun onto schools. doesn't stop you from having an armed resource officer :lmao

not to mention it had already been passed in the house prior to biden introducing it to the senate. signed into law by bush. it's such lazy blame-shifting and people eat it up. such is that state of politics

[spurraider21]

Funny how literally every other coach in the league can do their jobs just fine without going on weekly rants about politics/Trump. And nobody's complaining that other coaches aren't promoting left-wing politics enough. Pop is the only one doing this schtick. I agree that it's at least partially motivated by his image and legacy - as well as diverting attention away from the Spurs' underachievement and drama this season - but I'm not seeing all this media pressure. Pop's choosing to do this.
yeah pop never spoke about politics when the spurs were having success

[Phenomanul]

agreed whole-heartedly... take it up with this guy

You actually thought you had something here?

The fact that you would conflate those two statements as referring to the same argument is highly disingenuous.

Laws against murder are not equivalent to gun-control laws.

The need for the former (direct preservation of life - one of our Constitutionally protectected, unalienable rights) does not drive the need for the latter (people’s irresponsible use of tools).

My equivalence was stating the fact that the lack of respect for law by criminals is consistent.

Nice try though. :rolleyes

[Phenomanul]

lets make it legal for kids to carry guns then, they should have the right to protect themselves at school

While we’re at it let’s let them dictate policy making for the nation.

[spurraider21]

You actually thought you had something here?

The fact that you would conflate those two statements as referring to the same argument is highly disingenuous.

Laws against murder are not equivalent to gun-control laws.

The need for the former (direct preservation of life - one of our Constitutionally protectected, unalienable rights) does not drive the need for the latter (people’s irresponsible use of tools).

My equivalence was stating the fact that the lack of respect for law by criminals is consistent.

Nice try though. :rolleyes
the general mentality that criminals will ignore laws and therefore the laws wont be effective is what i have a gripe against. it completely contradicts the purpose of any law. whether its a law you find important or not, the same principle is there.

not to mention, the ease with which criminals can acquire weapons is directly related to the sheer volume of weapons in circulation. it's much easier to illegally acquire a gun here than in hong kong. a law that curbs circulation will have the indirect effect of making them less accessible, even through criminal means.

[mingus]

Funny how literally every other coach in the league can do their jobs just fine without going on weekly rants about politics/Trump. And nobody's complaining that other coaches aren't promoting left-wing politics enough. Pop is the only one doing this schtick. I agree that it's at least partially motivated by his image and legacy - as well as diverting attention away from the Spurs' underachievement and drama this season - but I'm not seeing all this media pressure. Pop's choosing to do this.

I don’t know who or why it started. I’m assuming he was at one time asked to comment on something, he did & then he became the NBA’s go-to political pundit after he coughed up some generic formulaic anti-Trump or anti-conservative view for them.

Pop won’t admit to it publicly but he glorifies the praise the league & people heap on him. Right now, we’re seeing him do some really shady stuff with Kawhi because he wants to deflect any criticism. He’s abandoning the principles he set down for the team (which historically has been to keep shit in-house) to protect that image.

All I’m saying is that there’s a lot more care (planned & even manipulated/deceitful care—as is the case with Kawhi) that goes into protecting his image than he lets on.

Whether he’s initiating the political talk or not, what he says publicly is based a lot on how people view him.

[Pavlov]

I don’t know who or why it started. I’m assuming he was at one time asked to comment on something, he did & then he became the NBA’s go-to political pundit after he coughed up some generic formulaic anti-Trump or anti-conservative view for them.

Pop won’t admit to it publicly but he glorifies the praise the league & people heap on him. Right now, we’re seeing him do some really shady stuff with Kawhi because he wants to deflect any criticism. He’s abandoning the principles he set down for the team (which historically has been to keep shit in-house) to protect that image.

All I’m saying is that there’s a lot more care (planned & even manipulated/deceitful care—as is the case with Kawhi) that goes into protecting his image than he lets on.

Whether he’s initiating the political talk or not, what he says publicly is based a lot on how people view him.lol the Kawhi conspiracy

[tholdren]

I don’t know who or why it started. I’m assuming he was at one time asked to comment on something, he did & then he became the NBA’s go-to political pundit after he coughed up some generic formulaic anti-Trump or anti-conservative view for them.

