# NRA convention in town



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

Should I 
A. Be scared of the bad man with guns
B. Make money off the people with guns


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

Juggalo9er said:


> Should I
> A. Be scared of the bad man with guns
> B. Make money off the people with guns


Make money, could not ask for any better PAX. Wish I was there.


----------



## The Texan (Mar 1, 2019)

I'd be dancing, and I rarely dance.

You WERE being sarcastic about the bad man with guns, right?


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

The Texan said:


> I'd be dancing, and I rarely dance.
> 
> You WERE being sarcastic about the bad man with guns, right?


Yes


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

Juggalo9er said:


> Should I
> A. Be scared of the bad man with guns
> B. Make money off the people with guns


1776 Worldwide ?


----------



## Woohaa (Jan 15, 2017)

FLKeys said:


> Make money, could not ask for any better PAX. Wish I was there.


You could not ask for a crazier PAX.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

Woohaa said:


> You could not ask for a crazier PAX.


What's crazy about affirming your rights


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)




----------



## Woohaa (Jan 15, 2017)

Juggalo9er said:


> What's crazy about affirming your rights


You can affirm your rights without joining a special interest group comprised of nut jobs.


----------



## Bubsie (Oct 19, 2017)

Good guys with guns, nothing to fear.


----------



## TXUbering (May 9, 2018)

Most of the gun nuts that I know tend to be compensating for something. When I see people screaming about their "rights" to own weapons, it's generally because they want to be intimidating, but can't be because no one's intimidated by someone that's pear shaped and lives with their mom. At least that's been my general experience.


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

Nobody with a gun can enter my car. Period.


----------



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

I would definitely drive just for that convention. All my gun-toting pax have been well behaved and great tippers.


----------



## Bubsie (Oct 19, 2017)

I have no problems with someone who is carrying concealed (by definition its hidden from view). Same with a cased long gun going in the trunk. The gun banners that want to take guns away from law abiding people, so the criminals can carry on their evil undisturbed, thats the real head scratcher to me.


----------



## Ubergaldrivet (Feb 6, 2019)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> Nobody with a gun can enter my car. Period.


$100 says you have had many.


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

Juggalo9er said:


> Should I
> A. Be scared of the bad man with guns
> B. Make money off the people with guns


Are you serious or trolling to make conversation???

This great nation would not have existed if the populace were disarmed and would not have lasted if the Statists had their way and disarmed the citizenry. The 2nd Amendment serves as a deterrent to tyranny and criminals.

One has nothing to fear from armed law-abiding citizens, unless of course one is looking to prey on the innocent!


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

swathdiver said:


> Are you serious or trolling to make conversation???
> 
> This great nation would not have existed if the populace were disarmed and would not have lasted if the Statists had their way and disarmed the citizenry. The 2nd Amendment serves as a deterrent to tyranny and criminals.
> 
> One has nothing to fear from armed law-abiding citizens, unless of course one is looking to prey on the innocent!


I'm beyond pro gun.... If that answers your question


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

Ubergaldrivet said:


> $100 says you have had many.


No way. 
My car my rules.
Period.


----------



## Bubsie (Oct 19, 2017)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> No way.
> My car my rules.
> Period.


The point is unless you are frisking them or have a magical metal detector embedded in your door frames, you wouldn't know if someone was carrying a handgun in your car.


----------



## reg barclay (Nov 3, 2015)

Why not. In my experience American conservatives are better tippers than liberals. And no, I don't belong to either camp.


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

Bubsie said:


> The point is unless you are frisking them or have a magical metal detector embedded in your door frames, you wouldn't know if someone was carrying a handgun in your car.


Yeah I meant if I "see" the guns. 
Of course if I don't see it, I cannot stop them


----------



## whiskeyboat (Oct 14, 2017)

yes be scared of the bad man with a gun
and be nice to the good man with a gun


----------



## theMezz (Sep 29, 2018)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> No way.
> My car my rules.
> Period.


I've been in literally thousands of places and cars with my gun and not one person would know.

i.e. Heck - one day 12 of us on Harley's did a ride and made many stops along the way - people would look at us all scared - like we were some kind of gang. 10 of us had guns (with 3x a year training) the other 2 guys were paramedics. People around us couldn't be safer ! We stopped in bars, a BBQ place and a coffee shop .. no one knew were we packing.

So yeah... Alexxxx you've had people armed!!


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

Problem is that the regular folks are not in mental health monitoring frequently. I trust police with the guns, because their mental health is being monitored regularly


----------



## theMezz (Sep 29, 2018)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> Problem is that the regular folks are not in mental health monitoring frequently. I trust police with the guns, because their mental health is being monitored regularly


That is a problem.


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

theMezz said:


> I've been in literally thousands of places and cars with my gun and not one person would know.
> 
> i.e. Heck - one day 12 of us on Harley's did a ride and made many stops along the way - people would look at us all scared - like we were some kind of gang. 10 of us had guns (with 3x a year training) the other 2 guys were paramedics. People around us couldn't be safer ! We stopped in bars, a BBQ place and a coffee shop .. no one knew were we packing.
> 
> So yeah... Alexxxx you've had people armed!!


Well yeah if I don't see it, I cannot make a conclusion.
But if I see any person except police with a gun, I immediately stay away


----------



## amazinghl (Oct 31, 2018)

I would much rather live in a country that allows gun then a country that doesn't allow gun.

I lived in Hong Kong, where only army, police and bad guys have guns. Normal people that wants to protect themselves against bad people, nope, you don't get to do that.

Gun are weapon. Don't treat it as a toy. Don't use it for selfie. Don't flash it. Respect it. Lock it up when not in use.


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> Problem is that the regular folks are not in mental health monitoring frequently. I trust police with the guns, because their mental health is being monitored regularly


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !

*According to the study, "permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth of the rate for police officers."*

https://dcdirtylaundry.com/study-shows-concealed-carry-permit-holders-break-laws-far-less-than-cops/


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

FLKeys said:


> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !
> 
> *According to the study, "permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth of the rate for police officers."*
> 
> https://dcdirtylaundry.com/study-shows-concealed-carry-permit-holders-break-laws-far-less-than-cops/


----------



## theMezz (Sep 29, 2018)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> Well yeah if I don't see it, I cannot make a conclusion.
> But if I see any person except police with a gun, I immediately stay away


makes sense to me!


----------



## oldfart (Dec 22, 2017)

I would be scared and I would make money

I used to think that you guys were nuts when you said you own guns to protect us against tyranny. But now with Trump in office I agree. I just wonder why you haven’t done anything about it yet


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

It's related.... Somehow


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

Juggalo9er said:


> Should I
> A. Be scared of the bad man with guns
> B. Make money off the people with guns


Possibly some of the best people you could meet. While I am not a member, nor do I really agree with their agency's politics, I would be more afraid of the pax you probably already transport with an illegal firearm.



Alexxx_Uber said:


> Nobody with a gun can enter my car. Period.


Got news for you, if you live in a state with concealed carry on the books, they are. Edit - you're in New Germany. So it's mainly illegally concealed guns ?


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)




----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

A mod has joined the discussion... Please change the topic to a politically correct basis....
What is your current fuel mileage


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

Every day for two years. Not pictured, wallet and photo taken with my phone ?

Oh and I am a Democrat


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

Benjamin M said:


> View attachment 314242
> 
> Every day for two years. Not pictured, wallet and photo taken with my phone ?
> 
> Oh and I am a Democrat


I'm not Democrat or Republican but I will vote for whoever I believe will protect the basis of the Constitution better... I've fallen in love with sar recently... They are cheap and very reliable


----------



## dctcmn (Sep 21, 2017)

Maybe you'll get to give Maria Butina a ride.


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

Juggalo9er said:


> I'm not Democrat or Republican but I will vote for whoever I believe will protect the basis of the Constitution better... I've fallen in love with sar recently... They are cheap and very reliable


I'm really in the middle politically. Lately both sides piss me off. I'm also glad to live in a "shall issue" CCW state but think that the rules are way too lenient.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

Benjamin M said:


> I'm really in the middle politically. Lately both sides piss me off. I'm also glad to live in a "shall issue" CCW state but think that the rules are way too lenient.


I've carried a shot gun down the road here because open carry.....


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

Juggalo9er said:


> I'm not Democrat or Republican but I will vote for whoever I believe will protect the basis of the Constitution better... I've fallen in love with sar recently... They are cheap and very reliable


I carry a S&W M&P Shield 9mm Performance Center. Bought it new for around $300 with a sale and rebate, great deal.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> View attachment 314165


Lucky the Government did not Mandate ASBESTOS AIRBAGS IN YOUR CAR !


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Juggalo9er said:


> A mod has joined the discussion... Please change the topic to a politically correct basis....


Liberals have been advocating the same, old, worn out, tired, ineffective programmes of gun "control" for the past fifty years. The only thing that these programmes of gun "control" ever have "accomplished" is that they take firearms away from decent people who need those firearms to defend themselves against armed, violent criminals. At the same time, these same old, worn out, tired, ineffective liberal-advocated programmes of gun "control" have left guns in the hands of armed, violent criminals. Every time the liberals put into effect one of these same old. worn out, ineffective, tired programmes of gun "control", gun violence, at best, stays the same; at worst, it gets worse. Every time the liberals put into effect one of these same old, tired, ineffective, worn out programmes of gun "control" and gun violence continues unabated, these same liberals hang their collective head and wring their collective hands and wonder why their programme of gun "control" has not stopped the gun violence. Despite this, these same liberals continue to advocate for the same old, worn out, tired and ineffective programmes of gun "control".

One commonly accepted textbook illustration of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and being surprised when the results are the same. Liberals repeatedly advocate for these same old, worn out, tired and ineffective programmes of gun "control" and have been doing so for the past fifty years. Every time one of these same old, worn out, tired and ineffective programmes of gun "control" fails, liberals act surprised.

*DIPSO FACTO; Q.E.D.:* Liberals are insane.

How is *that* for politically correct?


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Liberals have been advocating the same, old, worn out, tired, ineffective programmes of gun "control" for the past fifty years. The only thing that these programmes of gun "control" ever have "accomplished" is that they take firearms away from decent people who need those firearms to defend themselves against armed, violent criminals. At the same time, these same old, worn out, tired, ineffective liberal-advocated programmes of gun "control" have left guns in the hands of armed, violent criminals. Every time the liberals put into effect one of these same old. worn out, ineffective, tired programmes of gun "control", gun violence, at best, stays the same; at worst, it gets worse. Every time the liberals put into effect one of these same old, tired, ineffective, worn out programmes of gun "control" and gun violence continues unabated, these same liberals hang their collective head and wring their collective hands and wonder why their programme of gun "control" has not stopped the gun violence. Despite this, these same liberals continue to advocate for the same old, worn out, tired and ineffective programmes of gun "control".
> 
> One commonly accepted textbook illustration of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and being surprised when the results are the same. Liberals repeatedly advocate for these same old, worn out, tired and ineffective programmes of gun "control" and have been doing so for the past fifty years. Every time one of these same old, worn out, tired and ineffective programmes of gun "control" fails, liberals act surprised.
> 
> ...


The alt right in me shed a single tear.... I'm proud of you


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

I was pulled over one day, handed the officer my license and CCW permit. 

"What's this?" 

"Concealed carry permit, sir. I'm armed." 

"Is it on you?" 

Resisted the urge to say "no sir! It's safe in my underwear drawer!" ? 

Virginia does not require a citizen to inform law enforcement that they are armed unless asked. I do so as a courtesy because I would like to know.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Liberals have been advocating the same, old, worn out, tired, ineffective programmes of gun "control" for the past fifty years. The only thing that these programmes of gun "control" ever have "accomplished" is that they take firearms away from decent people who need those firearms to defend themselves against armed, violent criminals. At the same time, these same old, worn out, tired, ineffective liberal-advocated programmes of gun "control" have left guns in the hands of armed, violent criminals. Every time the liberals put into effect one of these same old. worn out, ineffective, tired programmes of gun "control", gun violence, at best, stays the same; at worst, it gets worse. Every time the liberals put into effect one of these same old, tired, ineffective, worn out programmes of gun "control" and gun violence continues unabated, these same liberals hang their collective head and wring their collective hands and wonder why their programme of gun "control" has not stopped the gun violence. Despite this, these same liberals continue to advocate for the same old, worn out, tired and ineffective programmes of gun "control".
> 
> One commonly accepted textbook illustration of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and being surprised when the results are the same. Liberals repeatedly advocate for these same old, worn out, tired and ineffective programmes of gun "control" and have been doing so for the past fifty years. Every time one of these same old, worn out, tired and ineffective programmes of gun "control" fails, liberals act surprised.
> 
> ...


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

Juggalo9er said:


> I'm beyond pro gun.... If that answers your question


Well, maybe. But, that begs another question. What does "beyond pro gun" mean?


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

Benjamin M said:


> Possibly some of the best people you could meet. While I am not a member, nor do I really agree with their agency's politics, I would be more afraid of the pax you probably already transport with an illegal firearm.
> 
> 
> Got news for you, if you live in a state with concealed carry on the books, they are. Edit - you're in New Germany. So it's mainly illegally concealed guns ?


I meant if I see the gun. 
If they hide the gun, I cannot stop them


----------



## Deepscout (Sep 3, 2018)

Benjamin M said:


> I was pulled over one day, handed the officer my license and CCW permit.
> 
> "What's this?"
> 
> ...


North Carolina requires us to inform any LEO who addresses or approaches us. I have been pulled over twice while ridesharing. Let off with a verbal warning both times, but had I been armed, the riders could have reported me to Uber/Lyft and ended my part-time job. As long as I need the money, I can't CCW while driving.


----------



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

It used to be, in Texas, LEO would see you were a permit holder when they ran your DL. 

Haven't been pulled over in eons so don't know if that's still true.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

swathdiver said:


> Well, maybe. But, that begs another question. What does "beyond pro gun" mean?


It means that I am not only pro gun but I carry and vote against anyone that opposes firearms


----------



## Coyotex (Feb 10, 2019)

You couldn't ask for better clientele! I'd be driving every hour I can! I'd ask where's the best place I could hide a weapon in my car! Or.....ask if they can find mine (assuming I was packing something *grin*)


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

reg barclay said:


> Why not. In my experience American conservatives are better tippers than liberals. And no, I don't belong to either camp.


