# March for our Lives... March 24th



## Mattio41 (Sep 19, 2016)

Guess Lyft has decided to get political....

Then again, maybe a good day for lots of lyft rides.


----------



## Veal66 (Dec 8, 2014)

The March for Life was on Jan. 19
https://marchforlife.org/march-life-2018/rally-march-info/

I think you meant to say March for Our Lives.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Mattio41 said:


> Guess Lyft has decided to get political....Then again, maybe a good day for lots of lyft rides.





Veal66 said:


> March for Our Lives.


We are getting one in the Capital of Your Nation (noooooooo, REALLY?, Duh, gee, Tennessee......................)

I guess that I will have to cover up my NRA bumper sticker. I probably should not wear an NRA T-shirt or sweat shirt that day, either.


----------



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

FFS...is there not one corporation left that doesn't support a cause? Just stop it. 

At least Lyft told em they have to be 18 however, I don't see ''carding" that bunch going over very well.


----------



## Hagong (Jan 17, 2017)

Mattio41 said:


> Guess Lyft has decided to get political....
> 
> Then again, maybe a good day for lots of lyft rides.
> View attachment 209815


Since it's free, they better take Premiere, Lux or SUV.


----------



## RedANT (Aug 9, 2016)

Too bad Lyft feels that it's necessary to make political statements. I'm sure Uber will do the same. Idiots.

There's no way in hell I'd run on that day, especially for a bunch of underage, ultra liberal, self entitled kids.


----------



## kc ub'ing! (May 27, 2016)

RedANT said:


> There's no way in hell I'd run on that day, especially for a bunch of underage, ultra liberal, self entitled kids.


Who don't want their schools shot up. Lil bastards!


----------



## RedANT (Aug 9, 2016)

kc ub'ing! said:


> Who don't want their schools shot up. Lil bastards!


What will you accomplish by catering to thousands of protesters protesting something that they obviously don't even understand? This will only serve to polarize the sides, and will accomplish nothing.

FWIW, guns were banned at that school, and only the cops were allowed to carry there. That shows how effective banning guns is. Criminals will still commit crimes, and I refuse to give up my right to protect myself.

If you want to sit in standstill traffic and give free no tip minimum fares to a bunch of protesting ignoramuses, please do so. It's the opportunity for instant riches, and it's all yours!


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Some news sources are just reporting free rides for students and not also restating the requirement to be 18 or accompanied by someone who is 18. It should all be a mess.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/lyft-march-for-our-lives-free-rides/


----------



## Mattio41 (Sep 19, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> We are getting one in the Capital of Your Nation (noooooooo, REALLY?, Duh, gee, Tennessee......................)
> 
> I guess that I will have to cover up my NRA bumper sticker. I probably should not wear an NRA T-shirt or sweat shirt that day, either.


ohhh do it... i was planning on wearing mine...



Veal66 said:


> The March for Life was on Jan. 19
> https://marchforlife.org/march-life-2018/rally-march-info/
> 
> I think you meant to say March for Our Lives.


Whooooppps... title changes. thank you


----------



## Big Wig !!! (Sep 16, 2016)

NRA RULES!!!


----------



## Jennyma (Jul 16, 2016)

I'd work it if they turned off the rating system that day.


----------



## kc ub'ing! (May 27, 2016)

RedANT said:


> FWIW, guns were banned at that school


Oh, guns banned at a school, you say... well that's just plain irrational! We need more guns. Then there'll be fewer shootings! It all makes sense to me now!


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

I'm should make at least $100 in Shuffles (cancel fees) that day


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

kc ub'ing! said:


> Oh, guns banned at a school, you say... well that's just plain irrational! We need more guns. Then there'll be fewer shootings! It all makes sense to me now!


All of these exclamation points remind me of a former poster on the Washington Boards who called herself @FatdriverBMW.

As staunch a supporter and advocate as I am of the Second Amendment, even _*I*_ am opposed to the idea of teachers' packing the proverbial heat. A school is the last place that I would call an "appropriate" place for firearms. I have a story from my life experience on that one.

If you absolutely, positively MUST have firearms in a school, they must be in the hands of uniformed Law Enforcement. Those people are trained in their proper use, handling of situations involving firearms, bear certain responsibilities and must follow procedures.


----------



## kc ub'ing! (May 27, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> All of these exclamation points remind me of a former poster on the Washington Boards who called herself @FatdriverBMW.


I'm not her!


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

kc ub'ing! said:


> I'm not her!