Pop won’t admit to it publicly but he glorifies the praise the league & people heap on him. Right now, we’re seeing him do some really shady stuff with Kawhi because he wants to deflect any criticism. He’s abandoning the principles he set down for the team (which historically has been to keep shit in-house) to protect that image.

All I’m saying is that there’s a lot more care (planned & even manipulated/deceitful care—as is the case with Kawhi) that goes into protecting his image than he lets on.

Whether he’s initiating the political talk or not, what he says publicly is based a lot on how people view him.

Well no kidding. Its like you guys dont even understand that without the makeup and photoshopping models are like 7s

[mingus]

lol the Kawhi conspiracy

There’s no conspiracy.

What we’re seeing is Pop’s craftsmanship when it comes to protecting his image. At this point, all he can do is try to salvage what he can as the Spurs have no fully entered the post-Duncan glory days. The residuals of that age are now no longer here anymore. Duncan’s ghost isn’t looming over the team, management & even ownership (you don’t think Holt okayed the release of the now very public beef b/w Kawhi & the rest of the team—but mainly Pop)?

The true teacher, the key cog in everything (Duncan), didn’t just miss class due to the flu for a few days. He’s retired, gone forever. And what you’re seeing now is everything beginning to crumble. Principles once in place being tossed out.

Pop’s doing everything he can to protect his image amidst all of this. We’re seeing him go more & more public w/ his political ideology. Why? As a red herring, a distraction. Then, he throws Kawhi under the bus. Why? Because he’s in full image protection mode.

The Spurs’ way is no longer the one we saw in the Duncan era. The Spurs way is now anarchy. The true ruler left everything to his secretary & shit is going downhill fast.

[Pavlov]

There’s no conspiracy.

What we’re seeing is Pop’s craftsmanship when it comes to protecting his image. At this point, all he can do is try to salvage what he can as the Spurs have no fully entered the post-Duncan glory days. The residuals of that age are now no longer here anymore. Duncan’s ghost isn’t looming over the team, management & even ownership (you don’t think Holt okayed the release of the now very public beef b/w Kawhi & the rest of the team—but mainly Pop)?

The true teacher, the key cog in everything (Duncan), didn’t just miss class due to the flu for a few days. He’s retired, gone forever. And what you’re seeing now is everything beginning to crumble. Principles once in place being tossed out.

Pop’s doing everything he can to protect his image amidst all of this. We’re seeing him go more & more public w/ his political ideology. Why? As a red herring, a distraction. Then, he throws Kawhi under the bus. Why? Because he’s in full image protection mode.

The Spurs’ way is no longer the one we saw in the Duncan era. The Spurs way is now anarchy. The true ruler left everything to his secretary & shit is going downhill fast.Do you realize how stupid this is?

Take a step back and read it out loud.

[Clipper Nation]

I don’t know who or why it started. I’m assuming he was at one time asked to comment on something, he did & then he became the NBA’s go-to political pundit after he coughed up some generic formulaic anti-Trump or anti-conservative view for them.

Pop won’t admit to it publicly but he glorifies the praise the league & people heap on him. Right now, we’re seeing him do some really shady stuff with Kawhi because he wants to deflect any criticism. He’s abandoning the principles he set down for the team (which historically has been to keep shit in-house) to protect that image.

All I’m saying is that there’s a lot more care (planned & even manipulated/deceitful care—as is the case with Kawhi) that goes into protecting his image than he lets on.

Whether he’s initiating the political talk or not, what he says publicly is based a lot on how people view him.
Reporters only ask him political questions because he's chosen to use the Spurs/NBA as a platform to share his political opinions. Pop is the same guy who smugly dismisses most basketball-related questions, no matter how valid they are, and is known for treating sideline reporters like crap. The media can't even get him to talk about his actual job, let alone completely unrelated subjects. If he didn't want to discuss politics, he'd treat those questions the same way he treats basketball-related questions that he thinks are beneath him. Ultimately, he goes on these self-serving political rants because he wants to, not because he feels obligated to.

[cd98]

Reporters only ask him political questions because he's chosen to use the Spurs/NBA as a platform to share his political opinions. Pop is the same guy who smugly dismisses most basketball-related questions, no matter how valid they are, and is known for treating sideline reporters like crap. The media can't even get him to talk about his actual job, let alone completely unrelated subjects. If he didn't want to discuss politics, he'd treat those questions the same way he treats basketball-related questions that he thinks are beneath him. Ultimately, he goes on these self-serving political rants because he wants to, not because he feels obligated to.