So you're asking every rider what their political affiliation is? And if you are, then you've already contaminated the data.


----------



## dctcmn (Sep 21, 2017)

Juggalo9er said:


> The alt right in me shed a single tear.... I'm proud of you


So you've upgraded from the original Insane Clown Posse to a different, more insane, more clownish posse?


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

dctcmn said:


> So you've upgraded from the original Insane Clown Posse to a different, more insane, more clownish posse?


You can't upgrade something that's always been there.... Please try door number two


----------



## reg barclay (Nov 3, 2015)

ZenUber said:


> So you're asking every rider what their political affiliation is? And if you are, then you've already contaminated the data.


I said 'in my experience'. I'm not claiming to have conducted a scientific survey. Just enough to base my own pax preferences on. Sometimes pax make their political views known in conversation without solicitation. And on occasion, I may be guilty of profiling. I suppose the guy with an American flag on his lawn, and a truck with 'support our troops' on it, could have been a Hilary voter. And I guess the bearded hipster going to a vegan restaurant could have been a Trump supporter. I'd hazard a guess that in most cases I was correct though.

Side note: I'm only talking about frequency of tips, but I've been stiffed by people of every persuasion, age group, etc, and tipped by people of every group.


----------



## dctcmn (Sep 21, 2017)

Juggalo9er said:


> You can't upgrade something that's always been there.... Please try door number two


No thanks. The alt right is a cancer on this country.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

dctcmn said:


> No thanks. The alt right is a cancer on this country.


So are liberals, thanks for playing
Would you like to know what the consolation prize is


----------



## dctcmn (Sep 21, 2017)

Juggalo9er said:


> So are liberals, thanks for playing
> Would you like to know what the consolation prize is


It is possible to be an American who loves their country and doesn't hate those who are different than them.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

dctcmn said:


> It is possible to be an American who loves their country and doesn't hate those who are different than them.


Is it possible yes, does it happen in practice, no!
I don't hate any specific group, I hate everyone equally. Personal perspective is based on life experiences, mine happen to originate from Flint, Michigan. Perhaps your perspective may be different.


----------



## dctcmn (Sep 21, 2017)

Juggalo9er said:


> Is it possible yes, does it happen in practice, no!
> I don't hate any specific group, I hate everyone equally. Personal perspective is based on life experiences, mine happen to originate from Flint, Michigan. Perhaps your perspective may be different.


The vast, vast majority of Americans are neither liberals or alt right. Most of us love our country and don't hate our neighbors, co-workers or church members, even if they have a different skin color, religion or political belief.

And don't try to redefine alt right. Alt right is not about hating everyone equally. Alt right is about white nationalism and you said you were alt right.


----------



## The Texan (Mar 1, 2019)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> Nobody with a gun can enter my car. Period.


Too bad for you snowflake. One just might save your life someday.

Do they have to tell you they are conceal carrying before they get in?



dctcmn said:


> The vast, vast majority of Americans are neither liberals or alt right. Most of us love our country and don't hate our neighbors, co-workers or church members, even if they have a different skin color, religion or political belief.
> 
> And don't try to redefine alt right. Alt right is not about hating everyone equally. Alt right is about white nationalism and you said you were alt right.


Is that your definition, or is that like in the dictionary somewhere?
I'm as conservative as can be. I don't know what 'alt right' is actually.
I have a mixed race marriage, with 2 wonderful mixed race sons- who happen to be on the Autism Spectrum.

Every conservative I know and/or hang out with- in all the years has not showed one sign or action or comment of racism, etc. Why is it the left seems to have this stereotype of conservatives? Oh, wait, I know, because it fits their narrative, all the while pushing legislation to keep the poor people poor, while telling them it's for their own good.
By chance, have you heard anything from people like James T. Harris? or Candace Owens?
if interested, please do your own google search on them.


----------



## dctcmn (Sep 21, 2017)

The Texan said:


> Is that your definition, or is that like in the dictionary somewhere?
> I'm as conservative as can be. I don't know what 'alt right' is actually.
> I have a mixed race marriage, with 2 wonderful mixed race sons- who happen to be on the Autism Spectrum.
> 
> ...


The name "Alt Right" is based on a website called "The Alternative Right" which was started, owned and operated by Richard Spencer, a self professed white nationalist.

So no, it's not my definition. It's what neo- nazis call themselves now.


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

Politically I'm like I'm at a Chinese buffet: a litte from this tray and a little from this tray and soon I have a full plate.

I'm definitely more conservative on fiscal matters (confiscating someone's wealth isn't going to do anything but cause high earners to leave your jurisdiction) and more liberal on social issues (IDGAF whom you marry or sleep with as long as it's consensual and IDGAF if you have an abortion, in fact I can think of a few people I wish their parents had gotten an abortion) and have no use for either the kooky left or the crazy religious zealots on the right.

Going back to @Juggalo9er topic, I'd have no issues with NRA members. We have the NRA HQ in my area. I've picked up from there before. I didn't piss my pants because they were the big bad NRA.

A CCW holder is less of a threat to people. Presumably he/she has had training and practices so he/she will have better likelihood of hitting their target than the gangbanger who sprays a volley of bullets and hits 3 innocent bystanders but misses their intended target.

I don't own or carry, have shot a gun maybe twice at a shooting range but am in full support of those that want to own and carry legally.


----------



## TampaGuy (Feb 18, 2019)




----------



## BCS DRIVER (Oct 25, 2018)

Benjamin M said:


> I was pulled over one day, handed the officer my license and CCW permit.
> 
> "What's this?"
> 
> ...


It's the same here in Texas. No requirement to reveal if stopped. I too present my LTC along with insurance and DL as a courtesy. The last time I did this the cop just handed it back while laughing and saying everyone in Texas has a gun.


----------



## PlayLoud (Jan 11, 2019)

Woohaa said:


> You can affirm your rights without joining a special interest group comprised of nut jobs.


5 million members. Are you judging all of them? Including me?


Alexxx_Uber said:


> Nobody with a gun can enter my car. Period.


You may not allow it. Uber/Lyft may not allow it. But there is a good chance this has already happened. Concealed is concealed. You'd never know.


----------



## dctcmn (Sep 21, 2017)

@The Texan -- now is also a good time to point out that I didn't call @Juggalo9er "alt right", he referred to himself as "alt right".


----------



## brentb31 (May 23, 2018)

I will be driving it and foresee quite a few firearm shuffles in my future. I see a gun, you can't get in. Either cancel or I will wait out my 5 min and collect.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

dctcmn said:


> @The Texan -- now is also a good time to point out that I didn't call @Juggalo9er "alt right", he referred to himself as "alt right".


The real question is... Do you know what the alt right is


----------



## amazinghl (Oct 31, 2018)

Juggalo9er said:


> A mod has joined the discussion... Please change the topic to a politically correct basis....
> What is your current fuel mileage
> View attachment 314243


Need more hypermile.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

amazinghl said:


> Need more hypermile.
> View attachment 314338


What kind of car


----------



## amazinghl (Oct 31, 2018)

Juggalo9er said:


> What kind of car


First Gen Honda Insight, running gas only and without the hybrid battery.


----------



## Lyft-O-Maniac (Aug 18, 2018)

They can't carry it in DC.. Unless it's a DC resident who has a permit from DC.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

amazinghl said:


> First Gen Honda Insight, running gas only and without the hybrid battery.


What kind of motor does that have


----------



## amazinghl (Oct 31, 2018)

Juggalo9er said:


> What kind of motor does that have


1.0L 3 cylinders making 60ish HP to haul around 1800lbs of mostly aluminum chassis.

I only use my Insight to delivery food, not people.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

amazinghl said:


> 1.0L 3 cylinders making 60ish HP.
> 
> I only use my Insight to delivery food, not people.


Is that a remake of the old geo 3 bangers


----------



## Coyotex (Feb 10, 2019)

I'm sure, as I do, several of my rideshare friends personally know LEOs. I've asked them, and you should too, if they would prefer to know if a person they are pulling over has a weapon in their vehicle. And, as long as the stop wasn't for anything major, most of them will let the driver off if the LEO was properly informed and the driver fully cooperated with them. You could not ask for a more pleasant conversation with an officer, at least in my area.

Unfortunatly, Uber has an issue with drivers protecting themselves so if they know there is a weapon in the vehicle, they will deactivate. So, the trick then comes, if you get pulled over with a pax in the car, how to relay to th LEO without the pax acting like an pax-whole and contacting uber. Hmmmmmm.


----------



## dctcmn (Sep 21, 2017)

Juggalo9er said:


> The real question is... Do you know what the alt right is


Yes. I clearly do.


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

The Texan said:


> Too bad for you snowflake. One just might save your life someday.
> 
> Do they have to tell you they are conceal carrying before they get in?
> 
> ...


If they hide the guns, I cannot stop them


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

BCS DRIVER said:


> The last time I did this the cop just handed it back while laughing and saying everyone in Texas has a gun.


Yep! ? Pretty much the same where I moved from recently out in the sticks. Tons of CCW holders. Not surprisingly, we didn't have very many robberies or home invasions. And when we did, you would always hear "property owner had a gun" on the scanner.


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

Benjamin M said:


> View attachment 314242
> 
> Every day for two years. Not pictured, wallet and photo taken with my phone ?
> 
> Oh and I am a Democrat


Nice set up, what brand holster is that? What level retention? I'm guessing you carry around 4 o'clock based on the angle. Interesting that the front belt loop is so high, again guessing that it is most comfortable for you that way.

How much practice do you get in drawing from a seated position with a seat belt on? I'm working more in that area myself right now.

Florida is pushing 2 million permit holders, end of March 2019 it was 1,971,997 active permit holders.


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

Coyotex said:


> So, the trick then comes, if you get pulled over with a pax in the car, how to relay to th LEO without the pax acting like an pax-whole and contacting uber. Hmmmmmm.


I'd suggest something on a business card that asks not to mention it out loud or have you carefully step out, along with your license and permit.


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

Coyotex said:


> I'm sure, as I do, several of my rideshare friends personally know LEOs. I've asked them, and you should too, if they would prefer to know if a person they are pulling over has a weapon in their vehicle. And, as long as the stop wasn't for anything major, most of them will let the driver off if the LEO was properly informed and the driver fully cooperated with them. You could not ask for a more pleasant conversation with an officer, at least in my area.
> 
> Unfortunatly, Uber has an issue with drivers protecting themselves so if they know there is a weapon in the vehicle, they will deactivate. So, the trick then comes, if you get pulled over with a pax in the car, how to relay to th LEO without the pax acting like an pax-whole and contacting uber. Hmmmmmm.


If I get pulled over I hand the officer my permit on top of my DL followed by my insurance card and registration. Florida is a no need to inform state unless asked, however I find having my permit on top of the documents and the first thing he sees seems to help in easing the tension of the officer. Most of the time thay say thank you and hand my permit back over while they look at my other documents.


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

FLKeys said:


> Nice set up, what brand holster is that? What level retention? I'm guessing you carry around 4 o'clock based on the angle. Interesting that the front belt loop is so high, again guessing that it is most comfortable for you that way.
> 
> How much practice do you get in drawing from a seated position with a seat belt on? I'm working more in that area myself right now.
> 
> Florida is pushing 2 million permit holders, end of March 2019 it was 1,971,997 active permit holders.


Alien Gear Shapeshift. I've tried several brands, keep coming back to them.

Retention is easily adjustable, I carry somewhat loose (new holster, trying to find the sweet spot). The loops are adjustable without tools, trying different cants to avoid the "flag pole" - the current configuration seems to work well.

Drawing from seated isn't very easy and I can't carry appendix because of issues from a past surgery. OC is first line, then draw while exiting. I can get to it but not super fast. 
http://aliengearholsters.com/shapeshift-iwb-holster.html


Alexxx_Uber said:


> If they hide the guns, I cannot stop them


Can we please let up on Alex? Think he (assuming) gets it. If he doesn't like guns and hopes to avoid armed passengers, totally understandable.


----------



## Coyotex (Feb 10, 2019)

I'm assuming those who oppose guns are freaking out because us "whacko's" are talking about guns in a positive respectful way!


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

The Texan said:


> Every conservative I know and/or hang out with- in all the years has not showed one sign or action or comment of racism, etc.


Oh boy. Let me introduce you to some, starting with my mother in law's family. Conservative "Christian", all love and peace unless you are any shade other than white.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

dctcmn said:


> Yes. I clearly do.


Do tell


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

PlayLoud said:


> 5 million members. Are you judging all of them? Including me?
> 
> You may not allow it. Uber/Lyft may not allow it. But there is a good chance this has already happened. Concealed is concealed. You'd never know.


I didn't mean the guns that they hide.


----------



## Woohaa (Jan 15, 2017)

PlayLoud said:


> 5 million members. Are you judging all of them? Including me?


Only the ones publicly on record with ridiculous positions.


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

Woohaa said:


> Only the ones publicly on record with ridiculous positions.


It is all perspective. Many anti gunners are open about getting what ever restrictions they can while admitting they will never be happy until guns are banned completely. So now on the gun ownership side gun owners need to stand tough and not allow any more restrictions which sounds ridiculous to some. However gun owners are facing death by a 1000 paper cuts as the saying goes, a little restriction here, a little restriction there, take away this take away that....you get the point.

Punish criminals not law abiding citizens. When seconds count police are minutes away. Plus the supreme court already ruled that the police have no responsibility to protect citizens. You are your own protection.

I get some people want nothing to do with guns, great that is your choice, don't force your choice down my throat like anti gunners regularly try to do. I have never once tried to force someone to own a gun.


----------



## dctcmn (Sep 21, 2017)

Juggalo9er said:


> Do tell


I'll quote the founder of the alternative right movement--

"The ideal I advocate is the creation of a White Ethno-State on the North American continent
Today, in the public imagination, 'ethnic-cleansing' has been associated with civil war and mass murder (understandably so). But this need not be the case. 1919 is a real example of successful ethnic redistribution - done by fiat, we should remember, but done peacefully."