I did not think so! She liked going to the MGM casino at National Harbour in the Maryland suburbs here! You have enough casinos in Nevada! You do not need to come to Maryland to play! MGM might even have a casino in Nevada! It has been a while since I have been to Nevada! I would not know! I am too lazy to Google it!


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> I did not think so! She liked going to the MGM casino at National Harbour in the Maryland suburbs here! You have enough casinos in Nevada! You do not need to come to Maryland to play! MGM might even have a casino in Nevada! It has been a while since I have been to Nevada! I would not know! I am too lazy to Google it!


!

O!
M!
G!


----------



## NJAudiDriver (Oct 16, 2017)

Political rhetoric and total BS. Lyft consistently abuses and takes advantage of its own drivers. They do not even care about their own so why would they care about anything else? Too bad the public are gullible enough to eat this stuff up.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

NJAudiDriver said:


> Too bad the public are gullible enough to eat this stuff up.


It sells rides. That is the only thing about which *Gr*yft cares.


----------



## NJAudiDriver (Oct 16, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> It sells rides. That is the only thing about which *Gr*yft cares.


Exactly. It's the one and only thing Lyft cares about...


----------



## kc ub'ing! (May 27, 2016)

MGM has a presence in Vegas but not Reno! What was the MGM in Reno is now the Grand Sierra Resort or GSR. It has GSR in bright red letters on the 4 sides of the tower. Obviously named before tv police procedurals made GSR- ‘gun shot residue’ common in our vernacular. Bringing us back to the original theme of this thread! Genius!!!


----------



## Woohaa (Jan 15, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> We are getting one in the Capital of Your Nation (noooooooo, REALLY?, Duh, gee, Tennessee......................)
> 
> I guess that I will have to cover up my NRA bumper sticker. *I probably should not wear an NRA T-shirt or sweat shirt that day,* either.


Considering the NRA supports home grown terrorism that would be a good idea.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Woohaa said:


> Considering the NRA supports home grown terrorism that would be a good idea.


Right, correct, check and got it: anyone who disagrees with the advocates of Gun Control For Decent People But Not For Criminals is automatically a "support[er] of home grown terrorism".

No one ever has proved that the NRA supports "home grown terrorism". Armed, violent, criminals in places like ChIRAK-er-UH-Ch_*icago*_ fit the description of "home grown terrorists". The NRA does not support those criminals. There are certain elements of our society that do, but I will refrain from naming them, for now, at least.


----------



## Woohaa (Jan 15, 2017)

Actually not Chicago. More like Newtown, CT and Parkland, FL. The NRA does support homegrown terrorism & actively works to keep firearms in the hands of any potential school shooter.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Woohaa said:


> Actually not Chicago.


Do you deny that there are armed, violent criminals in Chicago? I guess that there is not a reason that they call it "ChIRAK".



Woohaa said:


> The NRA does support homegrown terrorism & actively works to keep firearms in the hands of any potential school shooter.


You can, of course, produce an official quote from NRA leadership, literature or a post on the NRA's website to back up that assertion, correct? You can, of course, produce an official NRA statement from an official NRA source that states "The NRA supports home grown terrorism and actively works to keep firearms in the hands of any potential school shooter." You can produce that, correct?

I do need to see an official statement, not some legalised marijuana-induced drekk from a "contributor" to _*Huffington Post*_. There is a reason that they call those people "Huffers" and it _*ain't*_ necessarily derived solely from Ariana's given name that she has applied to her site.


----------



## Woohaa (Jan 15, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Do you deny that there are armed, violent criminals in Chicago? I guess that there is not a reason that they call it "ChIRAK". You can, of course, produce an official quote from NRA leadership, literature or a post on the NRA's website to back up that assertion, correct? You can, of course, produce an official NRA statement from an official NRA source that states "The NRA supports home grown terrorism and actively works to keep firearms in the hands of any potential school shooter." You can produce that, correct?
> 
> I do need to see an official statement, not some legalised marijuana-induced drekk from a "contributor" to _*Huffington Post*_. There is a reason that they call those people "Huffers" and it _*ain't*_ necessarily derived solely from Ariana's given name that she has applied to her site.


Your obsession with Chicago notwithstanding, it still has absolutely nothing to do with the above-mentioned school shootings. And regarding the NRA statement, most terrorist organizations don't refer to themselves as terrorist organizations.

It's kinda their thing to not do that.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Woohaa said:


> Your obsession with Chicago notwithstanding, it still has absolutely nothing to do with the above-mentioned school shootings.


Armed, violent crime is armed violent crime; regardless of where it happens or against whom it is directed, is it not?