In fairness to Pop, I would want to talk about anything but what the Spurs are looking like this year.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Crazy people will then just kill people with revolvers and pumps....

Cool story bro

Your types hero fantasies of stopping the lone gunmen are still possible. In the meantime some kid is going to have a much more difficult time killing a dozen or more people.

[Nathan89]

but surely the criminals are still using automatics and wmds because those laws only stop the good guys from getting those weapons right?

yeah... i remember all the recent shootings with automatic weapons and bombings with wmds

And yet without automatics weapons murders continue and people want to ban more guns. Just like it will continue afterwards and people will proceed to want to ban...wait for it... more guns.

And mass murders are also increasing significantly since the ban of automatics. Perhaps we should focus on other factors.

If it's impossible to access something then of course it can't be used to murder people. There is no reason why you'd see murders using devices you can't possible access.

[spurraider21]

If it's impossible to access something then of course it can't be used to murder people. There is no reason why you'd see murders using devices you can't possible access.
https://media3.giphy.com/media/b9aScKLxdv0Y0/200w.webp

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All semi autos? So you even want .22 gone. Wouldn't a revolver technically be a semi auto ?

Semiautomatic and automatic guns use the cartridge's blowback to expel the used cartridge, load a new one and reset the firing mechanism. If you want to use a lever action 30/30 or a revolver then it doesn't meet that definition. In those cases its the trigger pull, pumping the shotgun, or pulling the lever that does the work.

So no they are not technically a semiautomatic.

And that is the entire point of that form of restriction. It gets past gun manufacturers obfuscating by changing parameters like barrel length on a carbine to get past restrictions. The US developed the semiauto for war.

[bic50]

Your types hero fantasies of stopping the lone gunmen are still possible. In the meantime some kid is going to have a much more difficult time killing a dozen or more people.
Are we ever going to look into why a "kid" would want to do something like that?

[bic50]

Semiautomatic and automatic guns use the cartridge's blowback to expel the used cartridge, load a new one and reset the firing mechanism. If you want to use a lever action 30/30 or a revolver then it doesn't meet that definition. In those cases its the trigger pull, pumping the shotgun, or pulling the lever that does the work.

So no they are not technically a semiautomatic.

And that is the entire point of that form of restriction. It gets past gun manufacturers obfuscating by changing parameters like barrel length on a carbine to get past restrictions. The US developed the semiauto for war.
So a semi auto shotgun that holds 6 rounds at the most is a weapon of war ?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are we ever going to look into why a "kid" would want to do something like that?

We already do. Some of these shooters have been captured. You think no one is studying them? Now that the Dickey Amendment was rescinded we might see the feds doing it too.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So a semi auto shotgun that holds 6 rounds at the most is a weapon of war ?

The Browning automatic rifle and the M1 had similar capacities and were very much so weapons of war. Patton was a big fan.

[Nathan89]

https://media3.giphy.com/media/b9aScKLxdv0Y0/200w.webp

So you want to ban all guns. I have repeatedly been told that wasn't the case. Thanks for making yourself clear.

[bic50]

We already do. Some of these shooters have been captured. You think no one is studying them? Now that the Dickey Amendment was rescinded we might see the feds doing it too.
So in the meantime we should disarm everyone else? Even those who haven't done anything wrong?

[bic50]

The Browning automatic rifle and the M1 had similar capacities and were very much so weapons of war. Patton was a big fan.
How is a pump shotgun not as lethal?

[mingus]

Are we ever going to look into why a "kid" would want to do something like that?

No, we aren’t. Fuzzy is a socialist. Socialists want people to become as dependent upon the state as possible. Therefore, it only makes sense that his first inclination is to point to what govt. is or isn’t doing right. Personally responsibility be damned.