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

dctcmn said:


> I'll quote the founder of the alternative right movement--
> 
> "The ideal I advocate is the creation of a White Ethno-State on the North American continent
> Today, in the public imagination, 'ethnic-cleansing' has been associated with civil war and mass murder (understandably so). But this need not be the case. 1919 is a real example of successful ethnic redistribution - done by fiat, we should remember, but done peacefully."


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/topics/us-politics/democratic-partySouthern Democrats favored slavery... Do you as a Democrat favor slavery? Your argument sounds as intelligent!


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

FLKeys said:


> Punish criminals not law abiding citizens.


The problem is that one does not become a "criminal" until they break the law. Some of the worst mass shootings have been carried out by people without a criminal record and legally purchased firearms, despite having multiple red flags that were never taken into account by the current system.

I am an armed citizen. I also think that it's ridiculous in my state of Virginia that you can walk out of a store in less than half an hour with a gun. Wife just left you and want to get some quick revenge? Piece of cake! Waiting periods don't solve all of the problems, at all, but at least it provides a cooling down period.

Don't want to go through the hassle of a background check? No problem! Also in Virginia, it is completely legal to sell someone a firearm without any official documents or background check. So a "criminal" can toss you a few hundred bucks for their next piece. And because there is no registration, they can go right on gang banging.

Common sense stuff. All I want to see.


----------



## Deepscout (Sep 3, 2018)

PlayLoud said:


> You may not allow it. Uber/Lyft may not allow it. But there is a good chance this has already happened. Concealed is concealed. You'd never know.


I once had a rider get out of the car and leave a gun behind on the back seat. Fell out of her purse. Turned out to be one of those gas/mace shooting guns. I was disappointed in her.

Fortunately she saw it and didn't leave it for the next rider to pick up.


----------



## WillUbr4Food (Nov 2, 2018)

Can someone tell me where the forum about picking people up at an NRA convention went?


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> Nobody with a gun can enter my car. Period.


Unless they cover it with a shirt, lol. Unless you wand down your pax, I guarantee you get gun carrying pax. And probably most of them are felons illegally carrying guns.... not the NRA members which most likely have a clean as a whistle criminal background.

FACT: CCW permit holders have a lower rate of criminal conviction than law enforcement officers.


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

Trafficat said:


> Unless they cover it with a shirt, lol. Unless you wand down your pax, I guarantee you get gun carrying pax. And probably most of them are felons illegally carrying guns.... not the NRA members which most likely have a clean as a whistle criminal background.
> 
> FACT: CCW permit holders have a lower rate of criminal conviction than law enforcement officers.


Update: Nobody with a visible gun can enter my car. Period.


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

Benjamin M said:


> The problem is that one does not become a "criminal" until they break the law. Some of the worst mass shootings have been carried out by people without a criminal record and legally purchased firearms, despite having multiple red flags that were never taken into account by the current system.
> 
> I am an armed citizen. I also think that it's ridiculous in my state of Virginia that you can walk out of a store in less than half an hour with a gun. Wife just left you and want to get some quick revenge? Piece of cake! Waiting periods don't solve all of the problems, at all, but at least it provides a cooling down period.
> 
> ...


I agree that there are always those few that are not criminals before they do something horrible, however most of the gun violence is by people with long criminal backgrounds. There are no easy answers, and the red flag laws being passed are filled with issues. Ever notice most of these horrible shootings happen in gun free zones? Easy targets.



Alexxx_Uber said:


> Update: Nobody with a visible gun can enter my car. Period.


I respect that position you have, even in open carry states I respect that position. Your choice, and I'm pretty sure most open carries would respect that choice.


----------



## PlayLoud (Jan 11, 2019)

Benjamin M said:


> The problem is that one does not become a "criminal" until they break the law.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Woohaa said:


> Only the ones publicly on record with ridiculous positions.


The funny thing is most gun owners in my circle consider the NRA far too centrist, compromising too much. I always find it funny when anti-gun people find the NRA to be extremist. Compared to the NRA, I am extreme. I don't believe in background checks or limitations on automatic weapons, unlike the NRA which supports background checks and supported the trumpstock ban.

I wish the NRA was as extreme as the mainsteam media makes them out to be. Unfortunately their extremeness is often a myth pushed forward by people trying to pass dishonest gun bans such as the one currently proposed in my state where they claim they want to do something like ban bumpstocks when the bill is actually so broad that it bans every trigger upgrade used by target shooters.


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

FLKeys said:


> I agree that there are always those few that are not criminals before they do something horrible, however most of the gun violence is by people with long criminal backgrounds.


It's way more than "those few," my friend. But it's better for the pro-gun side to make it sound like only people with a long criminal background are the problem. Glossing over the domestic violence murders, mass shootings, and first time offenders - happens daily.



PlayLoud said:


>


Yeah well it's true ? Always hear "the problem is 'criminals'" and imagine The Hamburgler with a Glock ?

I have also responded to three "suicides" which were clearly homicides, domestic, but the stupid small town Sheriff's Department was too inept to put the pieces together. One was my sister's neighbor, she finally had it with being beat every day and plugged his ass. Guaranteed. She had a guy on the side. Shot with his legal firearm.


----------



## Merc7186 (Jul 8, 2017)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> Nobody with a gun can enter my car. Period.


Nobody with a period can enter my car. Gun.

(Move a few words around and it has a whole new meaning)


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

Merc7186 said:


> Nobody with a period can enter my car. Gun.
> 
> (Move a few words around and it has a whole new meaning)


No bleeding allowed in my car


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

Merc7186 said:


> Nobody with a period can enter my car. Gun.
> 
> (Move a few words around and it has a whole new meaning)


That might explain a stubborn stain ??


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

FLKeys said:


> I agree that there are always those few that are not criminals before they do something horrible, however most of the gun violence is by people with long criminal backgrounds. There are no easy answers, and the red flag laws being passed are filled with issues. Ever notice most of these horrible shootings happen in gun free zones? Easy targets.
> 
> 
> I respect that position you have, even in open carry states I respect that position. Your choice, and I'm pretty sure most open carries would respect that choice.


Thanks for your understanding



Merc7186 said:


> Nobody with a period can enter my car. Gun.
> 
> (Move a few words around and it has a whole new meaning)


:laugh:


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Benjamin M said:


> I'd suggest something on a business card that asks not to mention it out loud or have you carefully step out, along with your license and permit.


Fortunately the one time I was pulled over with a pax the cop did not even mention the CCW permit. The cop said I made a bad turn in one direction but I know (and had dashcam proof) that I only made turns in the other direction since he began following me. I'm pretty sure it was just fishing for drunks and I was the only car on the road other than 3 police cars. Once he realized I was an Uber driver taking home an intoxicated passenger rather than a drunk driver, he let me go without even checking for proof of insurance or registration. Pax still rated me one star though.

I have been stopped by the police in the past when I wasn't driving a passenger, where they freaked out over my guns, temporarily seizing them to look up the serial numbers. I figure there is a good chance that this is how my career as an Uber driver might eventually come to an end.


----------



## brentb31 (May 23, 2018)

Juggalo9er said:


> No bleeding allowed in my car


Easy cleaning fee.


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

dctcmn said:


> ...right is about white nationalism and you said you were alt right.


I'd never even heard the term until Hillary mentioned it during the 2016 election.

If that is the correct definition for "alt right", then it is the same definition the left assigns to their old terror group, the KKK and the National Socialist Workers Party which they also previously supported until it became unpopular to do so.

That being said, neither of these two groups has anything to do with what is known in America as the Republican Party of today or Conservatism but rather is identical to the ideology of Statism/Socialism/Communism.

So, how many of you young folks here know who the National Socialist Workers Party were?


----------



## Woohaa (Jan 15, 2017)

Trafficat said:


> The funny thing is most gun owners in my circle consider the NRA far too centrist, compromising too much. I always find it funny when anti-gun people find the NRA to be extremist. Compared to the NRA, I am extreme. I don't believe in background checks or limitations on automatic weapons, unlike the NRA which supports background checks and supported the trumpstock ban.
> 
> I wish the NRA was as extreme as the mainsteam media makes them out to be. Unfortunately their extremeness is often a myth pushed forward by people trying to pass dishonest gun bans such as the one currently proposed in my state where they claim they want to do something like ban bumpstocks when the bill is actually so broad that it bans every trigger upgrade used by target shooters.


I am not anti gun and definitely consider the NRA to be a lobbying force with extreme views. I'm a gun owner who thinks common sense gun laws are absolutely necessary.


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

brentb31 said:


> Easy cleaning fee.


Around here, shops just happen to charge the exact amount as the fee - and don't they require a receipt these days?


----------



## CarpeNoctem (Sep 12, 2018)

I'd be more concerned about picking people up at gun shows than from NRA meetings.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

CarpeNoctem said:


> I'd be more concerned about picking people up at gun shows than from NRA meetings.


Neither are a concern and I've done both


----------



## libingbing (Apr 17, 2017)

Wild Wild West baby !! They better behave if they know what's best for them.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

Juggalo9er said:


> Should I
> A. Be scared of the bad man with guns
> B. Make money off the people with guns


C. Kick the cowards ass out of the car.


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

Woohaa said:


> I'm a gun owner who thinks common sense gun laws are absolutely necessary.


When one uses the language of the opposition, they've lost the debate/argument. "Common Sense Gun Laws" are in conflict with the Constitution of these United States. Most gun laws on the books today are as well. It says, "...shall not be infringed" for a reason.



Juggalo9er said:


> My self professed idealogy is to leave other people alone in their beliefs so long as they leave me alone.


The problem with the Statist is that they want power over every aspect of our lives and must be resisted at all times. They believe that a few elites, them, can better organize society and spend people's money, that people are too stupid and inept to manage their own affairs without their input. In doing so they deny human nature and show their opposition to God's Word.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Woohaa said:


> I am not anti gun and definitely consider the NRA to be a lobbying force with extreme views. I'm a gun owner who thinks common sense gun laws are absolutely necessary.


There are a lot of people who say they are "not anti-gun" but believe the bar for gun ownership is just below them and no one should own any weapon slightly better than their own.

I personally believe self-defense is a human right, and denying people the most effective weapons for self-defense is denying that right. I find it hard to understand how anyone who thinks self-defense is valuable at all would find the NRA extreme.

The NRA viewpoint is pretty much that non-felons should have access to semi-automatic firearms (meaning that they fire once per trigger pull), and to bring them wherever they go throughout the day for self-defense. Most gun control proposed is aimed at trying to prevent that.

Current law across the nation already creates a spaghetti code of varying rules where a person carrying a gun for self-defense is expected to deholster at half the places they go, and makes it too much of a hassle for most people.

Most of the gun bills written are overly broad and there is almost never any willingness to amend them to be more palatable.

Someone mentioned wait periods in this thread... yet I've never seen a wait period law that was reasonable. For instance someone proposes a 3 day wait period and they refuse to add any exceptions to it for licensed gun carriers who already own several guns. The purpose is obviously not safety, but to increase hassle. Same thing with background check laws. They are always written to establish a registration database and charge fees and taxes, with no exceptions for people who are currently exempt from background checks under current law due to possessing a gun license. Why? Because the people writing these bills don't care about background checks. They want registration (for confiscation) and taxes. That's why the NRA opposes those bills.

And don't give me guff about registration not being for confiscation. That's exactly the purpose behind it, all you have to do is declare martial law and suddenly the police are coming to your door to take your guns.... that's what Mayor Nagin did in New Orleans. Many local governments have it written in their municipal and county codes that guns are to be confiscated in the state of emergency, including the county code where I live.

Registration has been used to confiscate previously legal items in California. Most gun owners refuse to register their weapons because it is pretty obvious that registration is used for confiscation. You could call it abuse of the registration and call it a slippery slope argument but I believe most proponents of registration view it as the main feature. Their main goal behind registration is to create a database that can be used to disarm people. It is estimated that about 90% of gun owners did not comply with assault weapon registration requirements in Connecticut. Of course, some people will line up to fork over the things they bought with their hard earned money right away. But most people don't do that. Bump stocks have been made 100% illegal by executive order (which the NRA supports), ordered destroyed or turned in with no compensation. Because there was no registration though, turning them in is on the honor system. If there was registration of bump stocks enacted before the ban, the police would be confiscating them in raids that would come at the loss of life, especially canine life, but sometimes human life too.

Red Flag laws were initially supported by the NRA when they required sufficient cause to issue one, but when states basically wrote red flag laws so that cops could kick in your door at 3 AM in the middle of the night and shoot your dogs on the mere accusation by a (in some bills written) a teacher, that you were a threat to yourself or others, then that's when the NRA started opposing them. In Nevada, the red flag bill proposed here considers purchasing 2 or more guns in a matter of several months as an example of behavior that establishes you as a potential threat. They advertise them under the pretense of stopping people who have made threats to others and appear to be planning an attack, but in practice they are written to easily be used as a political weapon by specifying innocent acts that gun owners do all the time as cause to issue a confiscation order, and allowing mere accusations from politically biased strangers as the cause for issuance.

The NRA is only extreme, it seems to me, if you view that gun ownership and self-defense needs to be as difficult as possible.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> When one uses the language of the opposition, they've lost the debate/argument. "Common Sense Gun Laws" are in conflict with the Constitution of these United States. Most gun laws on the books today are as well. It says, "...shall not be infringed" for a reason.
> 
> The problem with the Statist is that they want power over every aspect of our lives and must be resisted at all times. They believe that a few elites, them, can better organize society and spend people's money, that people are too stupid and inept to manage their own affairs without their input. In doing so they deny human nature and show their opposition to God's Word.


So where do you draw the line then?


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

ZenUber said:


> So where do you draw the line then?


I could easily home make a machinegun. It wouldn't be hard to do. If you think your law would stop me, it is a joke. The only thing your law does is makes me a felon if I chose to defend myself with such a gun. But if I wanted to shoot up a crowd, your laws wouldn't be able to stop me. Anyone stepping out of prison can easily acquire a gun regardless of your law, so if he owned a gun before he went to prison, hand it to him on the way out.... or don't let him out. Is the prison system a reformation system? Or a punitive system designed to release people to be spat upon? Is it not inhumane to release a reformed criminal with no possible avenues of legal employment, no legal effective self-defense, and in some cases, no legitimate way to obtain legal housing? That is the reality of the American legal system and it is no wonder that when we release people back into society as second class citizens that they turn to crime. They have no other way to take care of themself or their family.

