DescentBB

Young lady got it in the 10m airgun competition. Good thing the 2nd amendment was alive and well when she grew up:

Thrasher learned to love shooting while hunting deer with her grandfather when she was in eighth grade.

"I got my first deer and I liked the adrenaline of pulling the trigger," she said.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/shooting-ame ... --oly.html

Only you could turn an Olympic story into gun masturbation. Even the girl herself said that her sport is completely different.

Actually in the article the girl was asked about the 2nd amendment. Too bad you have forgotten how to read.

The controversy over guns "really is just distracting from our sport, which is very different."

Seriously, stop trying to compensate for your worthless microscopic dick already. No one else is impressed by your big, hard, throbbing metal substitute.

woodchip wrote:Actually in the article the girl was asked about the 2nd amendment. Too bad you have forgotten how to read.

*sigh*

"really is just distracting from our sport, which is very different."

from the very same article you linked to. The same article you lambasted topgun for 'not reading'

Target shooting is very much indeed different than being prepared to fend off enemies of the state. Same goes for hunting; different than fending off enemies of the state.

Jesus ★■◆●ing christ. Trying to turn her achievement into a gun wankfest -- what the actual ★■◆●.

It is kind of funny how the anti-gun peeps look like the nutcases they are trying to point out in these discussions.

Grendel wrote:It is kind of funny how the anti-gun peeps look like the nutcases they are trying to point out in these discussions.

Who's the person who turned a teenage girl winning a gold medal into some chest-thumping bull★■◆●, again?

I suggest you re-read the o.p. and tell me where there is any chest thumping. And nice language btw, does your mother know you use words like that?

all the more reason to scrap the 2nd altogether. No one ever suggested responsible hunters couldn't do so, nor teach their little girls. I don't have a Constitutional right to a 5-weight Fly Rod, but can still get one.
Geezus, the prior writers were right. Woody takes the triumph of a teen girl, who decries the use of her sport relative to the debate over gun control laws, and runs with his whack-job obsessions.

Ah, so the truth comes out. You and your Dem friends really want the do away with the 2nd amendment. Glad to see you finally admitted it.

yet, you viewed Trump's ass kissing and pleading for spying as sarcastic. Nice intellectual deficit that leads from my remark to 'my real feelings' and thence to all Democrats. Yeesh!

Maybe slick you should learn to use emoji's. Who can tell if you are being sarcastic or are being straight up.

what, until YOU get up to speed? The heck with that!

Top Gun wrote:

Grendel wrote:It is kind of funny how the anti-gun peeps look like the nutcases they are trying to point out in these discussions.

Who's the person who turned a teenage girl winning a gold medal into some chest-thumping bull★■◆●, again?

You.

callmeslick wrote:all the more reason to scrap the 2nd altogether. No one ever suggested responsible hunters couldn't do so, nor teach their little girls. I don't have a Constitutional right to a 5-weight Fly Rod, but can still get one.

Huh ? The 2A doesn't grant you any rights, it protects your right to bear arms. If you want the 2A out, you are an idiot IMHO. Born and raised in Germany I know the other side, being a true sheep is not fun at all.

callmeslick wrote:Geezus, the prior writers were right. Woody takes the triumph of a teen girl, who decries the use of her sport relative to the debate over gun control laws, and runs with his whack-job obsessions.

Really ? He didn't turn the thread into the shitfest it is, that accomplishment goes to said prior writers in my book.

oh that broad brush gets me right in the feels, ya know?

Airguns are not firearms. The 2nd Amendment doesn't even apply in this case guys. Besides, plenty of countries with restrictive gun laws actually allow hunting and competitive training with firearms. Even Sweden allows people to own a limited number of guns, with the proper training and licensing. I'd like to remind everyone that I'm NOT a supporter of banning guns, but I think that sensible gun laws that promote responsible behavior and safe gun handling are not barriers to someone wanting to hunt for food or sport, to protect themselves or be an impediment to learning sharpshooting for competing in sports and the Olympics.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12351824/gu ... n-solution

tunnelcat wrote:Airguns are not firearms. The 2nd Amendment doesn't even apply in this case guys.

Which is kind of stupid in itself -- anyone can buy this thing w/o background check. Same is true for cap & ball revolvers BTW.

Did you guys know people shoot and kill feral hogs with a airgun?

Grendel wrote:Born and raised in Germany I know the other side, being a true sheep is not fun at all..