In Chicago, it’s not that people are making unwise “thug” lifestyle choices, it’s the guns.
In [insert massacre], it’s not the lack of mental education for families, schools & people who are mentally ill themselves. It should be stated OVER & OVER & OVER again in news coverage of these events that if you, a family member or anyone else you know has a deep desire to murder someone—anyone—never mind numerous people for WHATEVER reason, then you/they need to check yourself/themselves into a hospital because it’s unequivically, unconditionally immoral —just as someone who breaks a bone goes to a hospital to get checked out—then we might actually see some progress. But no, it’s the guns. That’s what gets repeated OVER & OVER & OVER.

Socialists finger point. It’s everyone else’s responsibility for how we act. It’s this or that or the other. That gives people who carry out these heinous acts something to scapegoat. And THAT is why/how people continue to die in these types of events.

[UnWantedTheory]

These rallies are far left stunts like the tea party rallies a few years ago during Obama’s years. Don’t be fooled. They are movements to get Democrats in control of Congress so they can ignore gun control just like they did under Obama with a super majority and the ability to pass whatever they wanted. They only care about this issue as a means of demonizing the other side. It’s like all those tea party candidates that ran on repealing Obamacare, but once given the presidency and both houses of Congress, they had no replacement plan and no repeal. These “movements” mean nothing.

I posted this in another thread when you stated similar. Here it is again.

Obama only had a super majority essentially for four months give or take due to illness, death, contesting seats, etc.

https://www.ohio.com/akron/pages/when-obama-had-total-control-of-congress

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html

[Clipper Nation]

In fairness to Pop, I would want to talk about anything but what the Spurs are looking like this year.

Well, Poop certainly doesn't want anyone talking about that, because then people might start to realize that he's just a product of Duncan.

[cd98]

I posted this in another thread when you stated similar. Here it is again.

Obama only had a super majority essentially for four months give or take due to illness, death, contesting seats, etc.

https://www.ohio.com/akron/pages/when-obama-had-total-control-of-congress

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html

So your telling me that he had time to pass a complex bill that redefined healthcare in America, but he couldn’t get a simple bill that only banned AR-15s? Look I get why Obama didn’t push any meaningful gun reform. He was afraid of political consequences. Plus he liked to use it to demonize Republicans as co-conspirators for anyone that was killed by a gun. That’s good politics. But don’t give him a pass unless you give everyone a pass. If you defend Obama on gun reform, but attack Trump, you’re a hypocrite. I say this and I hate Trump. But I think you have to be consistent.

[MannyIsGod]

Tell that to the people of:
Venezuela
Mexico
Brazil
Columbia
China
Ukraine
Honduras
Chile
South Africa
Turkey
etc...

Here on the home front stricter gun control laws have not produced lower homicide rates. See:
Washington D.C.
Chicago
Detroit

I'm not going to stoop to name-calling simply because your POV differs from my own. I simply don't agree with your position on the matter. Government authorities cannot be depended on to respond to all crimes. IF they could the crime rate would be zero. The very fact that crimes exist show that government response is deficient - it's a fact that is proven day-in, day-out.

Under that context, and because I am a law abiding citizen I will protect my family, my home, as best I see fit. You don't have to like it.



Besides...



The only mockery here is how somehow we are supposed to focus all of our collective attention towards fixing a "problem" that statistically cannot be effectively resolved.

It's not about "the children" either... if it were, then you and other liberals would rally around to stop the murder of 900,000 babies per year in our nation. But consequence-free promiscuity is MORE important to you all. You all instead attempt to reclassify that problem, by trying to redefine what human life is and what it isn't.

Hector why don't you list all the countries with gun control laws that don't have the issues we do. Its going to be much much longer than the list you listed. Why did you omit those?

Why do you think that gun control doesn't work in places like Chicago and DC, Hector? Tell me, how hard is it for one to go to West Virginia or Indiana from those two respective cities and then come back with a gun?

Are you really this stupid? Question is rhetorical. No need to answer.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, we aren’t. Fuzzy is a socialist. Socialists want people to become as dependent upon the state as possible. Therefore, it only makes sense that his first inclination is to point to what govt. is or isn’t doing right. Personally responsibility be damned.

In Chicago, it’s not that people are making unwise “thug” lifestyle choices, it’s the guns.
In [insert massacre], it’s not the lack of mental education for families, schools & people who are mentally ill themselves. It should be stated OVER & OVER & OVER again in news coverage of these events that if you, a family member or anyone else you know has a deep desire to murder someone—anyone—never mind numerous people for WHATEVER reason, then you/they need to check yourself/themselves into a hospital because it’s unequivically, unconditionally immoral —just as someone who breaks a bone goes to a hospital to get checked out—then we might actually see some progress. But no, it’s the guns. That’s what gets repeated OVER & OVER & OVER.