Do you deny that armed, violent criminals could be classified as "home grown terrorists"? They terrorise the neighbourhoods where they "ply their trade" and the people upon whom they prey. My statements on Chicago have the purpose of demonstrating where the real "home grown terrorists" are. The practice of "home grown terrorism" is rampant, and, in some cases, systematic, there.

Do you deny that school aged children are being killed in Chicago, which has one of the strictest gun "control" laws in the nation?



Woohaa said:


> regarding the NRA statement, *most* terrorist organizations don't refer to themselves as terrorist organizations.


(emphasis added)

You made the assertion, as have more than a few Huffers and politicians who believe that decent people should be deprived of a means of defending themselves against armed , violent criminals while those criminals remain armed. Prove your assertion. Can you produce even, an official statement 
from the NRA that states that it supports keeping firearms in the hands of any "potential school shooter" ?

The NRA supports people who do not agree with you. Is the definition of "home grown terrorist", "someone who does not agree with me"?

The NRA supports the Second Amendment. Are you asserting that the Second Amendment encourages "home grown terrorism"?

Oh, and thanks for the "most"; you conceded my point on the "official statement" to me with that one.


----------



## Woohaa (Jan 15, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Armed, violent crime is armed violent crime; regardless of where it happens or against whom it is directed, is it not?
> 
> Do you deny that armed, violent criminals could be classified as "home grown terrorists"? They terrorise the neighbourhoods where they "ply their trade" and the people upon whom they prey. My statements on Chicago have the purpose of demonstrating where the real "home grown terrorists" are. The practice of "home grown terrorism" is rampant, and, in some cases, systematic, there.
> 
> ...


Someone robbing a bank at gunpoint & shooting the guard on the way out isn't the same as someone blowing up the bank for a specific reason. One is a violent crime. The other a terrorist act.

This is why an American fighting for the Taliban in the Middle East could be labeled an enemy combatant & held indefinitely at Gitmo but an American who stabbed someone in the UK couldn't be labeled in the same way.

Every American supports the 2nd Amendment. But every American doesn't support home grown terrorism, of which the NRA is complicit.


----------



## Pinapple Man (Aug 8, 2017)

Mattio41 said:


> Guess Lyft has decided to get political....
> 
> Then again, maybe a good day for lots of lyft rides.
> View attachment 209815


Does Lyft send letter of condolences when a driver gets killed?


----------



## Hagong (Jan 17, 2017)

Lyft also better offer Taco Mode free for the students. Protesting can work up your appetite.


----------



## RedANT (Aug 9, 2016)

Woohaa said:


> Someone robbing a bank at gunpoint & shooting the guard on the way out isn't the same as someone blowing up the bank for a specific reason. One is a violent crime. The other a terrorist act.
> 
> This is why an American fighting for the Taliban in the Middle East could be labeled an enemy combatant & held indefinitely at Gitmo but an American who stabbed someone in the UK couldn't be labeled in the same way.
> 
> Every American supports the 2nd Amendment. But every American doesn't support home grown terrorism, of which the NRA is complicit.


Quit being willfully ignorant. Terrorist or violent criminal. Both are dangers to society and equally reprehensible.

As far as the Second Amendment, not all of you support it. Some of you would cede your rights in a misguided quest for "security." Some of us, however, prefer to take personal responsibility for ourselves and our families, and stand behind the NRA, which didn't represent any of the terrorist shooters, and whose goal is education on responsible gun ownership and protection of our rights.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Woohaa said:


> Someone robbing a bank at gunpoint & shooting the guard on the way out isn't the same as someone blowing up the bank for a specific reason. One is a violent crime. The other a terrorist act.
> 
> This is why an American fighting for the Taliban in the Middle East could be labeled an enemy combatant & held indefinitely at Gitmo but an American who stabbed someone in the UK couldn't be labeled in the same way.
> 
> Every American supports the 2nd Amendment. But every American doesn't support home grown terrorism, of which the NRA is complicit.





RedANT said:


> Quit being willfully ignorant. Terrorist or violent criminal. Both are dangers to society and equally reprehensible.
> 
> As far as the Second Amendment, not all of you support it. Some of you would cede your rights in a misguided quest for "security." Some of us, however, prefer to take personal responsibility for ourselves and our families, and stand behind the NRA, which didn't represent any of the terrorist shooters, and whose goal is education on responsible gun ownership and protection of our rights.