Ya know, I'm a bit curious about this. Why do you think that if the 2nd amendment was abolished, the United States would turn into a copy of where you grew up?

a quick look at the mass shooting in Australia over the past decades is a good insight into sensible gun restrictions. Nor, would it seem they are any less able to overthrow the government than any of us are.
Also, I read some of the threads above and it would seem that some forgot that Woody brought up the 2nd amendment in the 2nd sentence of his post. Just sayin'

woodchip wrote:Did you guys know people shoot and kill feral hogs with a airgun?

Not Hogzilla I'm betting. All an airgun would do is piss it off.

Ferno wrote:

Grendel wrote:Born and raised in Germany I know the other side, being a true sheep is not fun at all..

Ya know, I'm a bit curious about this. Why do you think that if the 2nd amendment was abolished, the United States would turn into a copy of where you grew up?

The mindset changes, all physical power now lies w/ the "authorities" and the disconnect betw. people and government becomes gigantic. Over time the government will push for more restrictions on personal freedoms. Germany is further along w/ this:

Germany is a republic, no direct democracy, no freedom of speech. If you defend yourself by means of force, be prepared to spend a good chunk of time in court.

My tax load (17 years ago) was over 80% of my gross income w/ very little return from that. The "reunion tax" that was introduced after east Germany went down was sold as "limited to 5 years". It's still in place. "Fight the system" was popular in the 80's, but it almost completely died off w/o any relevant change. I vividly remember the outcry over machine readable census forms in the late 80's. Fast forward 4 years -- nobody gave a damn. Police gets very brutal once crowds become unruly towards authority, but are not too keen to help the average Joe. Media is even more controlled than it is in the US (part of the problem in the previous examples). There is no government-as-a-service mentality, be prepared to run the gauntlet for a day or more if you need any official paper work done. And pay for it as well, on top of your taxes...

I'm still amazed how far the german population goes along w/ this. I was expecting a revolt during the 90's decade, nothing but a slight elevation in grumpiness happened. IMVHO this is because germans are never exposed to real freedoms and the government is not afraid of their "sheep" -- they can't and won't do anything to endanger the status quo.

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:Did you guys know people shoot and kill feral hogs with a airgun?

Not Hogzilla I'm betting. All an airgun would do is piss it off.

That airgun I linked will do Hogzilla in

callmeslick wrote:a quick look at the mass shooting in Australia over the past decades is a good insight into sensible gun restrictions. Nor, would it seem they are any less able to overthrow the government than any of us are.
Also, I read some of the threads above and it would seem that some forgot that Woody brought up the 2nd amendment in the 2nd sentence of his post. Just sayin'

Gee, you never took a close look at the Australian laws and the results. You should. All this BS about "sensible gun restrictions" is annoying in light of the laws that already exist around guns -- they are plenty enough, how about enforcing them ?

Yes, woody brought up the 2A. And got a face full of adolescent hostility.

Grendel wrote:And got a face full of adolescent hostility.

LOL. Wanting a sensible gun policy is "adolescent." I like how you paint everyone as anti-gun. Do you even read this forum? I'm the only person here who is anti-gun. THE ONLY ONE.

vision wrote:

Grendel wrote:And got a face full of adolescent hostility.

LOL. Wanting a sensible gun policy is "adolescent." I like how you paint everyone as anti-gun. Do you even read this forum? I'm the only person here who is anti-gun. THE ONLY ONE.

Wow, 4 misses out of 4. Since you are here -- what is that "sensible gun policy" you want ?

Grendel wrote:[oGee, you never took a close look at the Australian laws and the results. You should.

I have, and I know Aussies that live under them. ZERO mass shootings. ZERO. And, all they did was restrict semi-autos and magazine capacity. Hmmmmm.

All this BS about "sensible gun restrictions" is annoying in light of the laws that already exist around guns -- they are plenty enough, how about enforcing them ?

merely HAVING laws doesn't mean we've gotten to 'sensible'. Further, as I've noted more than 10 times on this forum, the reasons the laws aren't fully enforced is due to a systematic gutting of enforcement staffing, largely at the behest of the NRA, by Congress.

Yes, woody brought up the 2A. And got a face full of adolescent hostility.

as you were told already, there is nothing the least bit adolescent or juvenile about wishing sensible laws to keep the public safe from nuts with high capacity semi auto weapons.

callmeslick wrote:

Grendel wrote:[oGee, you never took a close look at the Australian laws and the results. You should.

I have, and I know Aussies that live under them. ZERO mass shootings. ZERO. And, all they did was restrict semi-autos and magazine capacity. Hmmmmm.