Socialists finger point. It’s everyone else’s responsibility for how we act. It’s this or that or the other. That gives people who carry out these heinous acts something to scapegoat. And THAT is why/how people continue to die in these types of events.

Yes, we are. Mingus is an idiot. Here are a few studies on mass shooters.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418825.2013.806675
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302242
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1088767912462033

I believe in free market except in the case of broken markets and monopolies. Of course your dumb ass is an ideological puritan.

Thanks for the red scare stupidity though, dim.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So in the meantime we should disarm everyone else? Even those who haven't done anything wrong?

I never said that. I never said confiscate anything. You just cannot buy new semiautos. If you cannot defend yourself with a revolver, bolt action or pump shottie you have no business with a weapon.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So your telling me that he had time to pass a complex bill that redefined healthcare in America, but he couldn’t get a simple bill that only banned AR-15s? Look I get why Obama didn’t push any meaningful gun reform. He was afraid of political consequences. Plus he liked to use it to demonize Republicans as co-conspirators for anyone that was killed by a gun. That’s good politics. But don’t give him a pass unless you give everyone a pass. If you defend Obama on gun reform, but attack Trump, you’re a hypocrite. I say this and I hate Trump. But I think you have to be consistent.

Not with the Democrats in purples states making that majority for the few months he actually ahd it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How is a pump shotgun not as lethal?

If you cannot grasp how a semiauto carbine is a more lethal weapon that any shotgun you have no business in the conversation. Then of course a question is not an argument. And then there is also how shotguns were in the 1930s when those rifles were invented.

the point here is that semiauto carbines and semiauto shotguns were developed for war not for hunting nor for home protection. You do not need either for hunting or home protection. If you want them for a deterrence to tyranny then you better want to dismantle the huge standing army and police state or you are completely missing the point of what Madison and co were going for..

[cd98]

Not with the Democrats in purples states making that majority for the few months he actually ahd it.

If you can pass a massive healthcare plan, you can get an AR-15 ban. And Obama’s popularity going into his first term would have allowed him to cojole red state dems to do what he wanted. But if not fine. You are admitting that under favorable circumstances Obama was unwilling to do any gun reform for fear of political consequences. So you can’t criticize Trump for doing nothing either or you are a hypocrite.

[bic50]

I never said that. I never said confiscate anything. You just cannot buy new semiautos. If you cannot defend yourself with a revolver, bolt action or pump shottie you have no business with a weapon.
So what happens to all the semi autos already out there?

[bic50]

If you cannot grasp how a semiauto carbine is a more lethal weapon that any shotgun you have no business in the conversation. Then of course a question is not an argument. And then there is also how shotguns were in the 1930s when those rifles were invented.

the point here is that semiauto carbines and semiauto shotguns were developed for war not for hunting nor for home protection. You do not need either for hunting or home protection. If you want them for a deterrence to tyranny then you better want to dismantle the huge standing army and police state or you are completely missing the point of what Madison and co were going for..
I was asking because I have both a semi auto and pump shotgun. Apparently the semi auto is a weapon of war despite not having much of an advantage if any at all over the pump action.

[tholdren]

I was asking because I have both a semi auto and pump shotgun. Apparently the semi auto is a weapon of war despite not having much of an advantage if any at all over the pump action.

Lol you own guns

[bic50]

Lol you own guns
Yeah I own a lot of things

[mingus]

Revolvers were used in war. So were pump action shotguns. So were bolt actions.

People have been using weapons made for combat for self-defense since the dawn of gun powder.

[tholdren]

Yeah I own a lot of things

Lol u not smart

[bic50]

Lol u not smart
You have a problem with me having guns in my home? Why? Were you planning to rob me?

[tholdren]

You have a problem with me having guns in my home? Why? Were you planning to rob me?

No problem, just think you are a toothless redneck who needs protecktin... yeeehaaw

[bic50]

No problem, just think you are a toothless redneck who needs protecktin... yeeehaaw
I thought only white people could be considered rednecks. Wait do you think no brown or black people own guns? Wow

[tholdren]

I thought only white people could be considered rednecks. Wait do you think no brown or black people own guns? Wow

No, any gun toten schmuck proud of weapons is a toothless redneck.