I like his answer. The two things that I would add are:

1. You are introducing something new to the discussion without rendering any basis for doing so: enemy combatants.
2. You have failed to prove your statement that the NRA supports "home grown terrorism" which leads me to conclude that you define "supporter of homegrown terrorism" as "anyone who disagrees with me". That definition is unsupportable among reasonable people.


----------



## Woohaa (Jan 15, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> I like his answer. The two things that I would add are:
> 
> 1. You are introducing something new to the discussion without rendering any basis for doing so: enemy combatants.
> 2. You have failed to prove your statement that the NRA supports "home grown terrorism" which leads me to conclude that you define "supporter of homegrown terrorism" as "anyone who disagrees with me". That definition is unsupportable among reasonable people.


That's because it's the image you wish to see. I don't agree with conservatives yet I doubt they're homegrown terrorists.


----------



## RedANT (Aug 9, 2016)

Woohaa said:


> That's because it's the image you wish to see. I don't agree with conservatives yet I doubt they're homegrown terrorists.


Want to know what made me a hardcore Second Amendment supporter? Some idiot tried to break into my home one night when I was alone, and the only thing that saved me was my own gun. The police were slow to respond, (until I screamed that I was going to shoot the burglar while on the phone with the 911 operator) and had I not been armed, there's a damn good chance that I'd have ended up injured or killed.

Criminals understand one thing... that if the home has an armed owner, go elsewhere.

That said, today I saw several "protesters" here in Seattle. Some of them were young, we're talking 3rd or 4th grade age, and they were all standing on the I-5 overpass with signs while trucks and cars doing 70mph down the freeway flew by below them. If this is really about "safety," whoever made the decision to put dozens of elementary school kids on the freeway overpass needs to rethink their strategy and message. You're endangering those kids more than any of us ever could.


----------



## kc ub'ing! (May 27, 2016)

No ones protesting a hand gun in your home for self protection. This includes shot guns and rifles for hunting. The issue is military style semiautomatic weapons. All the cats I know who own this type of gun tell me they’re fun. To me this is not valid justification for their universal access. Especially to those under 21 and folks with mental issues.


----------



## RedANT (Aug 9, 2016)

kc ub'ing! said:


> No ones protesting a hand gun in your home for self protection. This includes shot guns and rifles for hunting. The issue is military style semiautomatic weapons. All the cats I know who own this type of gun tell me they're fun. To me this is not valid justification for their universal access. Especially to those under 21 and folks with mental issues.


At age 18 we're considered "adults" and become responsible for our own actions. Raising the age to 21 does nothing except delay full rights as an adult.

"Military semi automatic weapons" are nothing more than eye dressing, and are no more or less dangerous than any other semi automatic weapon. Banning items because of what they look like is as ludicrous as penalizing video games for violent content when sex and violence have run rampant on TV for decades. Hold individuals accountable for their own actions, not penalize law abiding citizens in vain hopes of deterring criminals from breaking the law.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Woohaa said:


> That's because it's the image you wish to see. I don't agree with conservatives yet I doubt they're homegrown terrorists.


It is no"image that _ wish to see". You have failed to prove that the NRA is an organisation of "homegrown terrorists". All that I have seen here is that you disagree with the NRA and call it names. With only that at my disposal, what other conclusion should I draw?



RedANT said:



At age 18 we're considered "adults" and become responsible for our own actions. Raising the age to 21 does nothing except delay full rights as an adult.

Click to expand...

This is what I want to know: are you or are you not an adult at eighteen? If yes, you get all of the rights, including your Second Amendment Rights as well as the privileges, such as buying a beer. If not, then you do not get those rights or privileges. If yes, then you get all of the concomitant responsibilities; if no, then you get none of them.

All of this business of making people attain the age of twenty one before they can buy, beer, cigarets or firearms is nothing but feel-good, non-solutions to "problems".

What is it? I do not necessarily have to care, as I am long past both eighteen and twenty one. I was allowed to buy cigarets at sixteen, beer and firearms at eighteen and vote at eighteen. So what is it?_


----------



## Woohaa (Jan 15, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> It is no"image that _ wish to see". You have failed to prove that the NRA is an organisation of "homegrown terrorists". All that I have seen here is that you disagree with the NRA and call it names. With only that at my disposal, what other conclusion should I draw?
> 
> This is what I want to know: are you or are you not an adult at eighteen? If yes, you get all of the rights, including your Second Amendment Rights as well as the privileges, such as buying a beer. If not, then you do not get those rights or privileges. If yes, then you get all of the concomitant responsibilities; if no, then you get none of them.
> 
> ...