Only people who fear the state fear the law. Most of mass killers go into it knowing they won't make it back out again. They are on a suicide mission. If you made it a death penalty to possess a bullet, they still would do it.

Meanwhile, law fearing people are kept defenseless because they don't want to lose the opportunity to acquire gainful employment for life because they wanted to be able to defend themselves.

Pulse night club is a gun free zone. Someone murders 50 unarmed victims. Nevada allows guns in bars, and decides to write a bill to restrict it because of the shooting that happened in Florida where it was restricted, despite the fact that in 2011 a Nevada permit holder stopped a mass shooting in a bar.

Nevada banned citizens from carrying concealed rifles in 2013. Only a few years later, someone breaks that law, carrying concealed rifles up to his hotel room to shoot a crowd, and no one has any concealed rifles to shoot back at him.

Utter non-sense. Mass killers don't check for no guns signs in fear of a 1 year prison sentence. These laws only make people who are trying to make an honest living afraid to defend themselves.

Don't draw the line. Good self-defense means access to good guns. Guns that shoot fast and hold lots of bullets. Would you rather defend your house with a Tommy gun or a musket?

People say, "Oh, what about grenades?" Well, grenades are actually legal to own under current law if you pay the right taxes. And it isn't that expensive... only a $200 tax and registration. Grenade manufacturers generally have decided they don't want to make grenades for the public, but there are people who own legal grenades, and there is no real legal barrier to do it. When people set off bombs though, they don't use legal ones... because the explosive regulations don't really make it very difficult to just dodge the law and make bombs illegally without drawing attention to oneself via registration. If anti-bomb laws worked, you wouldn't need bomb detection dogs at the airport. And if banning legal grenades was a desirable thing, you'd think you could point to a single incident where they were used to kill people. But you can't because no criminal ever went through the hassle of buying and legally registering a grenade. Instead they made a pipe bomb in secrecy. You could support a ban saying "someone COULD do it" and it is true... one day someone will probably kill a bunch of people with a legal grenade, causing legal grenades to be banned. Yet that ban will not actually form a meaningful barrier to the ability of a lunatic to set off a grenade in public. I personally see legitimate use of explosives for self-defense. In the times of our founders men owned cannon and private war ships. Even today there is piracy at sea, and largely because international ports refuse entry to armed vessels. But, I would think having modern cannons or RPG onboard your ship would be a bit of a deterrent to a pirate vessel. The pirates carry RPGs (https://web.archive.org/web/20090216191929/http://maritimesecurity.com/rpg7.htm ) , it is only fair to have them to shoot back with similar weapons and sink their vessels.

What about Nukes? Well, so now we have people saying I can't carry a handgun for self-defense because I might nuke the neighborhood.

The primary reason we don't have criminals nuking crowds is because nukes are absurdly expensive and difficult to make. The parallel to guns and bombs is basically not there. Unlike making bombs and guns, which can be made as easily or more easily than growing illegal marijuana, it is very difficult to make nuclear weapons without drawing attention to yourself. Anti-nuke laws, unlike anti-gun laws, have a little more potency because you don't need a giant sophisticated complex to make a gun or a bomb, but to make fissile material for a nuke you can't do that in your basement. It is a lot harder to get away with it... even nation states like, Iran, North Korea, and others with the entire resources of a nation couldn't keep their weapon development a secret and the U.N. found out about it.... although they were unable to prevent it.

In Nazi Germany the government couldn't prevent poor peasants from making guns and grenades right under their noses. And Nazi Germany has no 4th or 5th amendment. If you want to stop illegal making of guns, you will need a police force more powerful than the Gestapo. A government can (presently) realistically detect nuke production before completion of a device, but realistically is powerless to prevent the manufacture of grenades or personal firearms. And chances are too with Nukes, that anyone rich enough to make a nuke is likely the dictator of a nation state anyway.

If there were no weapons laws of any kind, it is hard to imagine that criminal use of weapons would be any worse.

In USA history, the worst mass killers used hijacked airplanes, followed by bombs for their killings. Even the worst U.S. mass shooting did not kill as many people as a guy with a hijacked truck did in Nice, France.

Taking away a right of a man to defend himself by making easily illegally produced firearms illegal to use for self-defense does nothing but reduce the ability of decent men who want to follow the rules to defend themselves.

In a recent gun control hearing, a gun control advocate admitted his gun law would do nothing to stop criminals, but said it was necessary to create a "culture of compliance". It is no coincidence that socialists and gun banners tend to be one and the same. Socialists support gun control because they want to encourage compliance and dependency on the state.

Generally speaking, if a law cannot be enforced effectively, it should not exist. When a law cannot be enforced effectively, the unintended side-effects dominate over the intended effects.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

The Texan said:


> Is that your definition, or is that like in the dictionary somewhere?


Anyone who disagrees with a liberal on even the smallest point is automatically designated as "alt-right".



PlayLoud said:


> 5 million members. Are you judging all of them? Including me?


A Repress-ER-uh-*Progress*ive defines anyone who supports or defends the Second Amendment as a "nut-job".



Juggalo9er said:


> The real question is... Do you know what the alt right is


Of course he does: anyone who disagrees with him on even the smallest matter is "alt-right".



Lyft-O-Maniac said:


> They can't carry it in DC.. Unless it's a *violent criminal*DC resident who has a permit from DC.


FIFY



Coyotex said:


> I'm assuming those who oppose guns are freaking out because us "whacko's" are talking about guns in a positive respectful way!


If you support or defend the Second Amendment, the Oppress-ER-uh-*Progress*ives define you as a "whack-0"..



swathdiver said:


> "Common Sense Gun Laws"


The problem with Oppress-ER-uh-*Progress*ives is that they will not stop at "common sense". They will not stop until only violent criminals are allowed to have guns and decent people are deprived of the firearms that they need to defend themselves. That Florida high school student stated what the Repress-ER-uh-*PROGRESS*ives will not admit. She stated that if "you" (whoever "you" is) gave her and her cohorts an inch, they were going to take a mile. You can not give a Suppress-ER-uh-*Progress*ive even the first millimeter. Do so, and pretty soon he will have the whole meter stick.


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

ZenUber said:


> So where do you draw the line then?


If you mean on what a citizen can own with regards to the 2nd Amendment, anything goes. The citizens should have available everything to them that their government does as it serves as a deterrent to tyrants. Use a tank to knock off a bank and those people should swing from the gallows.

Trafficat's thoughts are spot on.


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane (Dec 31, 2015)

Juggalo9er said:


> Should I
> A. Be scared of the bad man with guns
> B. Make money off the people with guns


Neither.
But I dare you to hand out trigger locks to your passengers as a misguided SadUber-style gift. "It's for your safety!"

SLEDGE HAMMER


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> If you mean on what a citizen can own with regards to the 2nd Amendment, anything goes. The citizens should have available everything to them that their government does as it serves as a deterrent to tyrants. Use a tank to knock off a bank and those people should swing from the gallows.
> 
> Trafficat's thoughts are spot on.


Really? You think the general population should be allowed to have tanks? How about nukes? No line at all?

Trafficat is definitely extremist. Like Ahab - monomaniacal, and unable to see anything else going on around him, to the point of being self destructive to himself and those around him.

When you dig in that deep, your destiny is set in stone. Face it. The constitution got it wrong. At the very least, the NRA is misinterpreting it. The world can't survive with the sort of logic you're suggesting. Either we contain the violence, or face self annihilation. Open your eyes - it's happening all around you.

Your love of weaponry is not based on any moral precepts, or logical line of thought. It's simply self indulgence, and self centered.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

Higher ratio of tips today than a lot of liberal conventions that have been in town


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

ZenUber said:


> Really? You think the general population should be allowed to have tanks? How about nukes? No line at all?
> 
> Your love of weaponry is not based on any moral precepts, or logical line of thought. It's simply self indulgence, and self centered.


That's what I said mister. FYI, citizens across this country can and do own tanks and even shoot their main guns. And yet, how many have held up a liquor store with one? None! How many have taken their surplus fighter plane or bomber and blasted a bank vault? None.

Violence is not caused by guns. Violence against others is because of man's inherent depravity and sin nature. You miss the whole point of the 2nd Amendment; it is there to serve as a deterrent to tyrants and criminals. The 2nd Amendment allows free people to protect and defend themselves, something you obviously do not believe in.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

FLKeys said:


> Make money, could not ask for any better PAX. Wish I was there.


Also, could probably have some good conversations. At least they don't tend to be Millennial, Socialist types!



Alexxx_Uber said:


> Nobody with a gun can enter my car. Period.


And you'd, actually, check all of the concealed carry folks?

Seems like a lot of extra stress/hassle to enforce what you're saying. Why not take the time off? Let folks like me take them.


----------



## Columbian Harem (Mar 29, 2019)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> Nobody with a gun can enter my car. Period.


What if they put the gun to your head? Are they still not allowed to enter your car?


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

Columbian Harem said:


> What if they put the gun to your head? Are they still not allowed to enter your car?


Excellent!


----------



## Columbian Harem (Mar 29, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> Are you serious or trolling to make conversation???
> 
> This great nation would not have existed if the populace were disarmed and would not have lasted if the Statists had their way and disarmed the citizenry. The 2nd Amendment serves as a deterrent to tyranny and criminals.
> 
> One has nothing to fear from armed law-abiding citizens, unless of course one is looking to prey on the innocent!


America is not a nation, it is an empire. Nations share the same history, heritage, DNA, food, language, religion, culture, customs, traditions, etc. America doesn't fit this profile. America is more like an empire which has different cultures or nations under it.


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

MiamiKid said:


> Also, could probably have some good conversations. At least they don't tend to be Millennial, Socialist types!
> 
> 
> And you'd, actually, check all of the concealed carry folks?
> ...


I meant visible guns



Columbian Harem said:


> What if they put the gun to your head? Are they still not allowed to enter your car?


That's exactly the problem. We don't have a solution for this crisis.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> I meant visible guns
> 
> 
> That's exactly the problem. We don't have a solution for this crisis.


Would you cancel "Rider made me feel unsafe"? Or "Do not charge rider"?

Myself, will still take the gun over "Unaccompanied Minor"


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

MiamiKid said:


> Would you cancel "Rider made me feel unsafe"? Or "Do not charge rider"?
> 
> Myself, will still take the gun over "Unaccompanied Minor"


Of course as "Rider made me feel unsafe".
Who is the minor? The rider? Or the gun?


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> Of course as "Rider made me feel unsafe".
> Who is the minor? The rider? Or the gun?


Minor actually another comparison, as in under 18 years of age.


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

ZenUber said:


> You think the general population should be allowed to have tanks?


Yes, I do.

I have no problem with law abiding, God fearing citizens possessing all the firepower they want.

I not only think the US Constitution is great, I think it should be interpreted literally as written.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> That's what I said mister. FYI, citizens across this country can and do own tanks and even shoot their main guns. And yet, how many have held up a liquor store with one? None! How many have taken their surplus fighter plane or bomber and blasted a bank vault? None.
> 
> Violence is not caused by guns. Violence against others is because of man's inherent depravity and sin nature. You miss the whole point of the 2nd Amendment; it is there to serve as a deterrent to tyrants and criminals. The 2nd Amendment allows free people to protect and defend themselves, something you obviously do not believe in.


But there are restrictions on those tanks. 
They are not street legal. You need a federal destructive device permit, and a local law enforcement agent has to sign off on the application, to have operational guns. That's not in the constitution. Large weapons are not an issue because they are inaccessible for other reasons. If a nucular weapon could be put into a bullet at a low cost, do you think it should be legal?

BB guns? - little restrictions. Regular guns - some restrictions. Tanks - Heavy restrictions. Nukes - can't have them. See the trend? The more lethal the weapon, the more restrictions required. The reason we don't see tanks used in robberies is mostly because they are too cost prohibitive. I believe there are only around 1000 privately owned tanks in existence, owned mostly by wealthy people. If tanks were cheap and legal, we'd be seeing incidents on the news all the time. Do you think private citizens should be allowed to have nukes?

The bigger point is, we didn't have these things when the constitution was written. That's why they gave us the ability to amend the constitution. It's not the ten commandments, and it's not set in stone. The constitution evolves along with society, as it was designed to do. I know why the 2nd amendment is there, I just disagree with it. That's my right, and I can take steps to change it. Who get's to make the decision about who is a tyrant and a criminal? Anybody with a gun? That's Anarchy "Mister." No thanks. Isn't that what the well regulated militia is for? We have two dominant political parties in this country. And each one thinks the other sides leader is a Tyrant. How do you think we should settle that? Tell me - do you fantasize about killing liberals? I fantasize about voting Trump out of office. See the difference?

Now, the whole argument that passing laws wouldn't make a difference, and that people would just do it anyway is ludicrous. People break laws every day, but we still keep the laws. Should we just get rid of all the laws because they infringe on the rights of honest people? Should it be legal for anyone to own a car? Do honest automobile owners feel their rights and freedoms are being infringed upon by the regulations and requirements? Or do we all feel a little safer on the road knowing those regulations are in place? The only thing I need to protect myself from with a gun, is from other gun owners. For Tyrants, I use the vote.



Christinebitg said:


> Yes, I do.
> 
> I have no problem with law abiding, God fearing citizens possessing all the firepower they want.
> 
> I not only think the US Constitution is great, I think it should be interpreted literally as written.


I DO have a problem with it. I'm an Atheist. I think the US constitution is pretty good, but nothing should be interpreted literally as written because it's not possible. 
Interpretations are like snowflakes. No two are exactly the same. Linguistics are not like mathematics. Just look at the whole history of civilization as evidence. If the written word were immutable, there would be peace on earth. Never gonna happen.


----------



## brentb31 (May 23, 2018)

Christinebitg said:


> Yes, I do.
> 
> I have no problem with law abiding, God fearing citizens possessing all the firepower they want.
> 
> I not only think the US Constitution is great, I think it should be interpreted literally as written.


What about citizens that don't fear God? Can they possess all the firepower they want?


----------



## PlayLoud (Jan 11, 2019)

brentb31 said:


> What about citizens that don't fear God? Can they possess all the firepower they want?