[cd98]

Who cares? Spurs won so Pop won’t need to say anything.

[Nathan89]

No, any gun toten schmuck proud of weapons is a toothless redneck.

Most people enjoy their hobbies. There is no reason not to be proud in the things you enjoy.

[Nathan89]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DJ-KA2WhhLo/UNZr8agpVqI/AAAAAAAAFH4/f6rrTVN7q6I/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png

Can someone explain why homicides didn't drop? Or show me some stats that counter this?

[bic50]

No, any gun toten schmuck proud of weapons is a toothless redneck.
:lol Don't give me that bullshit. You thought I was a white dude. The fact that you're this upset about me having guns in my home makes me wonder about you. Unless you're planning to break into my home while I'm there you won't have to even deal with me or any of my weapons. You probably have a criminal record.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So what happens to all the semi autos already out there?

I would offer an open ended buyback and over time they will get phased out of circulation.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you can pass a massive healthcare plan, you can get an AR-15 ban. And Obama’s popularity going into his first term would have allowed him to cojole red state dems to do what he wanted. But if not fine. You are admitting that under favorable circumstances Obama was unwilling to do any gun reform for fear of political consequences. So you can’t criticize Trump for doing nothing either or you are a hypocrite.

Sorry but red and purple state democrats weren't going to alienate the centrist conservatives they counted on because Obama. That is just ignorant.

And what is your point? The majority you are waving your hand at was not going to permit progressive policies because of the bluedog democrats having their hands tied.

And what is the analog the the bluedog democrats in the GOP caucus. The splinter group is the freedom caucus who are arch conservatives not centrist. Your equivalence is not well thought out in the least.

[tholdren]

:lol Don't give me that bullshit. You thought I was a white dude. The fact that you're this upset about me having guns in my home makes me wonder about you. Unless you're planning to break into my home while I'm there you won't have to even deal with me or any of my weapons. You probably have a criminal record.

Do not care your race. Only think you get dumber each post. And the gun owning is icing on the cake. Keep being safe

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I was asking because I have both a semi auto and pump shotgun. Apparently the semi auto is a weapon of war despite not having much of an advantage if any at all over the pump action.

You guys are trying to argue every point mindlessly and losing sight of the overall reality. The point here is to get around gun manufacturers hiding behind jargon. And semi auto shotguns have a higher rate of fire than pump action. Nevermind semiauto pistols, carbines, and rifles.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Revolvers were used in war. So were pump action shotguns. So were bolt actions.

People have been using weapons made for combat for self-defense since the dawn of gun powder.

So what? No one is proposing to ban them so what are you worried about. The point here is that people can use them for home protection and hunting and not need the semiauto weapons with a higher rate of fire that are being used in mass shootings and present a more significant public health danger.

[tholdren]

So what? No one is proposing to ban them so what are you worried about. The point here is that people can use them for home protection and hunting and not need the semiauto weapons with a higher rate of fire that are being used in mass shootings and present a more significant public health danger.

How brave that people can use a gun to kill a defenseless animal and the same idiots cry about protection from home invasion or whatever else. Definition of stupidity

[bic50]

Do not care your race. Only think you get dumber each post. And the gun owning is icing on the cake. Keep being safe
No you're triggered because someone has guns in their home. No one but criminals should care. You're a prick too worried about what others do that don't even affect you. Your posts just show what an asshole you are tbh.

[bic50]

How brave that people can use a gun to kill a defenseless animal and the same idiots cry about protection from home invasion or whatever else. Definition of stupidity
Everyone doesn't hunt dumbass.

[tholdren]

No you're triggered because someone has guns in their home. No one but criminals should care. You're a prick too worried about what others do that don't even affect you. Your posts just show what an asshole you are tbh.

Lol meeellllllllttttttdoooooooowwnnnnnnn. Quick get more guns so you are really safe and you can hunt forever!!!!!!

[Prose]

I agree with popovich political views

[ViceCity86]

What a blowhard.

[bic50]

Lol meeellllllllttttttdoooooooowwnnnnnnn. Quick get more guns so you are really safe and you can hunt forever!!!!!!
You legit got upset when you found out I had guns in my home and decided to give me shit for it. You must have a criminal record.