Not quite sure how why you believe you're in a position where anyone has to prove anything to you. The NRA is indeed a haven for and to homegrown terrorists. The ramifications of its positions are there for all to see.


----------



## kc ub'ing! (May 27, 2016)

RedANT said:


> "Military semi automatic weapons" are nothing more than eye dressing, and are no more or less dangerous than any other semi automatic weapon


I disagree. High-capacity magazines make them infinitely more dangerous! How bout we limit the number of cartridges available per load. Can we agree here? Or would this penalize law abiding citizens too much? 'Nope my Glock can hold 30, I want 30!'


----------



## RedANT (Aug 9, 2016)

It all keeps coming back to the question of why do people think that passing laws is going to stop criminals who don't follow laws? The only people who will be affected by such legislation are the law abiding citizens, exactly the people who DON'T pose a threat to you or I. 

Being armed is an effective deterrent to crime, and can be crucial in self defense. All gun control laws would do is transform me from a law abiding citizen to a "danger to society" because people are illogically afraid and/or lack the necessary knowledge of this subject.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Woohaa said:


> Not quite sure how why you believe you're in a position where anyone has to prove anything to you.
> 
> The NRA is indeed a haven for and to homegrown terrorists.
> 
> The ramifications of its positions are there for all to see.


That is a cop-out. You make these blanket statements that are totally devoid of any substance. 
Calling the NRA a "supporter of homegrown terrorism" is a lie. If it were true, its officers would have been prosecuted and the organisation disbanded. That has not occurred.

Yes, indeed, the "ramifications of its positions" are, indeed, there for all to see. Thanks to the positions that the NRA has taken, our Second Amendment Rights are largely intact, despite the incessant onslaught against them by the Oppress-ER-uh-_*PROGRESS*_ive elements of our society and their lemmings.

If you can not back up your statements, you have no business in a discussion and your comments can not be taken seriously by anyone with even the smallest shred of ability to think for himself.......but then, the last thing that the Suppress-ER-uh-_*PROGRESS*_ive leadership wants is for anyone to think for himself.



kc ub'ing! said:


> How bout we limit the number of cartridges available per load. Can we agree here? Or would this penalize law abiding citizens too much?


One of the versions of one of the Migratory Birds Acts limited new manufactures of shotguns to three shells capacity. I forget which one that it was, but it was some time back and is still in effect. Truthfully, I miss the five shells, but can deal with the three.

The real reason that the NRA is as stiff-necked as it has been (and likely will remain so) is because it knows how these Repress-ER-uh-_*PROGRESS*_ives are. It mostly these so-called (self-styled, in reality) "Progressives" who want to take firearms away from decent people while leaving them in the hands of violent criminals. The NRA is so stubborn about this because it knows that the "gun control" crowd will not stop at what it now calls "reasonable" measures. Once it achieves its "reasonbale" measures, it will push for more restrictive measures until decent people are deprived of all means of defending themselves against armed, violent criminals while these criminals remain armed.

If anyone can demonstrate to me a programme of "reasonable" gun "control" that deprives armed, violent criminals of firearms while leaving them in the hands of decent people, as the Second Amendment both demands and intends, I will _*consider*_ considering it. Thus far, all that I have seen are various re-hashes of the same, old, ineffective programmes of gun "control" that the disarmament crowd has been pushing for the past fifty years. None of these programmes have been effective in curbing gun violence. Still, the "gun control" crowd continues to push these same, old programmes. Every time that they fail, the "gun control" crowd wrings its collective hands, hangs its collective head and wonder why gun violence has stayed the same or become worse.

One commonly accepted illustration of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and being surprised when the results are the same.

*Dipso Facto, QED:* The "gun control" crowd is insane.



RedANT said:


> It all keeps coming back to the question of why do people think that passing laws is going to stop criminals who don't follow laws? The only people who will be affected by such legislation are the law abiding citizens, exactly the people who DON'T pose a threat to you or I.


It is merely a feel-good, non-solution to the problem. Government _*excels*_ at that.


----------



## kc ub'ing! (May 27, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> *Dipso Facto, QED:* The "gun control" crowd is insane.


When a gun control advocate shoots up a school, night club, concert or movie theater; then you can call us insane. Hmmm, interesting point... people who aren't into guns don't commit mass murder. People into guns do. We don't butcher a classroom filled with 6 year olds. People into guns do. When an atrocity occurs we seek answers to prevention. People into guns don't. But we're insane.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

kc ub'ing! said:


> into guns


Define, please. Thank you.



kc ub'ing! said:


> When an atrocity occurs we seek answers to prevention.