Can't discriminate based on religion (or lack of), so yes.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

If I could _just *find*_ someplace that would bore the gun barrels and another place to make the shells, perhaps Texas will sell me their battleship. Kim Ding Dong thinks that he is hot stuff when he executes his subordinates with an anti-aircraft gun for not applauding enthusiastically, just wait until I blow up some home invader with a fourteen inch gun. Those burglars and home invaders will think *twice* before they enter *my* home.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

ZenUber said:


> But there are restrictions on those tanks.
> They are not street legal. You need a federal destructive device permit, and a local law enforcement agent has to sign off on the application, to have operational guns. That's not in the constitution. Large weapons are not an issue because they are inaccessible for other reasons. If a nucular weapon could be put into a bullet at a low cost, do you think it should be legal?
> 
> BB guns? - little restrictions. Regular guns - some restrictions. Tanks - Heavy restrictions. Nukes - can't have them. See the trend? The more lethal the weapon, the more restrictions required. The reason we don't see tanks used in robberies is mostly because they are too cost prohibitive. I believe there are only around 1000 privately owned tanks in existence, owned mostly by wealthy people. If tanks were cheap and legal, we'd be seeing incidents on the news all the time. Do you think private citizens should be allowed to have nukes?
> ...


Way too much information. This thread is regarding riders, with guns, in an Uber. And whether the driver is comfortable with it. Leave it at that.

Not an entire political discussion about the US Constitution. Can't we just leave the politics out and focus on what will help us on the road? We're not going to amend the Constitution, or even make any headway here.

My two cents.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

MiamiKid said:


> Way too much information. This thread is regarding riders, with guns, in an Uber. And whether the driver is comfortable with it. Leave it at that.
> 
> Not an entire political discussion about the US Constitution. Can't we just leave the politics out and focus on what will help us on the road? We're not going to amend the Constitution, or even make any headway here.
> 
> My two cents.


I'm just responding to swathdiver. So, it's OK to have bigger and bigger guns, but if I use more words, it's too much information? What about the 1st amendment? Everybodies got their two cents, including me.
Besides - I'm sure that, if it were legal, someone would be out there trying to give uber rides in a tank. lol



PlayLoud said:


> Can't discriminate based on religion (or lack of), so yes.


What if somebody worships death? What about them?


----------



## bankhead (Apr 26, 2019)

Juggalo9er said:


> Higher ratio of tips today than a lot of liberal conventions that have been in town


nice, heading downtown after work and hopefully will have the same results! wish me luck


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

MiamiKid said:


> Also, could probably have some good conversations. At least they don't tend to be Millennial, Socialist types!
> 
> 
> And you'd, actually, check all of the concealed carry folks?
> ...


If I pick someone up, and I see they're destination is a gun show, I would ask if they were carrying. I haven't met a gun owner yet that wasn't so proud that he wouldn't fess up. Then I'd kick him out of the car. It's pretty much the same as picking up a kid and seeing that their destination is a high-school. I might do that once a week. At that point, it's not about the money.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

ZenUber said:


> If I pick someone up, and I see they're destination is a gun show, I would ask if they were carrying. I haven't met a gun owner yet that wasn't so proud that he wouldn't fess up. Then I'd kick him out of the car. It's pretty much the same as picking up a kid and seeing that their destination is a high-school. I might do that once a week. At that point, it's not about the money.


Your choice, however, could get you a suspension or deactivation.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

bankhead said:


> nice, heading downtown after work and hopefully will have the same results! wish me luck


I would avoid it until after 3


----------



## bankhead (Apr 26, 2019)

Juggalo9er said:


> I would avoid it until after 3


oh yeah absolutely, they are shutting 70 completely down and that's my way to get downtown from work. but I'm off at 430 and I'm going home first before I head out


----------



## jlong105 (Sep 15, 2017)

Woohaa said:


> You can affirm your rights without joining a special interest group comprised of nut jobs.


That special interest group is not composed of nut jobs Tell me one NRA member involved in a mas shooting?

In case you need help, there have been none.

https://www.quora.com/Of-the-last-m...apons-used-were-legally-owned-by-the-shooters


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

MiamiKid said:


> Your choice, however, could get you a suspension or deactivation.


"Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app."
I don't think I would be deactivated since it's against Uber's rule. However, a rider could be deactivated if I reported them. In any event, I wouldn't allow it in my home or car. My space - my rules - my right.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

ZenUber said:


> "Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app."
> I don't think I would be deactivated since it's against Uber's rule. However, a rider could be deactivated if I reported them. In any event, I wouldn't allow it in my home or car. My space - my rules - my right.


Did not know Uber's no firearm policy included the rider. If so, go for it. Your car, your rules.


----------



## PlayLoud (Jan 11, 2019)

Definitely applies to both driver and rider. So, best to make sure it is concealed if you carry.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

PlayLoud said:


> Definitely applies to both driver and rider. So, best to make sure it is concealed if you carry.


Now realize this. My bad. Yes, if I was utilizing Uber as a pax and wanted my 44 with me, concealed carry's the way I'd go.

And, of course, just not disclose to the driver. However, the truth's always the best policy unless a lie sounds better!


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

MiamiKid said:


> Now realize this. My bad. Yes, if I was utilizing Uber as a pax and wanted my 44 with me, concealed carry's the way I'd go.
> 
> And, of course, just not disclose to the driver. However, the truth's always the best policy unless a lie sounds better!


From what I gather, a lot of people carry concealed and keep quiet about it. This sounds wise on many levels.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

ZenUber said:


> From what I gather, a lot of people carry concealed and keep quiet about it. This sounds wise on many levels.


And for those who carry concealed; then, feel the need to brag or go over the top with it - kick them out.


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

Columbian Harem said:


> America is not a nation, it is an empire. Nations share the same history, heritage, DNA, food, language, religion, culture, customs, traditions, etc. America doesn't fit this profile. America is more like an empire which has different cultures or nations under it.


You've redefined the word "nation".



ZenUber said:


> But there are restrictions on those tanks.
> They are not street legal. You need a federal destructive device permit, and a local law enforcement agent has to sign off on the application, to have operational guns. That's not in the constitution. Large weapons are not an issue because they are inaccessible for other reasons. If a nucular weapon could be put into a bullet at a low cost, do you think it should be legal?
> 
> The bigger point is, we didn't have these things when the constitution was written. That's why they gave us the ability to amend the constitution. It's not the ten commandments, and it's not set in stone. The constitution evolves along with society, as it was designed to do.


Many armored vehicles are street legal and driven on public roads. Should citizens be allowed to own nukes? Yes.

Ahh, here's the old argument about the constitution and when it was written. When the Constitution was written, the citizens had the same firepower as their government, muskets, rifles, cannons and even George Washington built a fleet of warships. So my argument that citizens can own whatever today on par with their government is no change at all.

Provisions were made to amend the Constitution but it was purposely made difficult to do so. We are a nation of laws and not mob rule, which is what a democracy is. The Constitution was never intended to evolve with society, society is winding down, not getting better. It's not a living, breathing, document as some say.

You say you're an atheist, so you believe in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything? You reject the Law of Entropy? Those with this position do not want to acknowledge the Creator and Nature's Laws. This is why they reject the Constitution, as their highest form of power is the god of their belly and as such they can have no moral absolutes. Anything goes.


----------



## TeleSki (Dec 4, 2014)

Woohaa said:


> You can affirm your rights without joining a special interest group comprised of nut jobs.


Same goes for the ACLU, NAACP, LULAC, LaRaza, etc., right?


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

ZenUber said:


> If I pick someone up, and I see they're destination is a gun show, I would ask if they were carrying. I haven't met a gun owner yet that wasn't so proud that he wouldn't fess up. Then I'd kick him out of the car. It's pretty much the same as picking up a kid and seeing that their destination is a high-school. I might do that once a week. At that point, it's not about the money.


The dumb is strong with this one ... Lock it a lawful gun owner....

Unknowingly transports crack heads, drug dealers, and has no issue


----------



## PlayLoud (Jan 11, 2019)

ZenUber said:


> If I pick someone up, and I see they're destination is a gun show, I would ask if they were carrying. I haven't met a gun owner yet that wasn't so proud that he wouldn't fess up. Then I'd kick him out of the car. It's pretty much the same as picking up a kid and seeing that their destination is a high-school. I might do that once a week. At that point, it's not about the money.


Ironically, many gun shows don't allow loaded firearms. If you get somebody going to a gun show, there is a good chance they aren't carrying.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

PlayLoud said:


> Ironically, many gun shows don't allow loaded firearms. If you get somebody going to a gun show, there is a good chance they aren't carrying.


They are at this one.... I've been tipped more frequently than I ever have


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> You've redefined the word "nation".
> 
> Many armored vehicles are street legal and driven on public roads. Should citizens be allowed to own nukes? Yes.
> 
> ...


I'm glad you didn't get your way either the nukes. We'd all be dead.

The second amendment got it wrong. It was a compromise through and through. Obviously a lot of debate over it, that lingers through today. Who gets to decide whether or not there's a revolution. The people with all the guns? You're going to decide for me? And, are you going to build some sort of covert army of citizens with nukes? How else are you going to fight the government.

I agree society is winding down. The government has been bought and paid for by a few wealthy people. The whole idea of revolting against the government is obsolete. When the government falls, the few rich people are sure to still be in charge. All you need or a few sniper shots to take them out.

I wouldn't be so quick to define my belief system for me. You know nothing about me. There are as many beliefs systems in the world as there are people. And putting people into boxes doesn't shed any light on the situation. I am at peace with not being able to understand everything. Everybody's belief system is based on their individual life experiences. If that could be solved with the 2000 year old book of poetry, we wouldn't be talking right now.


----------



## EngineerAtHeart (Nov 8, 2018)

If you act normal you should make ALOT in tips. Normal people tip well.


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

You guys should consider yourselves lucky.

We've got COMIC CON all weekend......!!!!


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

ZenUber said:


> I'm glad you didn't get your way either the nukes. We'd all be dead.
> 
> The second amendment got it wrong. It was a compromise through and through. Obviously a lot of debate over it, that lingers through today. Who gets to decide whether or not there's a revolution. The people with all the guns? You're going to decide for me? And, are you going to build some sort of covert army of citizens with nukes? How else are you going to fight the government.
> 
> ...


Our Founders provided the example for how to properly throw off a tyrannical government and establish a new one that follows God's Word.

You didn't ask what I thought the consequences should be for someone using their tank to knock off a liquor store or nuke their neighbor. Death by public hanging. Crime is rampant because it is encouraged and not dissuaded, consequences for criminal acts are laughed at these days.

It's easy to define an atheist, no mystery there. But you didn't answer my question. Do you believe the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything?

The Bible is God's Word to man foretelling the past, present and future and it is perfect and inerrant. But don't misunderstand, the bible also records the lies of men. Did you see on the news that scientists are befuddled about our expanding universe? It was common knowledge as written in the Old Testament.

I was once an atheist too and persecuted Christians.


----------



## brentb31 (May 23, 2018)

swathdiver said:


> Our Founders provided the example for how to properly throw off a tyrannical government and establish a new one that follows God's Word.


----------



## Woohaa (Jan 15, 2017)

TeleSki said:


> Same goes for the ACLU, NAACP, LULAC, LaRaza, etc., right?


Still waiting on the aforementioned groups to support irresponsible gun ownership. So to answer your question, "nope."


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

brentb31 said:


> View attachment 314844


Fake Poster. Ever actually read something that Thomas Jefferson wrote? He dated his letters by writing, "In the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"...

That being said, these men were well schooled in the scriptures but many were not actual Christians. Keep trying.


----------



## brentb31 (May 23, 2018)

swathdiver said:


> Fake Poster. Ever actually read something that Thomas Jefferson wrote? He dated his letters by writing, "In the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"...
> 
> That being said, these men were well schooled in the scriptures but many were not actual Christians. Keep trying.


That has nothing to do with what I posted. The US is not and never was a Christian nation. Even Reagan said as much. Wasn't trying to veer off topic, just trying to remind you about the whole separation of church and state. Have a good weekend I have NRA folks to shuffle on.


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

brentb31 said:


> That has nothing to do with what I posted. The US is not and never was a Christian nation. Even Reagan said as much. Wasn't trying to veer off topic, just trying to remind you about the whole separation of church and state. Have a good weekend I have NRA folks to shuffle on.


You're right in that this is not now and never was a Christian nation. It was however, founded upon Christian principals and will only survive as long as religious and moral people are in power. The Statist does not share these principals and always seeks to tear this nation down. They believe in mob rule and not the rule of law.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

Conservative gun owners don't tip

Rofl


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

Juggalo9er said:


> Conservative gun owners don't tip
> 
> Rofl
> View attachment 314888


Looks like great tips!


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

Juggalo9er said:


> Conservative gun owners don't tip
> 
> Rofl
> View attachment 314888


 Were you pointing your gun at them when they tipped?


----------



## Columbian Harem (Mar 29, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> You've redefined the word "nation".


Pretty sure most encyclopedias around the world, not to mention the American English dictionary define a nation as a group of people that share a common heritage, ethncity, language, religion, customs. I didn't redefine anything, but merely stated the centuaries old standard used universally to identify a national or ethnic or racial group of people.


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

Columbian Harem said:


> Pretty sure most encyclopedias around the world, not to mention the American English dictionary define a nation as a group of people that share a common heritage, ethncity, language, religion, customs. I didn't redefine anything, but merely stated the centuaries old standard used universally to identify a national or ethnic or racial group of people.


You said America was not a nation but this definition says otherwise. Make up your mind.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> Our Founders provided the example for how to properly throw off a tyrannical government and establish a new one that follows God's Word.
> 
> You didn't ask what I thought the consequences should be for someone using their tank to knock off a liquor store or nuke their neighbor. Death by public hanging. Crime is rampant because it is encouraged and not dissuaded, consequences for criminal acts are laughed at these days.
> 
> ...