[tholdren]

You legit got upset when you found out I had guns in my home and decided to give me shit for it. You must have a criminal record.

Melllllllltttttttdooooowwwnnnnnnn continues. Not upset just diagusted that you have such limited intelligence. Sad day for humanity

[Chillen]

The real question here is if Hillary became president would Pop criticize her to. I mean Trump tweets, etc and isn't a perfect role model but neither is Hillary Clinton. It seems everything Trump does is put under a microscope and analyzed under harsh scrutiny. CNN has become unwatchable at this point.

[bic50]

Melllllllltttttttdooooowwwnnnnnnn continues. Not upset just diagusted that you have such limited intelligence. Sad day for humanity
What's sad is that you actually believe you're smart. You're easily one of the dumbest posters on this forum.

[Play Boban]

How brave that people can use a gun to kill a defenseless animal and the same idiots cry about protection from home invasion or whatever else. Definition of stupidity
:cry Unless you don’t eat any meat, you kill “defenseless” animals, too. :cry

[baseline bum]

I often agree with Pop politically, but I can't support a ban on semiautomatic rifles. It's horrible seeing them used in mass shootings and I don't really have a good answer for how to stop them, but what scares the shit out of me is this country turning into Venezuela. We have already taken the first step in that direction by electing an authoritarian sociopath who is constantly going after the free press and trying to undermine it. I want to live in a country where we can shoot back if the government and army are trying to steal our food, our medicine, and so on like you're seeing in Venezuela right now. Our citizens having access to assault rifles is a huge check and balance against that kind of overreach.

[tholdren]

What's sad is that you actually believe you're smart. You're easily one of the dumbest posters on this forum.

Yet everything ive posted is correct, go figure. You cant prove me wrong, and you own guns. Hahahaha boiling over

[tholdren]

:cry Unless you don’t eat any meat, you kill “defenseless” animals, too. :cry

I only drink bic 50s tears

[tholdren]

if the government and army are trying to steal our food, our medicine, and so on like you're seeing in Venezuela right now. Our citizens having access to assault rifles is a huge check and balance against that kind of overreach.

Man, if you are actually worried about this why are you on spurstalk and not building a fortress or at least digginv a moat

[ElNono]

I often agree with Pop politically, but I can't support a ban on semiautomatic rifles. It's horrible seeing them used in mass shootings and I don't really have a good answer for how to stop them, but what scares the shit out of me is this country turning into Venezuela. We have already taken the first step in that direction by electing an authoritarian sociopath who is constantly going after the free press and trying to undermine it. I want to live in a country where we can shoot back if the government and army are trying to steal our food, our medicine, and so on like you're seeing in Venezuela right now. Our citizens having access to assault rifles is a huge check and balance against that kind of overreach.

There's some noise right now that the Army is turning on Maduro. Without the Army, he can't survive. It's similar everywhere else where there has been an authoritarian government: Army involvement is a must. That's why it's very unlikely here in the US, tbh

[Nathan89]

I often agree with Pop politically, but I can't support a ban on semiautomatic rifles. It's horrible seeing them used in mass shootings and I don't really have a good answer for how to stop them, but what scares the shit out of me is this country turning into Venezuela. We have already taken the first step in that direction by electing an authoritarian sociopath who is constantly going after the free press and trying to undermine it. I want to live in a country where we can shoot back if the government and army are trying to steal our food, our medicine, and so on like you're seeing in Venezuela right now. Our citizens having access to assault rifles is a huge check and balance against that kind of overreach.


Man, if you are actually worried about this why are you on spurstalk and not building a fortress or at least digginv a moat

Because the threat at any one time, even with concerning signs is never high enough to be so obsessive enough to do such a thing. Seeing the concerns at present time or historically in your country or others makes one aware that the right shouldn't be taken away. He brings forth exactly why the right exists. We already gave up automatics. If we want to combat oppressive forces then you really can't infringe on the 2nd amendment any further without rendering it pointless.

[tholdren]

Because the threat at any one time, even with concerning signs is never high enough to be so obsessive enough to do such a thing. Seeing the concerns at present time or historically in your country or others makes one aware that the right shouldn't be taken away. He brings forth exactly why the right exists. We already gave up automatics. If we want to combat oppressive forces then you really can't infringe on the 2nd amendment any further without rendering it pointless.