Please specify who is/are "we". Thank you.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

kc ub'ing! said:


> I disagree. High-capacity magazines make them infinitely more dangerous! How bout we limit the number of cartridges available per load. Can we agree here? Or would this penalize law abiding citizens too much? 'Nope my Glock can hold 30, I want 30!'


There you go though, we went from "military style semiautomatic weapons" (I presume you are referring to AR-15s) to Glocks. You're saying that the high capacity magazines is what make them (the "military style semiautomatic weapons") more dangerous but in your example you mention Glocks (which is not a military style semiautomatic weapon at all). All that does is further the point that there is really no difference between an AR-15 and any other rifle, and a glock and any other hand gun. If you want to say that it's the magazines, then say it's the magazines (I'm sure we'll disagree there too, but at least we'll be talking about the same thing). The problem is, when that argument is defeated, you'll move on to blame something else (if liberals have any consistency, you'll likely say the bullets next). I can get a high cap mag for a little .22 if I really want. That doesn't make the weapon itself any more or less dangerous (it just means it has more shots before you have to switch to the next mag). That's the problem with the whole anti gun crowd, they are looking to blame whatever they can, without using logic or reason to actually figure out the problem. It's the guns.. no it's the military weapons.. it's the mags.. it's the bullets.. it's the.. it's the... IT'S THE INSANE PERSON WHO CHOOSES TO KILL PEOPLE.. full stop.

It comes down to personal responsibility (something many people, especially liberals, can't seem to handle facing anymore). Some coward can go into a school with a machete and murder children. The machete isn't the problem, it's an object. It's the crazy psychopath that went into the school killing people that is the problem. Same with a handgun, a chemical weapon, a rifle, a gun, a bomb, a machete, a pencil (oh yes, you can kill someone with a pencil quite easily), a fork (again, quite easy), whatever. The object they used isn't what is dangerous, the psychopath is what's dangerous. You want to ban something, ban crazy people (I'll probably support you in this).


----------



## kc ub'ing! (May 27, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Define, please. Thank you.
> Please specify who is/are "we". Thank you.


Dude, get hip to the subtext! Clearly the people you defined as insane. Just as clear, into guns=gun enthusiasts. Seems my post was so keen and insightful you're reduced to semantic nit pickery.



Pawtism said:


> more dangerous but in your example you mention Glocks (which is not a military style semiautomatic weapon at all).


More semantics. Over this thread.

Don't worry chaps, your guns are safe! If Sandyhook didn't bring about any change, 17 dead high school kids won't either. Have fun!


----------



## Woohaa (Jan 15, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> That is a cop-out. You make these blanket statements that are totally devoid of any substance.
> Calling the NRA a "supporter of homegrown terrorism" is a lie. If it were true, its officers would have been prosecuted and the organisation disbanded. That has not occurred.
> 
> Yes, indeed, the "ramifications of its positions" are, indeed, there for all to see. Thanks to the positions that the NRA has taken, our Second Amendment Rights are largely intact, despite the incessant onslaught against them by the Oppress-ER-uh-_*PROGRESS*_ive elements of our society and their lemmings.
> ...


All untrue. And there is no amount of "proof" or data that will change your mind as you're so entrenched in the idea that the NRA is an upstanding organisation & gun control is a left wing conspiracy. The NRA has caused more harm to this country & actually should be disbanded.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Woohaa said:


> "proof"


The quoted item is _*still*_ missing. This means that your statements are totally devoid of substance. No one, in his right mind, can take statements devoid of substance seriously.



kc ub'ing! said:


> Clearly the people you defined as insane.
> 
> into guns=gun enthusiasts.
> 
> Seems my post was so keen and insightful you're reduced to semantic nit pickery.


The first sentence is vague, unclear and pushes on being self-contradictory.

All people who are "gun enthusiasts" or "into guns" commit mass murder? That is what your post suggests. If that is the case why has this country not lost a little less than one sixth of its population? The NRA claims to have five million members. If each one commits "mass murder", let us assume that he kills ten people with his firearms. That rubs out fifty million people. The population of the U.S. of A, is about three hundred twenty five million, so ifty million dead is somewhat less than one sixth of the population. Do you see how absurd it is to call people "into guns" mass murderers?

Your post is totally devoid of insight and keenness. I asked the questions for purposes of clarification so that I would not make any unsupportable assumptions, unlike you and my other interlocutor.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> The NRA claims to have five million members.


