Why Are Texans So Afraid?

[SilverEagle]

http://www.star-telegram.com/242/story/1339549.html

I agree with Bob Ray. The gun owners are much more scary to me than any possible spectre of government gun police coming to take our guns.

To me, all this hysteria is just an excuse for dimwitted gun owners to rationalize the realization of their fondest fantasy; which is to shoot someone....ideally someone of color. There can be no other reason for owning an assault-type weapon. Or for that matter, one of these.... http://www.barrettrifles.com/.

Edited April 26, 2009 by SilverEagle

[keith]

http://www.star-telegram.com/242/story/1339549.html

I agree with Bob Ray. The gun owners are much more scary to me than any possible spectre of government gun police coming to take our guns.

To me, all this hysteria is just an excuse for dimwitted gun owners to rationalize the realization of their fondest fantasy; which is to shoot someone....ideally someone of color. There can be no other reason for owning an assault-type weapon. Or for that matter, one of these.... http://www.barrettrifles.com/.

Wow...I'm not sure what to say. I really don't think gun owners fantasise about shooting silver people, however, so I think you're safe.

Keith

[SilverEagle]

Wow...I'm not sure what to say. I really don't think gun owners fantasise about shooting silver people, however, so I think you're safe.

Keith

I seriously doubt if it would take very long, or require much in the way of rational thought, for the aforementioned dimwitted gun owners to add Silver People to the list.

[meangreendork]

Some people think the president will take all guns away. I think that thought is rather irrational since really, there are other, bigger issues to deal with right now. But since the president is part of the political party behind the last gun ban, and despite him saying he couldn't ban all guns even if he wanted to, people still freak out.

[Rudy]

http://www.star-telegram.com/242/story/1339549.html

I agree with Bob Ray. The gun owners are much more scary to me than any possible spectre of government gun police coming to take our guns.

To me, all this hysteria is just an excuse for dimwitted gun owners to rationalize the realization of their fondest fantasy; which is to shoot someone....ideally someone of color. There can be no other reason for owning an assault-type weapon. Or for that matter, one of these.... http://www.barrettrifles.com/.

Wow, simply wow. Well, this dimwitted gun owner, like many, never want to shoot someone. And what do you define a person of color? After all, white is a color. Im actually shocked to hear this comment come from you. Thankfully, noone wants to start targeting ignorant people, so you're safe.

[UNTflyer]

[meangreendork]

Wow, simply wow. Well, this dimwitted gun owner, like many, never want to shoot someone. And what do you define a person of color? After all, white is a color. Im actually shocked to hear this comment come from you. Thankfully, noone wants to start targeting ignorant people, so you're safe.

A bit hard, but I do side with you on SE going overboard. However, the gun paranoia, in terms "OMG, THEY'RE GUNNA TAKE OUR GUNZ" is unfounded. But, if it's making people buy stuff, I guess I can live with it.

[Rudy]

A bit hard, but I do side with you on SE going overboard. However, the gun paranoia, in terms "OMG, THEY'RE GUNNA TAKE OUR GUNZ" is unfounded. But, if it's making people buy stuff, I guess I can live with it.

Alot of the gun parnoia comes from the international community, especially the UN thinking that no country should have firearms. The UN has people who have a hard stance on taking guns away from American citizens. Of course, the NRA uses this to their advantage in trying to position themselves as the sole defender of the 2nd Amendment, which is lets be honest, good advertising. They do alot of work in ensuring our 2nd Amendment rights, as do other groups. Obama didnt helo things when he started spouting of racisit and off color comments about "Small town Americans in the south clinging to their guns and bibles, etc" His party, in addition to him, are notorius for being heavy for gun control. AS much as I believe that the FAR left would love to take our right to own firearms away, they will have a hard time reversing the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. As it would be extrememly hard to reverse ANY amendment.

Oh, by the way SE, I actually heard a black man, or a "person of color" as you put it say that he DID NOT vote for obama because of his stance on guns. Imagine that, a dimwitted "person of color" in favor of guns. Does he want to rationalize his fondest fantasy too?

Edited April 26, 2009 by Rudy

[KingDL1]

You guys might want to check in to all the Federal gun-control legislation the Democratic party is working on with regards to gun ownership & ammunition and then you might realize that there is a real reason for all this.