Hmmmmm indeed. Might want to dig a bit deeper. A 10s search: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Sydn ... age_crisis . As for what they did, how about "[..] included a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and a tightly restrictive system of licensing and ownership controls."

callmeslick wrote:

All this BS about "sensible gun restrictions" is annoying in light of the laws that already exist around guns -- they are plenty enough, how about enforcing them ?

merely HAVING laws doesn't mean we've gotten to 'sensible'. Further, as I've noted more than 10 times on this forum, the reasons the laws aren't fully enforced is due to a systematic gutting of enforcement staffing, largely at the behest of the NRA, by Congress.

And more or more "sensible" laws change that how ?

callmeslick wrote:

Yes, woody brought up the 2A. And got a face full of adolescent hostility.

as you were told already, there is nothing the least bit adolescent or juvenile about wishing sensible laws to keep the public safe from nuts with high capacity semi auto weapons.

So "Only you could turn an Olympic story into gun masturbation.", "Seriously, stop trying to compensate for your worthless microscopic dick already. No one else is impressed by your big, hard, throbbing metal substitute." and "Jesus ★■◆●ing christ. Trying to turn her achievement into a gun wankfest -- what the actual ★■◆●." was expressing that. Gotcha.

I'm still unclear about what "sensible" gun law will accomplish increasing public safety any better than the ones that are already on the books. France and Germany have more (or as) restrictive gun laws than Australia, didn't prevent any of the abundant shootings there. "Nuts" that want to do harm to the public will do so regardless of any laws.

Lol, sensible gun laws as though we don't have such laws already. First slick, you blame the NRA from blocking funding so there is adequate personal to enforce them. Nice smoke screen attempt to obfuscate. Then you go on to say how we need even more "sensible" laws which if passed and fails, you will bring up excuse number one that we don't have enough people to enforce them. You do realize that enforcement of gun laws starts locally. Are you saying somehow our local police forces were somehow gutted by the NRA and congress? Nice try though but you fail on that point.

Australia did more than ban sem-autos and mag capacity. They also required you have a real reason to own a gun. Not feeling safe is not a good enough reason. And of course violent gun crimes did not increase but:
• NSW: in 2014-15, there were 3463 firearms charges, up 83 per cent on 2005-06
• Victoria: in 2014-15, there were 3645 firearms-related charges, up 85 per cent on 2005-06
• SA: in 2014, charges for possession and trafficking of guns are up 49 per cent on 2010-11
• Tasmania: in 2014, charges for unlawful gun possession were up 32 per cent on 2005-06

So as the old adage goes, when law abiding people are banned from owning guns, only criminals will. as is evident by the stats, the police are not there when you need them...just like here in the states. And just in case you bring up how overall homicides and suicides have declined since the laws were passed, those rates were declining prior to the Aussie laws being passed.

The confiscation program netted roughly 20% of existing firearms. Equate that here and that still leaves 240 million firearms in possession by once law abiding citizens but who would now be classified as criminals. I won't even get into the black market aspects. Australia has a big problem with it and they could control their borders better than we can.

In short slick, dream on.

not one thing above negates ZERO mass shootings. ZERO. Just the increase in gun crime arrests means better enforcement, not in any way related.

lol @ woodchip's data without a source.

It's sad you gun nuts don't realize that no amount of guns in the population will stop the government from taking away your "freedoms" and it doesn't make anyone safer. Keep dreaming though.

It's especially sad the ostrich types can't even do a "australia gun crime" search like I did. Go look up your own stats.

vision wrote:It's sad you gun nuts don't realize that no amount of guns in the population will stop the government from taking away your "freedoms" and it doesn't make anyone safer. Keep dreaming though.

Those are your "freedoms" too. Legally owning guns doesn't make anyone less safe either.

Edit: http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/upl ... nt-Rev.pdf

callmeslick wrote:not one thing above negates ZERO mass shootings. ZERO. Just the increase in gun crime arrests means better enforcement, not in any way related.

http://www.news.com.au/national/crime/s ... 979245d50c

further, an illustration from today as to why some of us are getting flat-out leery about the whole 2nd Amendment itself. Woody confuses it with an airgun championship, or being taught hunting. This guy uses it as a reason to suggest the assasination of a rival candidate:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/ ... index.html

oh, they'll dance around, stating that he meant them voting, but as noted by a security expert, "if those words were overheard outside the hall, the person would be in the back of a Secret Service van"

Doesn't the Secret Service take exception to threats of assassination aimed at a presidential candidate, or does one candidate calling for the assassination of another candidate not count?

callmeslick wrote:further, an illustration from today as to why some of us are getting flat-out leery about the whole 2nd Amendment itself. Woody confuses it with an airgun championship, or being taught hunting. This guy uses it as a reason to suggest the assasination of a rival candidate:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/ ... index.html

oh, they'll dance around, stating that he meant them voting, but as noted by a security expert, "if those words were overheard outside the hall, the person would be in the back of a Secret Service van"