And that only counts people who are NRA members. I'd consider myself a "gun enthusiast", and maybe even "into guns" (although that's a bit of a misnomer, after all I'm not "into cars" but I do drive one), but am not a member of the NRA currently. While I wouldn't consider myself poor, I simply have other bills that are more important to me than the dues right now. I was a member in the past, and probably will be again in the future. However, I'd argue there are many more (probably double the NRA membership, although I can't prove a specific number) who are "gun enthusiasts" or "into guns" (who, also don't randomly kill people), but aren't actually NRA members currently.

So his post is wrong on even a higher scale than you point out.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> So his post is wrong on even a higher scale than you point out.


I have yet to see where it was reported that any of these recent criminals were current or past NRA members. If even one of them were, CNN, HuffPost, *A*lways *B*roadcasts *C*ommercials, *C*ommercials *B*roadcast *S*empiternally , *N*othing *B*ut *C*ommercials and *M*ostly *S*ocialist *N*onsensical *B*ull *C*rap and all of the other DNC flywheels would have plastered it everywhere that you could see it and a few places that you could not. Ray*shill* Mad*cow* would be mooing about it to no end and calling not only for the disbandment of the NRA, but having its officers publicly pilloried (literally).

Of course, *F*ictitious, T*ox*ic News would conveniently gloss over it.

These gun "control" advocates have nothing new. They advocate the same old thing that failed fifty years back, has been failing for the past fifty years and, given the experience, is likely to fail, again. But, you must remember, these people "look for _*solutions*_". The same old claptrap that has failed for fifty years _*ain't no kind o' no suh-loo-shinn*_. No, these people look for feel-good _*NON*_ solutions not just to this problem, but to every other real problem.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> I have yet to see where it was reported that any of these recent criminals were current or past NRA members. If even one of them were, CNN, HuffPost, *A*lways *B*roadcasts *C*ommercials, *C*ommercials *B*roadcast *S*empiternally , *N*othing *B*ut *C*ommercials and *M*ostly *S*ocialist *N*onsensical *B*ullshepankey and all of the other DNC flywheels would have plastered it everywhere that you could see it and a few places that you could not. Ray*shill* Mad*cow* would be mooing about it to no end and calling not only for the disbandment of the NRA, but having its officers publicly pilloried (literally).
> 
> Of course, *F*ictitious, T*ox*ic News would conveniently gloss over it.
> 
> These gun "control" advocates have nothing new. They advocate the same old thing that failed fifty years back, has been failing for the past fifty years and, given the experience, is likely to fail, again. But, you must remember, these people "look for _*solutions*_". The same old claptrap that has failed for fifty years _*ain't no kind o' no suh-loo-shinn*_. No, these people look for feel-good _*NON*_ solutions not just to this problem, but to every other real problem.


What's worse, is there is clear evidence about gun bans. There are countries out here, that have banned guns, and we have several years of evidence about it. Banning guns did not lower crime rates one bit, in fact, right after a gun ban, violent crime involving a firearm actually goes up for a few years (as high as by 200%+ in one country), but eventually stabilizes right back to where it was in a few years, neither ultimately rising or falling from it's normal rates). Bottom line, banning guns does absolutely nothing for crime rates.

Surprisingly, criminals simply disregard the law.  Shocking, right?


----------



## EpicSwoleness (Jun 21, 2017)

Woohaa said:


> All untrue. And there is no amount of "proof" or data that will change your mind as you're so entrenched in the idea that the NRA is an upstanding organisation & gun control is a left wing conspiracy. The NRA has caused more harm to this country & actually should be disbanded.


You're free to think whatever you want to think about the NRA, and spread your ignorance all over the board. Bottom line, they aren't going anywhere, and the Second Amendment isn't going anywhere. You and your ilk can remain defenseless if you so choose.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> Surprisingly, criminals simply disregard the law.  Shocking, right?


Crook #1: Hey, I know where I can get two guns; let's go hold up that liquor store up the street.

Crook #2: You dummy! You know we have gun control here! You can't have a gun!

Crook #1: (smacks hi s head) OH YEAH! Right! Even though I could get the gun this afternoon, since it's not allowed, I guess I can't have it.

Crook #2: THAT's more like it.

Crook #1: What are we gonna' use to hold up the liquor store?

Crook #2: I don't know......

Crook #1: How about whiffle ball bats?

Crook #2: Good idea....see if you can get some.

Crook #1: right.........................