From every bullet will be registered, to all out ban of guns. Never say never

In Congress is House Resolution 45, a federal license to own guns. It is pretty intrusive and obnoxious.

Plus talk of the only legal ammo would have to be registered with a serial number on each bullet with a per bullet tax. That means old ammo becomes illegal as well as all reloading. Those are two of the things I know is going on.

Edited April 26, 2009 by KingDL1

[GreenBat]

Who are you refering to?

Silver Eagle Posts: 5,752

Joined 20-July 02

Member No. 37

Keith Posts: 941

Joined 20-July 02

Member No. 56

meangreendork Posts: 2,253

Joined: 27-October 03

Member No.: 855

Rudy Posts: 2,056

Joined: 26-July 02

Member No.: 150

UNTflyer Posts: 5,090

Joined: 19-August 06

Member No.: 2,361

Edited April 27, 2009 by GreenBat

[SilverEagle]

Alot of the gun parnoia comes from the international community, especially the UN thinking that no country should have firearms. The UN has people who have a hard stance on taking guns away from American citizens. Of course, the NRA uses this to their advantage in trying to position themselves as the sole defender of the 2nd Amendment, which is lets be honest, good advertising. They do alot of work in ensuring our 2nd Amendment rights, as do other groups. Obama didnt helo things when he started spouting of racisit and off color comments about "Small town Americans in the south clinging to their guns and bibles, etc" His party, in addition to him, are notorius for being heavy for gun control. AS much as I believe that the FAR left would love to take our right to own firearms away, they will have a hard time reversing the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. As it would be extrememly hard to reverse ANY amendment.

Oh, by the way SE, I actually heard a black man, or a "person of color" as you put it say that he DID NOT vote for obama because of his stance on guns. Imagine that, a dimwitted "person of color" in favor of guns. Does he want to rationalize his fondest fantasy too?

Rudy, you are in the law enforcement business, so I would expect you to own a gun. The person of color that you brought up was probably just humoring you.

I still say, wanting to own assault-type rifles and/or Barrett 50 cal snipers rifles = fantacies of shooting people. There is no other reason to want to own them.

[oldguystudent]

I still say, wanting to own assault-type rifles and/or Barrett 50 cal snipers rifles = fantacies of shooting people. There is no other reason to want to own them.

On an episode of No Reservations with Anthony Bourdain, Ted Nugent was using a big automatic assault rifle like that for purposes other than shooting people. He was spending a relaxing afternoon on his ranch down by Waco hanging explosives from a tree and shooting them with his assault rifle. That's not scary at all. It's good clean fun.*

*I respect Ted Nugent's self sustaining hunting practices and think his BBQ looked pretty damn fantastic.

[UNT90]

Sure, our government could never change for the worse. Mass Riots could never happen on US soil. Countrys never invade each other, and we definitely never have to worry about that happening here.

I don't think any of the above things will necessarily happen, but to think they couldn't is extremely niave and near sighted.

A person has the right to protect thier person, family, and property. I imagine some want these guns because they fear a government that has shifted so far left in 100 days that they are frightened that they will lose any number of personal freedoms, and may fear a socialist state. And yes, they would need more than a 50 cal to protect themselves from an oppresive government, which is why the right exists in the first place. I doubt they fantasize about killing anyone.

And me thinks your just bored with your over the top statement.

[UNTflyer]

The nerve of these people, wanting to exercise their 2nd amendment right.

[keith]

Keith Posts: 941

Joined 20-July 02

Member No. 56

Something is messed up with the BB. I've been stuck on 941 posts for a while.

Keith

Edited April 27, 2009 by keith

[Bryan316]

Okay, the .50 cal I can see questioning, as it's a long-range weapon and even normal game hunting doesn't need that . But I would definitely use an M4 to clear my house if I thought something was up.

[UNTFan23]

Okay, the .50 cal I can see questioning, as it's a long-range weapon and even normal game hunting doesn't need that . But I would definitely use an M4 to clear my house if I thought something was up.

My .50 cal black powder pistol is far from long range.