Wow, and I did peg you for a smart guy. I'll exit this total waste of time "discussion", good luck w/ your future endeavors.

so, it's ok for someone to suggest that 2nd amendment supporters 'take care of' a person who's been elected to office(exactly what the context said)? As I said, and stand by despite your feeble ass attempt as dismissal, usage of the 2nd for this sort of rhetoric makes the majority of citizens who are NOT gun owners(a rising majjority, for over a decade now) a wee bit nervous as to why the Amendment is important to some people. Not smart? Really? Aren't you just the MENSA archetype.

tunnelcat wrote:Doesn't the Secret Service take exception to threats of assassination aimed at a presidential candidate, or does one candidate calling for the assassination of another candidate not count?

they claim to be 'aware' of the remark. Which makes sense, since 4 of them were within earshot, at least.

Grendel wrote: The mindset changes, all physical power now lies w/ the "authorities" and the disconnect betw. people and government becomes gigantic. Over time the government will push for more restrictions on personal freedoms. Germany is further along w/ this:

Germany is a republic, no direct democracy, no freedom of speech. If you defend yourself by means of force, be prepared to spend a good chunk of time in court.

My tax load (17 years ago) was over 80% of my gross income w/ very little return from that. The "reunion tax" that was introduced after east Germany went down was sold as "limited to 5 years". It's still in place. "Fight the system" was popular in the 80's, but it almost completely died off w/o any relevant change. I vividly remember the outcry over machine eadable census forms in the late 80's. Fast forward 4 years -- nobody gave a damn. Police gets very brutal once crowds become unruly towards authority, but are not too keen to help the average Joe. Media is even more controlled than it is in the US (part of the problem in the previous examples). There is no government-as-a-service mentality, be prepared to run the gauntlet for a day or more if you need any official paper work done. And pay for it as well, on top of your taxes...

I'm still amazed how far the german population goes along w/ this. I was expecting a revolt during the 90's decade, nothing but a slight elevation in grumpiness happened. IMVHO this is because germans are never exposed to real freedoms and the government is not afraid of their "sheep" -- they can't and won't do anything to endanger the status quo.

I understand what you went through, but I have a strong feeling that something like that is highly unlikely to happen here. Like you said, you grew up in a different area. Those who have been born here; both in the US and Canada, know what actual freedom is like -- and will put up a hell of a fight if it comes close to what you experienced. Even without the 2nd.

Look at the credo all the armed forces take, particularly in the states. The passage of "will defend the united states from enemies both foreign and domestic" would still hold.

Yes, woody brought up the 2A. And got a face full of adolescent hostility.

Not from me, he didn't! You know better than to lump everyone here in one box. And you KNOW that I'm not anti-gun either. Part of the Canadian culture, my culture, is built on guns.

So "Only you could turn an Olympic story into gun masturbation.", "Seriously, stop trying to compensate for your worthless microscopic dick already. No one else is impressed by your big, hard, throbbing metal substitute." and "Jesus ★■◆●ing christ. Trying to turn her achievement into a gun wankfest -- what the actual ★■◆●." was expressing that. Gotcha.

Again -- that's not being anti-gun. That's us calling him out on him trying to tell us that 'if it weren't for the 2nd amendment, she wouldn't have won'. It's a strawman and a house of cards. and you should have been able to spot that. But if your problem is with the word "★■◆●" or "wankfest", that's on YOU, and there's nothing 'adolescent' about it. Don't put word policing on us because you don't like them.

Honestly my response wasn't nearly as much about guns in particular as it was about woody's constant barrage of bull★■◆● in general. I genuinely wonder why he hasn't received any sort of extended time off here, because he's proven himself time and again incapable of engaging in anything resembling rational debate.

callmeslick wrote:further, an illustration from today as to why some of us are getting flat-out leery about the whole 2nd Amendment itself. Woody confuses it with an airgun championship, or being taught hunting. This guy uses it as a reason to suggest the assasination of a rival candidate:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/ ... index.html

oh, they'll dance around, stating that he meant them voting, but as noted by a security expert, "if those words were overheard outside the hall, the person would be in the back of a Secret Service van"

Well here's the quote:

"Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," Trump said."

Seems like you lefties want to make this a death threat statement. I could read it as 2nd amend. types organizing to get her impeached. Or making a giant march on Washington in protest. Why do you deliberately paint the worst scenario as the only scenario? Seems to me the really dangerous ones are those on the left making inflammatory statements.