----------



## EpicSwoleness (Jun 21, 2017)

RedANT said:


> It all keeps coming back to the question of why do people think that passing laws is going to stop criminals who don't follow laws? The only people who will be affected by such legislation are the law abiding citizens, exactly the people who DON'T pose a threat to you or I.
> 
> Being armed is an effective deterrent to crime, and can be crucial in self defense. All gun control laws would do is transform me from a law abiding citizen to a "danger to society" because people are illogically afraid and/or lack the necessary knowledge of this subject.


It's not about safety; it's about control.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Crook #1: Hey, I know where I can get two guns; let's go hold up that liquor store up the street.
> 
> Crook #2: You dummy! You know we have gun control here! You can't have a gun!
> 
> ...


And that's a best case situation (and before Crook 3 chimes in with "don't forget to put some nails pointing out in them..").


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

EpicSwoleness said:


> You and your ilk can remain defenseless if you so choose.


Q: What do you call a gun "control" advocate whose home was just invaded and his wife and daughter were raped?

A: America's newest NRA Member.

Those two can put a big sign in front of their homes that read "No Guns in this Home; we call 911"

I will put a sign in front of mine: "Trespassers Will Be Shot on Sight".

Let us see who is standing after the criminals come to visit.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

It's like that old saying, "when seconds count, police are only minutes away."

I do want to make it clear, I'm not ripping on the cops, they have a hard (nearly impossible) job to do, and usually (granted there are exceptions) do it well. However, in the end, they can't possibly get to your house in seconds, they just can't. Ultimately, no one is more responsible for your safety than you are.

As for me personally... I dial .40 THEN 911.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

EpicSwoleness said:


> it's about control.


The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power; not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness; only power, pure power..........we are different from all of the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing...........power is not a means, it is an end............One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution, one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.......................

Eric Blair published that in 1949.



Pawtism said:


> It's like that old saying, "when seconds count, police are only minutes away."


^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I do not fault the po-po, it is just that they can come only when they know that something is amiss and they can not get there yesterday.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power; not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness; only power, pure power..........we are different from all of the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing...........power is not a means, it is an end............One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution, one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.......................
> 
> Eric Blair published that in 1949.
> 
> ...


Is that from "1984"?


----------



## kc ub'ing! (May 27, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Your post is totally devoid of insight and keenness.


You've been handled hoss. Your fervent need for the last word is a desperate attempt to save face. Head to the range and fire off a few rounds. You'll regain your masculinity in no time!


----------



## Woohaa (Jan 15, 2017)

EpicSwoleness said:


> You're free to think whatever you want to think about the NRA, and spread your ignorance all over the board. Bottom line, they aren't going anywhere, and the Second Amendment isn't going anywhere. You and your ilk can remain defenseless if you so choose.


I would expect that from one such as you. And not once did I mention being defenseless.



Another Uber Driver said:


> Your post is totally devoid of insight and keenness. I asked the questions for purposes of clarification so that I would not make any unsupportable assumptions, unlike you and my other interlocutor.


Any point of view you don't agree with lacks insight in your mind. Laughable at best.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> Is that from "1984"?


It is.



kc ub'ing! said:


> You've been handled hoss.


You have that one backwards, Me Bucko. You have failed to substantiate any of your points. In desperation, you have appointed yourself the referee and declared yourself the winner. That is the sign of someone who has been PWND.



Woohaa said:


> Any point of view you don't agree with lacks insight in your mind. Laughable


Would you care to demonstrate where anything that your fellow hoplophobe has posted to this topic has even the slightest shred of what could be stretched into "insight"? He certainly can not. I would doubt that you could, either, as you can not substantiate even your own points.....how would you be able to substantiate anyone else's?


----------



## kc ub'ing! (May 27, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> That is the sign of someone who has been PWND.


Ah, the ol I'm rubber your glue gambit. Well played sir! Though slighted I admire your resilience and resurrection of a tried and true playground tactic! You've brought me to my knees. You magnificent sob!


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

kc ub'ing! said:


> Ah, the ol I'm rubber your glue gambit.


Ah, what a "clever" twist on name-calling, the last resort of someone whose "arguments" are totally lacking in substance. ..........and someone is trying to point out imaginary "playground tactics"?

I substantiated my statement. You have failed to substantiate any of yours in this topic. That includes the one that I quoted.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

But... he said "gambit", that's supposed to make it mature...


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> But... he said "gambit", that's supposed to make it mature...


Based on the way that he used it in that post, I must wonder if he is aware of what a "gambit" is.


----------



## EpicSwoleness (Jun 21, 2017)

Woohaa said:


> I would expect that from one such as you. And not once did I mention being defenseless.


Again, the NRA and the Second Amendment aren't going anywhere, junior.


----------