[eulesseagle]

http://www.star-telegram.com/242/story/1339549.html

I agree with Bob Ray. The gun owners are much more scary to me than any possible spectre of government gun police coming to take our guns.

To me, all this hysteria is just an excuse for dimwitted gun owners to rationalize the realization of their fondest fantasy; which is to shoot someone....ideally someone of color. There can be no other reason for owning an assault-type weapon. Or for that matter, one of these.... http://www.barrettrifles.com/.

SE,

"which is to shoot someone.....ideally someone of color." can you explain this because it just does not make any sense. the more i read it the less sense it makes.

as many guns that americans own i feel pretty safe. in socialist countries, as you very well know, guns are one of the first items they take away. guess they do not want "the people" to usurp draconican socialistic measures via revolution.

once the government frees all of the indianapolis five hundred then we can talk about freeing quoner and tg

[SilverEagle]

SE,

"which is to shoot someone.....ideally someone of color." can you explain this because it just does not make any sense. the more i read it the less sense it makes.

as many guns that americans own i feel pretty safe. in socialist countries, as you very well know, guns are one of the first items they take away. guess they do not want "the people" to usurp draconican socialistic measures via revolution.

once the government frees all of the indianapolis five hundred then we can talk about freeing quoner and tg

OK, a bit over the top. And for this board...somewhat uncalled for.

I wouldn't know what they "do first" in a socialist country, since I've never lived in one.

This notion that the government is going to go house to house and take your guns is pure bullshit. If the govenment was inclined to do that, it would have done so during the Clinton Administration, when there (rightly) WAS a ban on assault-type weapons. No one has any business (other than the aforementioned fantacies of shooting people) owning any assault-type weapons.

Hoarding ammo and assault-type weapons is only going to benefit the makers of guns and ammo. I wouldn't be surprised if they were the ones behind all the hysterical blogs about Obama and (alleged) gun control. I'm sorry, but I thought that the average person was having a hard time paying their mortgages and buying the essentials for their families. Of course, the dimwitted do have their own priorities, and there are obviously plenty of people out there ready to exploit their lack of reasoning abilites.

One of my former supervisors (a Major in the Army) used to advise people that the ideal weapon for home defense is a legal sawed-off shotgun...like this...

http://www.winchesterguns.com/prodinfo/cat...52&cat=021C

Edited April 27, 2009 by SilverEagle

[eulesseagle]

SE=

Thanks for the explanation......IMHO, we "all," on this board at one time or another go a little overboard (except me, naturally).

There are many companies that want to make money from percieved "crisis" situations:

1. honestly, how many of you still have some Y2K supplies remaining?

2. how many have listened to the radio ad wanting you to purchase enough seeds for a one acre "crisis garden?"

3. buy guns and ammo because congress will usurp the second admendment.

the perverbial list continues.

true or not?

I personally do not know.......but.......and a very big BUT.....like the Boy Scouts......"Be Prepared."

[KRAM1]

It's not about guns or ammo...it's all about CONTROL. These guys (dems) want to control everything. This is just another item on their list that they think BIG GOVT. should control...big govt also being controlled by them! They don't care about your guns or your ammo...they just want control...OVER EVERYTHING.

[oldguystudent]

These guys (both parties) want to control everything.

Fixed that for ya'.

[KRAM1]

Didn't need fixing...The democrats want to control everything. It's all about control of the masses and the poorly informed so they can create a welfare state dependent upon BIG Govt. for existing...it's all about control and getting re-elected. The dems will stop at nothing to see that the "socialization of America" continues. OK, maybe that's a bit unfair to some dems, but let's say the dems currently in power in DC.

It isn't both parties calling for this National Health care, and it isn't the Republican Party throwing billions/trillions of dollars around and then trying to make cuts of $100million look significant.

Don't "fix" stuff that doesn't need fixing, oldguystudent, that's what your dem pals in DC are trying to do today and it isn't going to work either! If the only answer these guys can come up with is to throw obnoxious sums of money (that they don't have) at folks, well, that's not CHANGE, that stupidity!

[SilverEagle]

Didn't need fixing...The democrats want to control everything. It's all about control of the masses and the poorly informed so they can create a welfare state dependent upon BIG Govt. for existing...it's all about control and getting re-elected. The dems will stop at nothing to see that the "socialization of America" continues. OK, maybe that's a bit unfair to some dems, but let's say the dems currently in power in DC.