Public hangings - now you're just being silly.
To answer your obviously loaded question of do I "believe the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything" I would answer with "do you believe in the scientific impossibility that a magic man in the sky created everything, that he did it in 6 days, that Jesus walked on water, that Mary gave birth as a virgin, the talking snake in the garden of Eden, that Jesus rose from the dead, the story of Noah, the burning bush, ect. Most people who believe in the bible have never read it. And most people who have actually read it, don't believe it. I think there is much wisdom in the bible, and also in a lot of ancient texts. But you can't always read it in the literal sense because they didn't have modern science back then. The bible is a collection of ancient books and poetry, no better than others of it's kind, it has been rewritten, edited, compiled, and translated through language as well as time. The modern day interpretation of the text would be unfathomable to the followers from 2000 years ago. Your literal interpretation of it simply didn't exist back then. The bible is man speaking to himself as though he were a god. God is Santa Clause for adults. He brings us all the answers to all the questions. And where he has no answers, we just say "God works in mysterious ways." But when scientists are befuddled as you say, then suddenly that's evidence that the findings of science are completely corrupt?

There are many things science can't explain, but most of the world has moved well beyond the ancient belief that a man in the sky did it. If you want to live that far in the past, it's your right. Especially in the US. I'm a materialist. I don't believe in dualism nor free will. I am as incapable of believing in god as you are of being an atheist. And there's not much either of us can do to change that.

Do I believe that nothing created everything? Your just putting words in my mouth. It's no wonder you don't understand me. You assumed that all on your own. Where did you ever get that crazy idea. I don't believe there was ever a state of nothingness. Do you?


----------



## CarpeNoctem (Sep 12, 2018)

If someone can afford a tank I doubt they would need or want to rob a bank by force. With a pen on Wall Street is another matter entirely.

I'm all for gun rights up to a point. I see no reason for anyone to have any full auto weapons or devices to make them work as fully automatic. I find it hard to believe anyone would want a nuke. I would have thought the cold war would have shown that to be a foolish endeavor.

As to the protection against tyranny, you will be going up against the entire US Army. Does anyone really think a few automatic weapons will be of use against that type of firepower? But, those same weapons could be stolen and used by criminals. Then you have people walking into a bank with a nuke strapped to their chest wanting a withdrawal.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ga-woman-cash-fake-94-million-tax-return-article-1.1955126


----------



## Columbian Harem (Mar 29, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> You said America was not a nation but this definition says otherwise. Make up your mind.


How do you firgue that?
Nation= shared/ ethnicity, language, religion, customs, traditions, heritage, historic land or land of origin, etc.

America doesn't fulfill any of this criteria. Speaking English is the only thing you maybe could argue. Even then there has always been one or two major groups through US history that spoke their own language instead of English. Even today, you have people that can speak Spanish but not English. Americans don't have shared history, they don't have a shared ethnicity, they don't have a shared religion, they don't have a shared historical land or land of origin. The concept of a nation does not match with what it means to be American.


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

ZenUber said:


> Public hangings - now you're just being silly.
> To answer your obviously loaded question of do I "believe the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything" I would answer with "do you believe in the scientific impossibility that a magic man in the sky created everything, that he did it in 6 days, that Jesus walked on water, that Mary gave birth as a virgin, the talking snake in the garden of Eden, that Jesus rose from the dead, the story of Noah, the burning bush, ect. Most people who believe in the bible have never read it. And most people who have actually read it, don't believe it. I think there is much wisdom in the bible, and also in a lot of ancient texts. But you can't always read it in the literal sense because they didn't have modern science back then. The bible is a collection of ancient books and poetry, no better than others of it's kind, it has been rewritten, edited, compiled, and translated through language as well as time. The modern day interpretation of the text would be unfathomable to the followers from 2000 years ago. Your literal interpretation of it simply didn't exist back then. The bible is man speaking to himself as though he were a god. God is Santa Clause for adults. He brings us all the answers to all the questions. And where he has no answers, we just say "God works in mysterious ways." But when scientists are befuddled as you say, then suddenly that's evidence that the findings of science are completely corrupt?
> 
> There are many things science can't explain, but most of the world has moved well beyond the ancient belief that a man in the sky did it. If you want to live that far in the past, it's your right. Especially in the US. I'm a materialist. I don't believe in dualism nor free will. I am as incapable of believing in god as you are of being an atheist. And there's not much either of us can do to change that.
> ...


You asked me questions about the bible that were already answered in my earlier post. Yes, everything in it is true, even explaining scientific discoveries centuries before man claimed to. Your assertion that is is just a collection of books means that you do not understand it all. I'm giving you a challenge to prove any of it wrong. The archaeologist's shovel has only reinforced that God's Word is true.

And yes, if you reject God and his obvious handi-work, then you do truly believe that nothing created everything. A crazy idea! In doing such you don't even believe in science, such as the Law of Entropy. Instead, you atheists believe that out of chaos comes order and that man can improve himself. These were also the thoughts of Mao, Hitler and Margaret Sanger.

Let's look at Genesis 1:1 shall we? "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." There's your science right there! See it? Time, Space and Matter in that order. Nothing can exist without it, except for God, and it has to be created in that order for things to exist within it.

You people used to say the earth was flat but Columbus knew the scriptures said that the earth was round.

The Bible is a divine book, holy men of God were moved by the Holy Spirit to write the scriptures, about 40 of them over the course of 1600 years. It is perfect and without error. Man has not the capacity to write or keep such a thing. Not without the Lord anyway!



Columbian Harem said:


> How do you firgue that?
> Nation= shared/ ethnicity, language, religion, customs, traditions, heritage, historic land or land of origin, etc.
> 
> America doesn't fulfill any of this criteria. Speaking English is the only thing you maybe could argue. Even then there has always been one or two major groups through US history that spoke their own language instead of English. Even today, you have people that can speak Spanish but not English. Americans don't have shared history, they don't have a shared ethnicity, they don't have a shared religion, they don't have a shared historical land or land of origin. The concept of a nation does not match with what it means to be American.


You dismiss that these United States are a melting pot, or it used to be. The Communists want a salad bowl to destroy it, as you describe. As it was founded and until the 1960s, most Americans were of European origin, spoke English and feared God. Immigrants came to America and adopted her customs and traditions and language.

Since the 1960s there has been great effort to encourage immigrants to not assimilate into American culture and if not arrested, will ultimately destroy her.


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

swathdiver said:


> Since the 1960s there has been great effort to encourage immigrants to not assimilate into American culture and if not arrested, will ultimately destroy her.


America's strength comes from its immigrants. It is truly a mistake to try to keep them out.

"Give your tired, your poor. Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The retched refuse of your teeming shore."

I don't care if they don't want to assimilate. I'm 6th or 7th generation here. My father spoke low German as his first language. He didn't learn English until he started elementary school. He was born in New Bremen, Ohio.

His father was in the U.S. Army in World War I and fought in France. He used his fluency in German to capture a squad of German soldiers. He later sponsored one of them to emigrate to the U.S.

"I lift my lamp beside the golden door."


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

Columbian Harem said:


> Pretty sure most encyclopedias around the world, not to mention the American English dictionary define a nation as a group of people that share a common heritage, ethncity, language, religion, customs. I didn't redefine anything, but merely stated the centuaries old standard used universally to identify a national or ethnic or racial group of people.


So Americans don't share customs....

I thought killing terrorist and blowing things up was a fairly nice custom myself


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> You asked me questions about the bible that were already answered in my earlier post. Yes, everything in it is true, even explaining scientific discoveries centuries before man claimed to. Your assertion that is is just a collection of books means that you do not understand it all. I'm giving you a challenge to prove any of it wrong. The archaeologist's shovel has only reinforced that God's Word is true.
> 
> And yes, if you reject God and his obvious handi-work, then you do truly believe that nothing created everything. A crazy idea! In doing such you don't even believe in science, such as the Law of Entropy. Instead, you atheists believe that out of chaos comes order and that man can improve himself. These were also the thoughts of Mao, Hitler and Margaret Sanger.
> 
> ...


Far out!


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

Can we all just get along....


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

Juggalo9er said:


> Can we all just get along....


I think we've got a rat's nest of Russian trolls here. Whenever they bring up communism and guns - look out.


----------



## Shoaib Abu Abdullah (Feb 13, 2019)

I guess UDs should be more worried and concerned about the "economic hitwoman" they are in contract with ?


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

ZenUber said:


> I think we've got a rat's nest of Russian trolls here. Whenever they bring up communism and guns - look out.


On a side note, I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by not paying it


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

ZenUber said:


> I think we've got a rat's nest of Russian trolls here. Whenever they bring up communism and guns - look out.


Nope, don't think so. Just good, solid Americans who believe in Free Enterprise and moral values! ??


----------



## Columbian Harem (Mar 29, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> You asked me questions about the bible that were already answered in my earlier post. Yes, everything in it is true, even explaining scientific discoveries centuries before man claimed to. Your assertion that is is just a collection of books means that you do not understand it all. I'm giving you a challenge to prove any of it wrong. The archaeologist's shovel has only reinforced that God's Word is true.
> 
> And yes, if you reject God and his obvious handi-work, then you do truly believe that nothing created everything. A crazy idea! In doing such you don't even believe in science, such as the Law of Entropy. Instead, you atheists believe that out of chaos comes order and that man can improve himself. These were also the thoughts of Mao, Hitler and Margaret Sanger.
> 
> ...


Except America was never truly a melting pot. It was official government policy on and off between the 1860s to 1950s, but there were always ethnicitally and religiously distinct populations and areas in the US. I am not sure what you mean by American customs and traditions. Most Americans have different traditions from each other, unless you are talking about mundane minute things like voting on election day or cooking a turkey on Thanksgiving day. English is really the only thing you could make an arguement for as most people in the US can speak English. I don't think America will be destroyed, it will just change its appearance, that is all.



Christinebitg said:


> America's strength comes from its immigrants. It is truly a mistake to try to keep them out.
> 
> "Give your tired, your poor. Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The retched refuse of your teeming shore."
> 
> ...


Most of these English Only Melting Pot types won't even admit that there were large populations of German, French, Spanish, Chinese, Yiddish, etc. speakers who kept their languages for generations. If you bring up this history, they will deny it and claim everyone spoke English up until the 1960s.



Juggalo9er said:


> So Americans don't share customs....
> 
> I thought killing terrorist and blowing things up was a fairly nice custom myself


Yes, apparently training and arming Islamic terrorists and scapegoating and, blaming Slavic nations for American failures have become "American traditions" nowdays.??


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

Columbian Harem said:


> Except America was never truly a melting pot. It was official government policy on and off between the 1860s to 1950s, but there were always ethnicitally and religiously distinct populations and areas in the US. I am not sure what you mean by American customs and traditions. Most Americans have different traditions from each other, unless you are talking about mundane minute things like voting on election day or cooking a turkey on Thanksgiving day. English is really the only thing you could make an arguement for as most people in the US can speak English. I don't think America will be destroyed, it will just change its appearance, that is all.
> 
> 
> Most of these English Only Melting Pot types won't even admit that there were large populations of German, French, Spanish, Chinese, Yiddish, etc. speakers who kept their languages for generations. If you bring up this history, they will deny it and claim everyone spoke English up until the 1960s.
> ...


I truly debated on giving you a reasonable and well thought out response! However, I see you are from California..... So the only thing I have to ask is the following....

Can you bottle your tears over Trump winning and send them to me? I promise I'll pay a premium!


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

MiamiKid said:


> Nope, don't think so. Just good, solid Americans who believe in Free Enterprise and moral values! ??


They had me going with the public hangings, and all citizens should have nukes. Now I realize they were just putting me on. That's what trolls do.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

ZenUber said:


> They had me going with the public hangings, and all citizens should have nukes. Now I realize they were just putting me on. That's what trolls do.


Who said citizens should have nukes....I think you are confusing the fact the government should fear it's citizens, not the other way around


----------



## PlayLoud (Jan 11, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> And yes, if you reject God and his obvious handi-work, then you do truly believe that nothing created everything. A crazy idea! In doing such you don't even believe in science, such as the Law of Entropy. Instead, you atheists believe that out of chaos comes order and that man can improve himself. These were also the thoughts of Mao, Hitler and Margaret Sanger.


Hitler was a Christian



swathdiver said:


> Let's look at Genesis 1:1 shall we? "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." There's your science right there! See it? Time, Space and Matter in that order. Nothing can exist without it, except for God, and it has to be created in that order for things to exist within it.


You call that science? Read just a little bit further.

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. "

Ok. So Day and Night were created on the first day. Great! One problem. The sun wasn't created until day 4. How can you have day and night before the sun was created.

Also, plants and trees were created on day 3. Again, how can you have plants and trees before you have the sun?

So, the 4th day he finally creates the sun. And the stars. Ohhh. Problem here. Stars were here before the Earth. Our sun and the Earth are in fact remnants of a prior supernova. That's how we have the heavier elements.



swathdiver said:


> You people used to say the earth was flat but Columbus knew the scriptures said that the earth was round.


Isaiah 40:22 may be referring to a flat circular Earth, but even it was referring to a spherical Earth, the evidence was already present. Anybody who sees a lunar eclipse can see Earth's round shadow. It was known FAR before Columbus that the Earth was round.



swathdiver said:


> The Bible is a divine book, holy men of God were moved by the Holy Spirit to write the scriptures, about 40 of them over the course of 1600 years. It is perfect and without error. Man has not the capacity to write or keep such a thing. Not without the Lord anyway!


See above. Many errors already shown. Genesis is full of scientific impossibilities and inaccuracies.

Mind you, that doesn't mean that there is no god. It just means the Bible doesn't provide any evidence for the existence of god. The Bible is a claim. However, there is no evidence to support the claim.


----------



## CZ75 (Aug 10, 2018)

I like talking about firearms and so trips to an NRA convention would be a great ride. An actual conversation with pax that I would enjoy instead of the usual _how much do you make_ and _what else do you do for a living_ crap.


----------



## CarpeNoctem (Sep 12, 2018)

ZenUber said:


> I think we've got a rat's nest of Russian trolls here. Whenever they bring up communism and guns - look out.


I don't think there is a rat's nest. Gun control is a touchy subject. But, IMO there is one that appears to be just stirring the pot.


----------



## Columbian Harem (Mar 29, 2019)

Juggalo9er said:


> I truly debated on giving you a reasonable and well thought out response! However, I see you are from California..... So the only thing I have to ask is the following....
> 
> Can you bottle your tears over Trump winning and send them to me? I promise I'll pay a premium!


I actually supported both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. I always back the anti-establishment, populist, or nationalist candidate.