The british are coming!

[bic50]

Yet everything ive posted is correct, go figure. You cant prove me wrong, and you own guns. Hahahaha boiling over
Actually you haven't said anything but try to insult me from the moment you found out I had guns in my home. No one other then criminals should have a problem with that and you obviously do. So what's that say about you? You have a criminal record. Don't you? :lol

[bic50]

I only drink bic 50s tears
You've been crying ever since you found out in had guns in my home :lol I wasn't even talking to you when I mentioned it either. Get a job and stop breaking into people's homes loser.

[cd98]

If the US Army was turned against its citizens, good luck fighting with your semi automatic weapons. The US Military would have no problem taking out a family or local militia.

To me , the only compelling argument to own a semi automatic weapon, like the AR 15 (other than as a hobby at a target range...which I don’t think is an unreasonable use) is to protect yourself in those rare instances where a natural disaster or a riot happen and the police can’t help or even act as a threat to deter crime. In those instances that you are on your own and may be threatened by mass perpetrators, I get having that type of fire power.

[tholdren]

i need more guns to feel safe. I love hunting. I married my cousin. I still think the laws that governed the world hundreds of years ago applies today. Im just scared.

[boutons_deux]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DJ-KA2WhhLo/UNZr8agpVqI/AAAAAAAAFH4/f6rrTVN7q6I/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png

Can someone explain why homicides didn't drop? Or show me some stats that counter this?

same bullshit argument used in USA:

because gun regs are state or municipal, not Fed.

Guns flow FREELY from/to anywhere in the USA, including from foreign sources.

The two cops shot dead in the car in NYC a couple years ago were shot with a gun from some Georgia back-country inbreds well-known to FBI as selling guns to anyone.

Goddamn, you gun-fellators are FUCKING stupid

[baseline bum]

If the US Army was turned against its citizens, good luck fighting with your semi automatic weapons. The US Military would have no problem taking out a family or local militia.

To me , the only compelling argument to own a semi automatic weapon, like the AR 15 (other than as a hobby at a target range...which I don’t think is an unreasonable use) is to protect yourself in those rare instances where a natural disaster or a riot happen and the police can’t help or even act as a threat to deter crime. In those instances that you are on your own and may be threatened by mass perpetrators, I get having that type of fire power.

It wouldn't be a fair fight, but people with semi autos would kill enough of the army to make that kind of control a lot more tenuous than it is in Venezuela unless they start carpet bombing cities from the sky.

[tholdren]

It wouldn't be a fair fight, but people with semi autos would kill enough of the army to make that kind of control a lot more tenuous than it is in Venezuela unless they start carpet bombing cities from the sky.

Lol hilarious

[boutons_deux]

researchers can't explain why crime has gone down in USA (but USA gun violence remains Industrial World Champion!).

Poverty has gone up as the oligarchy/Capital has been wildkly, relentlessly, successfully oppressing Labor for 4+ decades, but crime has gone down. mysterious.

[ElNono]

It wouldn't be a fair fight, but people with semi autos would kill enough of the army to make that kind of control a lot more tenuous than it is in Venezuela unless they start carpet bombing cities from the sky.

Kill what? Drones? It wouldn't be even a fair fight, tbh

Unlike Venezuela, the US has the tech

[bic50]

Lol hilarious
You're a criminal worried about guns in people's home.

[tholdren]

You're a criminal worried about guns in people's home.

Lol tears

[bic50]

Lol tears
lol criminal record

[BackHome]

The War on guns is going to be just as successful as the War on drugs.

[DAF86]

I often agree with Pop politically, but I can't support a ban on semiautomatic rifles. It's horrible seeing them used in mass shootings and I don't really have a good answer for how to stop them, but what scares the shit out of me is this country turning into Venezuela. We have already taken the first step in that direction by electing an authoritarian sociopath who is constantly going after the free press and trying to undermine it. I want to live in a country where we can shoot back if the government and army are trying to steal our food, our medicine, and so on like you're seeing in Venezuela right now. Our citizens having access to assault rifles is a huge check and balance against that kind of overreach.

If the government and army turn against the people you are already fucked, tbh.