It isn't both parties calling for this National Health care, and it isn't the Republican Party throwing billions/trillions of dollars around and then trying to make cuts of $100million look significant.

Don't "fix" stuff that doesn't need fixing, oldguystudent, that's what your dem pals in DC are trying to do today and it isn't going to work either! If the only answer these guys can come up with is to throw obnoxious sums of money (that they don't have) at folks, well, that's not CHANGE, that stupidity!

The Bush administration (who presided over this mess) starting throwing billions in bail out money even before the election and the current administration took over.

You see control by govenment, I see a return to sane regulation. Business has been preying on the poorly informed (remember all those sub-prime mortages?) for too long. Big business and Bankers are going to have to start really telling the truth when they do business from now on.

I applaud the changes and regulations. Especially since they have now started turning their attention to the biggest bloodsuckers of all, the credit card companys. I look forward to an era of "bloodsuckers beware" instead of buyer beware. AND if the government goes too far in it's control, the boodsuckers (and all their minions and toadies) have only themselves to blame.

[KRAM1]

The Bush administration (who presided over this mess) starting throwing billions in bail out money even before the election and the current administration took over.

You see control by govenment, I see a return to sane regulation. Business has been preying on the poorly informed (remember all those sub-prime mortages?) for too long. Big business and Bankers are going to have to start really telling the truth when they do business from now on.

I applaud the changes and regulations. Especially since they have now started turning their attention to the biggest bloodsuckers of all, the credit card companys. I look forward to an era of "bloodsuckers beware" instead of buyer beware. AND if the government goes too far in it's control, the boodsuckers (and all their minions and toadies) have only themselves to blame.

Like all the "bloodsuckers and toadies" who took out those sub-prime mortagages (That Barney (Fife) Frank seems to love so much...or did when he was pressuring folks to make them) and all the idiots who can't seem to figure out that if you just pay your credit card off in full each month you won't need to worry about the rate/late fees, etc.??? If you carry a balance, how about paying "on time and as agreed" and you won't have a late fee...AT ALL! Gee, can't pay it in full each month? Why live above your means in the first place? Hmmmmmmm...if you don't have the money, you might want to think about not charging it in the first place. Oh, that's right, if you are a democrat it's "not your fault" you pay your bills late or sign mortgages you can't pay for...some big nasty banker MADE you take out that credit card and that mortgage. RIGHT! And, no, not all folks in trouble with their mortgages and credit cards are democrats, so don't go there...that is not what I am saying.

Is it time for some new regulations regarding Wall Street and Credit Cards, sure, probably is...good, make them appropriate and how about making the folks who charge the stuff responsible too? You charge it, you pay for it! The days are long gone when card companies could send actual cards out to folks in the mail without them signing anything. If you have a card, you signed and agreed to the terms. If they are bad, dump the stupid card and pay cash or find a better deal. There are plenty of "better deals" out there! Oh, your credit is so bad that you can't get a better deal? Sorry, whose fault is that? Where does it say that "personal responsibility is no longer appropriate? Did I miss that in one of Obama's campaign speeches he seems to still be giving????

By the way...in case you haven't figured it out by now...BUSH IS NO LONGER IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!! The trillions that Obama is dishing out is ALL ON HIM. Time to start owning up to to those two small facts some folks want to ignore. I guess it's just easier to keep blaming Bush. Come on SilverEagle, you can't believe that folks should not be responsible for what they sign or what actions they take. These same folks are often crying that big bad business is discriminating against them because they won't give them credit in the first place. Then, they get the credit and claim they were "forced" by the big bank to sign a bad deal..."I just didn't understand what I was signing"...well, don't sign it!

Typical rant from Silver Eagle about big bad business and nasty bankers...all the while ignoring the problems his pals in Washington are creating each and every day. Time to get a new line...what's happening today is for better or worse, Obama's. If he wants the credit when/if anything positive happens, he better start living in the present and working for the future.

It's "personal responsibility" vs "the nanny society of big government". Too bad for the country...I think the "it's not my fault" folks are winning the battle of the "hearts and minds" of those in DC. Why...power and control!