Now what is your response? If you are going to claim that America never had different language and ethnic groups with their own regions or city districts, I have a whole bunch of ethnic, religious, and linguistic maps going back to the 1800s that I would gladly share with you to prove you wrong.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

Columbian Harem said:


> I actually supported both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. I always back the anti-establishment, populist, or nationalist candidate.
> 
> Now what is your response? If you are going to claim that America never had different language and ethnic groups with their own regions or city districts, I have a whole bunch of ethnic, religious, and linguistic maps going back to the 1800s that I would gladly share with you to prove you wrong.


Do you have those maps for the rest of the world as well


----------



## Columbian Harem (Mar 29, 2019)

Juggalo9er said:


> Do you have those maps for the rest of the world as well


Actually most of what I was going to share with you is easily accessible on Google images.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

Columbian Harem said:


> Actually most of what I was going to share with you is easily accessible on Google images.


I'm still attempting to figure out your goal....
If it's too Garner sympathy for conquered people, I have none.... Come out with it little fellow... It's ok


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

Juggalo9er said:


> Who said citizens should have nukes....I think you are confusing the fact the government should fear it's citizens, not the other way around


There's a guy up above named swathdiver. Either he's a troll, or he's truly nuts. Probably both.



CarpeNoctem said:


> I don't think there is a rat's nest. Gun control is a touchy subject. But, IMO there is one that appears to be just stirring the pot.


It's one guy named swathdiver. My bad, it's not everybody.


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

Christinebitg said:


> America's strength comes from its immigrants.
> 
> "Give your tired, your poor. Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The retched refuse of your teeming shore."
> 
> ...


You're ancestors assimilated but did not forget their roots. For various reasons, chiefly that people like people like themselves, many lived among themselves in places like Fredericksburg, Texas or Chinatown in San Francisco and New York.

An inscription added to a statue is not government policy.

E Pluribus Unum = Out of Many, One.

But! Liberals obfuscate the truth and become the useful idiots of those who hate America when they call these people immigrants. They are not coming here legally, they are illegal aliens, breaking our laws and introducing diseases and a tremendous burden on the taxpayers because few know how or want to support themselves. Then you have the small percentage of criminals among this group who prey on Americans, burning in their hatred for their fellow man.

Nobody is against LEGAL immigration.

That must be a wonderful story about your grandpa sponsoring one of his former enemies to come to America. Has it been written down?



Columbian Harem said:


> Most of these English Only Melting Pot types won't even admit that there were large populations of German, French, Spanish, Chinese, Yiddish, etc. speakers who kept their languages for generations. If you bring up this history, they will deny it and claim everyone spoke English up until the 1960s.


I've never met a person who believes this, have you?



PlayLoud said:


> Hitler was a Christian


Hitler was not a Christian, his mother was Catholic. Hitler's religions were socialism, eugenics and the occult.



PlayLoud said:


> You call that science?


That is science and the basis for anything to exist wouldn't you agree? How is it possible that Adam knew this, because God taught him. And the amazing thing is that it is right there, in the beginning!



PlayLoud said:


> Read just a little bit further.
> 
> "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. "
> 
> Ok. So Day and Night were created on the first day. Great! One problem. The sun wasn't created until day 4. How can you have day and night before the sun was created.


Easy, because God said so! Remember, this is the same God that created the universe and put us into Time, Space and Matter. God exists outside of this.



PlayLoud said:


> Also, plants and trees were created on day 3. Again, how can you have plants and trees before you have the sun?


Because God said so. Since God created the trees, he didn't need anything to sustain them unless he wanted to. You breathing is because of God, you cannot breathe on your own (consciously).



PlayLoud said:


> So, the 4th day he finally creates the sun. And the stars. Ohhh. Problem here. Stars were here before the Earth. Our sun and the Earth are in fact remnants of a prior supernova. That's how we have the heavier elements.


Pure speculation and it is of course wrong. This is where scientists, who were not there at the beginning, begin to make things up and people believe them, like all those supposed missing links.



PlayLoud said:


> Isaiah 40:22 may be referring to a flat circular Earth, but even it was referring to a spherical Earth, the evidence was already present. Anybody who sees a lunar eclipse can see Earth's round shadow. It was known FAR before Columbus that the Earth was round.


Uhh yeah, you just made my point. It was common knowledge that the earth was round and in orbit and even how photosynthesis works and yet, your kind said the earth was flat. Christopher Columbus ignored these people because he knew the Bible said otherwise and could be trusted, every word, as being true.



PlayLoud said:


> See above. Many errors already shown. Genesis is full of scientific impossibilities and inaccuracies.


If your honest with yourself and humble in heart, you'll see that that statement of yours is not true in the least.



PlayLoud said:


> Mind you, that doesn't mean that there is no god. It just means the Bible doesn't provide any evidence for the existence of god. The Bible is a claim. However, there is no evidence to support the claim.


Look, I was an avowed atheist that used to persecute Christians. Having children softened my stone cold heart just enough to put a bible into my hands to read it in order to prove it false. Well guess what, there was no logical way to disprove any of its claims and I soon made repentance towards God and put my faith in Jesus Christ. Now I walk with the Lord and have a personal relationship with him, he answers my prayers and guides my paths. And when this broken down body stops working, I'll immediately go to heaven and not hell.

Don't be willingly ignorant, read that Glorious King James and live a life of faith, not in yourself but in Christ Jesus. Start with John 1. Any more questions, send me an email, [email protected].


----------



## Columbian Harem (Mar 29, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> You're ancestors assimilated but did not forget their roots. For various reasons, chiefly that people like people like themselves, many lived among themselves in places like Fredericksburg, Texas or Chinatown in San Francisco and New York.
> 
> An inscription added to a statue is not government policy.
> 
> ...


You are all over the place and contradicting yourself. You admit that @Christinebitg family spoke only German for most of their time in America, and then you claim you don't believe me when I said there has been different non-English groups inside the US throughout its history, and I included Germans. So which is it? Do you believe that there was a large German only speaking population in the US for well over 100 years or not?


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

Columbian Harem said:


> You are all over the place and contradicting yourself. You admit that @Christinebitg family spoke only German for most of their time in America, and then you claim you don't believe me when I said there has been different non-English groups inside the US throughout its history, and I included Germans. So which is it? Do you believe that there was a large German only speaking population in the US for well over 100 years or not?


Reading comprehension. His father spoke German but learned English in elementary school. Nothing wrong with speaking in native tongue at home or among family and friends.

Looking back through even American history you're going to find all kinds of examples but for the most part, people assimilated, just like his parents and grand-parents. Same with mine and probably yours. There are some in my family that refuse to assimilate. There loss.

We have St. Patrick's Day, Oktoberfest, Polish Clubs, etc. Americans celebrating their ancestry.


----------



## Columbian Harem (Mar 29, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> Reading comprehension. His father spoke German but learned English in elementary school. Nothing wrong with speaking in native tongue at home or among family and friends.
> 
> Looking back through even American history you're going to find all kinds of examples but for the most part, people assimilated, just like his parents and grand-parents. Same with mine and probably yours. There are some in my family that refuse to assimilate. There loss.
> 
> We have St. Patrick's Day, Oktoberfest, Polish Clubs, etc. Americans celebrating their ancestry.


Reading comperhension. His family was in the US for 7 generations. Most spoke German and only German. His father was the last one to speak German only because of oppression faced by the federal government. Conclusion, his family spent the majority of their existence in the US as German speakers.


----------



## PlayLoud (Jan 11, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> That is science and the basis for anything to exist wouldn't you agree? How is it possible that Adam knew this, because God taught him. And the amazing thing is that it is right there, in the beginning!


No, it's not science. To think "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." is science, in any stretch of the imagination, is preposterous.



swathdiver said:


> Easy, because God said so! Remember, this is the same God that created the universe and put us into Time, Space and Matter. God exists outside of this.


"Because God said so" is not science. For that statement to carry any weight you'd have to first prove that God exists. THEN, you'd have to prove that the Bible is the actual word of God. Neither of those criteria has been met. Until they are, it's just a book written a long time ago by a group of men.



swathdiver said:


> Because God said so. Since God created the trees, he didn't need anything to sustain them unless he wanted to. You breathing is because of God, you cannot breathe on your own (consciously).


Again, "Because God said so" is not science. I am curious why you chose the "There's your science right there! See it?" argument, and then when shown how Genesis doesn't jive with science, your answer is that God can break all the rules of science.



swathdiver said:


> Pure speculation and it is of course wrong. This is where scientists, who were not there at the beginning, begin to make things up and people believe them, like all those supposed missing links.


The men who wrote the Bible were not there at the beginning either. However, we do have great evidence that stars were around before the Earth. First, we know the Earth (and the rest of our solar system) is about 4.5 billion years old. Yet, we can see starlight from over 13 billion light-years away. That means there had to be stars billions of years before our solar system formed, per the laws of science. If you want to use the "God can break all the rules" argument, that's up to you. If you want to believe an ancient book that is contradicted by everything we know about the universe, go right ahead.



swathdiver said:


> Uhh yeah, you just made my point. It was common knowledge that the earth was round and in orbit and even how photosynthesis works and yet, your kind said the earth was flat. Christopher Columbus ignored these people because he knew the Bible said otherwise and could be trusted, every word, as being true.


Round is not the same as spherical. Did they know it was spherical? Or did they think it was flat and round?










Also, they didn't know it was in orbit. They thought it was fixed on a foundation by god (Psalm 104:5).



swathdiver said:


> If your honest with yourself and humble in heart, you'll see that that statement of yours is not true in the least.


Nope. All the laws of the universe that are known to us suggest Genesis could not have happened as described. If exists, and used his magic to do everything against the laws of nature, there is no evidence to support it. All we have is the claim (Bible). Nothing supports it.



swathdiver said:


> Look, I was an avowed atheist that used to persecute Christians. Having children softened my stone cold heart just enough to put a bible into my hands to read it in order to prove it false. Well guess what, there was no logical way to disprove any of its claims and I soon made repentance towards God and put my faith in Jesus Christ. Now I walk with the Lord and have a personal relationship with him, he answers my prayers and guides my paths. And when this broken down body stops working, I'll immediately go to heaven and not hell.
> 
> Don't be willingly ignorant, read that Glorious King James and live a life of faith, not in yourself but in Christ Jesus. Start with John 1. Any more questions, send me an email, [email protected].


I have no interest in living a life of faith. When the evidence so strongly contradicts the claim, I don't consider it a virtue to continue to believe.

I try to live my life as a good person only because that is how I would like to be remembered.

If you want to live a life of faith, that's fine. It's none of my business. But you should realize that there is actually zero evidence to support your position.

Also know that I am not making the claim that there is no god. All I am saying is that you (and those like you) haven't met your burden of proof when you not only claim there is a god, but give (absurd) details on how he created the universe, which violate all known physical laws.


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

PlayLoud said:


> I try to live my life as a good person only because that is how I would like to be remembered.


And here is every man's problem. They all declare their own righteousness. You're not a good person.

Think you are? Take this test: http://www.goodpersontest.com/

The first sentence in the Bible establishes time, space and matter. The universe we live in cannot exist without these three and in this precise order. See it now?

The Bible is the actual Word of God. It does prove it and no man has ever disproved it.

God made the rules and it is man who has discovered them to understand the creation. Man didn't invent the Law of Entropy for example. God created it!

Yes, I left out the other verses about man knowing back then without Richard Dawkins or the Science Guy to tell them that the earth is a sphere, how it was made, how photosynthesis works, the underwater springs at the bottom of the ocean, and so much more. I told you before, it's all in there and the archaeologist's shovel has never disproved one claim in the Scriptures.

King David once said, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork". So true.

And yet, with all the evidence, you believe that nothing created everything, a crazy scientific impossibility. Even Dawkins has admitted to a beginning and a creator but is still too prideful to submit to the God that gave him life.



PlayLoud said:


> The men who wrote the Bible were not there at the beginning either. However, we do have great evidence that stars were around before the Earth. First, we know the Earth (and the rest of our solar system) is about 4.5 billion years old. Yet, we can see starlight from over 13 billion light-years away. That means there had to be stars billions of years before our solar system formed, per the laws of science. If you want to use the "God can break all the rules" argument, that's up to you. If you want to believe an ancient book that is contradicted by everything we know about the universe, go right ahead.


Ok, Let's see if you understand the following statement. I'm not asking you to agree with it, just if you understand what is written, ok?

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake _as they were_ moved by the Holy Ghost." - 2 Peter 1:21

Ok, nobody knows how old the earth is today because they were not there at the beginning. They are guessing and lying when they say it is 4.5 or 6 billion years old. Did you know that these foolish scientists age the earth 21 million years on average every year? Ridiculous.

Neither do they have any idea that the starlight it really 13 billion years old either. They do now acknowledge that the heavens stretch and are growing, which is also in the bible. So this is pure guessing, not science. And do you want to discuss the flawed process of carbon dating and fossilization?

God doesn't break any rules, he authored them. But you guys go on ahead believing that crazy talk about how nothing created everything.


----------



## PlayLoud (Jan 11, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> The first sentence in the Bible establishes time, space and matter. The universe we live in cannot exist without these three and in this precise order. See it now?


No. I don't. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." does not establish anything. You're really reaching to say this proves anything.



swathdiver said:


> The Bible is the actual Word of God. It does prove it and no man has ever disproved it.


There is absolutely zero proof that this is the word of god (or that god even exists). I don't have to disprove it. You made the claim there is a god, and the Bible is his word. You've failed to show any proof for either of these claims.



swathdiver said:


> God made the rules and it is man who has discovered them to understand the creation.


If God made the rules, why does he create the universe in a way that breaks the rules?



swathdiver said:


> Ok, nobody knows how old the earth is today because they were not there at the beginning. They are guessing and lying when they say it is 4.5 or 6 billion years old. Did you know that these foolish scientists age the earth 21 million years on average every year? Ridiculous.
> 
> Neither do they have any idea that the starlight it really 13 billion years old either. They do now acknowledge that the heavens stretch and are growing, which is also in the bible. So this is pure guessing, not science. And do you want to discuss the flawed process of carbon dating and fossilization?


They are not "guessing". They are using dating methods that carry a great degree of accuracy. Also, they aren't carbon dating. Carbon dating is for organic material. Lead-lead is probably the most accurate. But of the many techniques, they all point to ~4.5 billion years old. Even with a margin of error, it basically rounds to 4.5 billion years old. This is firmly established.

And yes, they know the starlight is 13 billion years old, because it is 13 billion light years away. By definition, that means the starlight is 13 billion years old.



swathdiver said:


> God doesn't break any rules, he authored them.


Go back to your answers for the inaccuracies of Genesis...
"Since God created the trees, he didn't need anything to sustain them unless he wanted to. "
That's called breaking the rules.

And speaking of breaking the rules, let me ask you another question. Do you believe the Flood encompassed all land everywhere?



swathdiver said:


> But you guys go on ahead believing that crazy talk about how nothing created everything.


Of course there are questions on how the universe was created. The fact that we don't have all the answers doesn't mean "God did it!"
You're of course free to continue believing in God. It's none of my business if you want to believe in something without evidence.


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

PlayLoud said:


> No. I don't. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." does not establish anything. You're really reaching to say this proves anything.


It certainly does. God is showing us the order of creation and you cannot have matter without first having time nor space.

The heavens declare the Glory of God, it's written on your conscience.

So then, do you know everything? Is it possible that God exists in the portion of information that you do not know???

You're wrong about the age of the universe. It is growing and stretching out, so a star that may have been 1 light year away after 2000 years may be 4 or 40 light years away. They are going to have a hard time explaining this away to fit with their "theory of evolution" premise that everything must be washed through. Just like those 60 million old dinosaur DNA and flesh and such.

The earth and the universe according to the Scriptures are about 6,400 years old. Like I said, these phony scientists age the earth 21 million years every year.

Do you know what a hypothesis is? How about a theory?

In my last I asked if you understood a question, could you answer that one for me? If there's anything I failed to address, please bring it to my attention and will do so.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

Hey swathdiver - 
God here. 
I never said any of that stuff. 
Stop putting words in my mouth. 
I’ve warned you about this before. 
Stop it right now. 
Don’t make me come down there again. 
Thus spake the Lord.


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

Columbian Harem said:


> I actually supported both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.


Both of whom are lunatics, in my opinion.


----------



## MacPhatDaddy (Apr 28, 2019)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> No way.
> My car my rules.
> Period.


If someone had a concealed pistol, how would you even know? Do you pat-down every pax?


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

MacPhatDaddy said:


> If someone had a concealed pistol, how would you even know? Do you pat-down every pax?


When they're stupid enough to brag about it.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

Can someone consolidate the book written above


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

MacPhatDaddy said:


> If someone had a concealed pistol, how would you even know? Do you pat-down every pax?


If I don't see the gun, I assume pax has no guns


----------



## PlayLoud (Jan 11, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> It certainly does. God is showing us the order of creation and you cannot have matter without first having time nor space.


You're reading far too much into that. It's an absurdly vague line to try to use it as proof of anything. Also, those who wrote the Bible would have a concept of "Heaven" and "Earth", and all stories begin at the "Beginning". You're reading FAR to much into it.



swathdiver said:


> So then, do you know everything?


Nope. not even close.



swathdiver said:


> Is it possible that God exists in the portion of information that you do not know???


That's always possible. For me to say there is no god would place the burden of proof on me. I do not make that claim. I simply reject your claim that there IS a god due to lack of evidence. Even if there is a supreme being of some kind, I find it highly unlikely that it's the BS we've read about in any holy books. Also, whenever you try to use the "god of the gaps" argument, "God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on." -NDT



swathdiver said:


> You're wrong about the age of the universe. It is growing and stretching out, so a star that may have been 1 light year away after 2000 years may be 4 or 40 light years away. They are going to have a hard time explaining this away to fit with their "theory of evolution" premise that everything must be washed through. Just like those 60 million old dinosaur DNA and flesh and such.
> 
> The earth and the universe according to the Scriptures are about 6,400 years old. Like I said, these phony scientists age the earth 21 million years every year.


Oh FFS. So, you think the Earth is 6,400 years old.

Ok. First of all. The galaxies that we see that appear 13 billion light years away from us are farther than that now. The light has been traveling for 13 billion years, but with the expansion of the universe, the distance is now much greater.

Second, the expansion of the universe is increasing the distance between galaxies. The size of galaxies are not expanding. If the universe were only 6,400 years old, we'd only be able to see light from 6,400 light years away. That would only be a small fraction of our own galaxy (see below).










Everything outside the lit portion of the above picture would not be visible. That small lit part would be the entire universe as we know it.



swathdiver said:


> Do you know what a hypothesis is? How about a theory?


Yes, I do. I'd love to see where you're going with this though.



swathdiver said:


> In my last I asked if you understood a question, could you answer that one for me? If there's anything I failed to address, please bring it to my attention and will do so.


Actually, you asked if I understood a statement, not a question. Yes, I understand it. Basically, the Bible is claiming it is carrying the word of god. However, you can't use the Bible as proof that the Bible is true. The Bible is the claim, not the proof.


----------



## CarpeNoctem (Sep 12, 2018)

PlayLoud said:


> Oh FFS. So, you think the Earth is 6,400 years old.
> 
> Ok. First of all. The galaxies that we see that appear 13 billion light years away from us are farther than that now. The light has been traveling for 13 billion years, but with the expansion of the universe, the distance is now much greater.
> 
> Second, the expansion of the universe is increasing the distance between galaxies. The size of galaxies are not expanding. If the universe were only 6,400 years old, we'd only be able to see light from 6,400 light years away. That would only be a small fraction of our own galaxy (see below).


I got this one.

God put the galaxies way out there 6400 years ago. Just like he put the fossils of dinosaurs deep beneath the ground as tests of faith.

I don't really believe those but I do have a sense of God and it is not as literal as some. By the same token, what is to you? If someone wants to believe a literal interpretation of the Bible and gains some comfort from it, why do you care?

I'm not trying to flame you but I do find some atheists (which in ways has the same aspect as a religion) are more annoying (not necessarily you) than the most ardent Bible thumpers.

Also, at the end of the day, the stories or fables or scriptures (if you will) usually have some basis of truth. Strictly on the face, there was a man named Jesus and he said a bunch of great things and did a bunch of great things in the name of God. There is the inherent fact that those events did happen and, I think, there has to be some underlying thread of truth in what he said.

Don't get me started on the flat earth shtuff. I've been down that rabbit hole too. I am guilty of trying to change their minds as well. But, I really don't want their lunacy to spread. Religions have been around too long to try and stop them from spreading.


----------



## PlayLoud (Jan 11, 2019)

CarpeNoctem said:


> I got this one.
> 
> God put the galaxies way out there 6400 years ago. Just like he put the fossils of dinosaurs deep beneath the ground as tests of faith.
> 
> ...


I really don't care if one decides to believe in god. I wasn't going to reply on that matter (I was only in the thread for the gun argument). It was a specific statement that I couldn't let go.

_Let's look at Genesis 1:1 shall we? "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." There's your science right there! See it?_

Well, that was just so laughable, I had to respond.


----------



## Ubergaldrivet (Feb 6, 2019)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> No way.
> My car my rules.
> Period.


I was having dinner, sitting at a bar. This conversation came, unbelievable how many of us were carrying. 8/10. So, not sure how you will know who is carrying.


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

Juggalo9er said:


> Should I
> A. Be scared of the bad man with guns
> B. Make money off the people with guns


They sound like a group with money, that will want to go places and take a lot of rides.

I'm a lot more frightened by a colonoscope than I am a gun, but it didn't stop me from making money from a gastroenterology convention they had here in Pittsburgh 25 years ago.


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

Ubergaldrivet said:


> I was having dinner, sitting at a bar. This conversation came, unbelievable how many of us were carrying. 8/10. So, not sure how you will know who is carrying.


No way to find out the hidden guns unfortunately


----------



## PlayLoud (Jan 11, 2019)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> No way to find out the hidden guns unfortunately


Or fortunately.


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

PlayLoud said:


> Or fortunately.


Yes it depends


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

Juggalo9er said:


> Should I
> A. Be scared of the bad man with guns
> B. Make money off the people with guns


All the politics aside, did you work the convention? Was it worth it?


----------



## brentb31 (May 23, 2018)

FLKeys said:


> All the politics aside, did you work the convention? Was it worth it?


I worked it, not as much traffic as typical convention. Ended up doing about $400 for 2 nights work. These convention goers didn't do too much bar crawling more or less went from convention to dinner then hotels Typical weekend earning for me. Had some good discussions and what not but earnings were on par for typical Fri and Sat night.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

FLKeys said:


> All the politics aside, did you work the convention? Was it worth it?


Kind of


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

Juggalo9er said:


> Kind of


Maybe you should've brought a bigger gun.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

ZenUber said:


> Maybe you should've brought a bigger gun.


$350
Worked about 17 hours


----------



## Coyotex (Feb 10, 2019)

Juggalo9er said:


> $350
> Worked about 17 hours


Awesome! I didn't get a chance to make it to Indy. Great job though!


----------



## jlong105 (Sep 15, 2017)

Columbian Harem said:


> How do you firgue that?
> Nation= shared/ ethnicity, language, religion, customs, traditions, heritage, historic land or land of origin, etc.
> 
> America doesn't fulfill any of this criteria. Speaking English is the only thing you maybe could argue. Even then there has always been one or two major groups through US history that spoke their own language instead of English. Even today, you have people that can speak Spanish but not English. Americans don't have shared history, they don't have a shared ethnicity, they don't have a shared religion, they don't have a shared historical land or land of origin. The concept of a nation does not match with what it means to be American.


America was not meant to be a nation. Hence the term "United STATES" State is defined as "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." However as we have allowed the federal government to grow it has taken over. And has overreached in about all areas.


----------



## Harry Botter (Apr 28, 2019)

jlong105 said:


> America was not meant to be a nation. Hence the term "United STATES" State is defined as "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." However as we have allowed the federal government to grow it has taken over. And has overreached in about all areas.


America was not designed to be a nation. I agree. So why does America always claim it is a nation, when in reality it is an empire with many nations in it? You see that crazy @swathdiver guy is actually trying to argue that America is a nation.


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

Harry Botter said:


> America was not designed to be a nation. I agree. So why does America always claim it is a nation, when in reality it is an empire with many nations in it? You see that crazy @swathdiver guy is actually trying to argue that America is a nation.


There's really no argument, that's just what the dictionary says. The USA can also be correctly called a Constitutional Republic and is not a Democracy.

But in this age of lunacy, you can self-identify and self re-define whatever you want. I prefer Realville to Candy Land.


----------



## PlayLoud (Jan 11, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> There's really no argument, that's just what the dictionary says. The USA can also be correctly called a Constitutional Republic and is not a Democracy.
> 
> But in this age of lunacy, you can self-identify and self re-define whatever you want. I prefer Realville to Candy Land.


Agreed. Though it's ironic to hear from somebody who thinks the Earth is 6,400 years old. :biggrin:


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

PlayLoud said:


> Agreed. Though it's ironic to hear from somebody who thinks the Earth is 6,400 years old.


Don't think, I know, RIF. Read your bible, it's all in there.


----------



## PlayLoud (Jan 11, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> Don't think, I know, RIF. Read your bible, it's all in there.


Well, I pointed out why that is impossible, but enjoy your book.


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

PlayLoud said:


> Well, I pointed out why that is impossible, but enjoy your book.


It's not impossible, you're just wrong, following the wrong people. I don't follow people, I follow the Lord!


----------



## brentb31 (May 23, 2018)

PlayLoud said:


> Agreed. Though it's ironic to hear from somebody who thinks the Earth is 6,400 years old. :biggrin:


I had the same thought.


----------



## Harry Botter (Apr 28, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> There's really no argument, that's just what the dictionary says. The USA can also be correctly called a Constitutional Republic and is not a Democracy.
> 
> But in this age of lunacy, you can self-identify and self re-define whatever you want. I prefer Realville to Candy Land.


The dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of a nation doesn't match up to what America is. If you were to go to Europe and try to argue that Americans are a ethnic or national group, people would laugh at you. Like it or not, nation is used traditionally to mean an ethnic group, and unless you are Native American, American is not a real identity, at least from a nation or ethnic perspective. Now you could say you are an American as in being a citizen, then that has meaning.


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

Harry Botter said:


> The dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of a nation doesn't match up to what America is.


When did y'all go to school? Never ever never heard of this redefining what America is but it does not surprise me. They've succeeded in getting you guys to hate your own country.


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

My passport says "United States of America." I'm not a religious person, but "One nation under God" is pretty specific.

Last time any states tried to leave, that didn't work out so well for them.


----------



## PlayLoud (Jan 11, 2019)

Christinebitg said:


> My passport says "United States of America." I'm not a religious person, but "One nation under God" is pretty specific.
> 
> Last time any states tried to leave, that didn't work out so well for them.


Side note: The words "under God" weren't added until 1954. Before that, it was "one nation, indivisible"


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

PlayLoud said:


> Side note: The words "under God" weren't added until 1954. Before that, it was "one nation, indivisible"


Yup, it was added when some people were afraid of "God-less communists" taking over the world.

It's amazing to me what you can get people to be afraid of.


----------



## dctcmn (Sep 21, 2017)

Juggalo9er said:


> $350
> Worked about 17 hours


$20.50/hr gross? Yeah, you can keep the NRA convention. What a bust.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

dctcmn said:


> $20.50/hr gross? Yeah, you can keep the NRA convention. What a bust.


The rates in Indianapolis are terrible.... That's honestly fairly decent for the area


----------



## dctcmn (Sep 21, 2017)

Juggalo9er said:


> The rates in Indianapolis are terrible.... That's honestly fairly decent for the area


What are your rates? I doubt that there more than a few pennies per mile and minute different than mine.

Those awesome, huge- tipping gun owners with Jacksons falling out of their pockets that you were bragging about should have more than made up for that.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

dctcmn said:


> What are your rates? I doubt that there more than a few pennies per mile and minute different than mine.
> 
> Those awesome, huge- tipping gun owners with Jacksons falling out of their pockets that you were bragging about should have more than made up for that.


Every market is different regardless of rates but I digress. The driver gets .605 and I believe .125 a minute.... So ya averaging $20 or so an hour is fairly decent and better than most other times!


----------

