Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

houndawg wrote:

mainejeff2 wrote:It all comes down to this....if you are black, don't visit Chicago.....if you are anyone, don't visit Texas.

Now c'mon bro, Texas is pretty backward in a lot of ways and is filled with walking redneck jokes, but I've never been to Texas and not had a great time. They are mostly big-hearted people who would literally give you the shirt off their back and they'll argue politics with you for hours in the same way we do it here - in fact, that's the crux of why I'm ok with Texans: they can take it as well as they dish it out and they can make fun of themselves better than you can. Hell, Jeffro, Molly Ivins was from Texas and they don't come no funnier than that.

houndawg wrote:

mainejeff2 wrote:It all comes down to this....if you are black, don't visit Chicago.....if you are anyone, don't visit Texas.

Now c'mon bro, Texas is pretty backward in a lot of ways and is filled with walking redneck jokes, but I've never been to Texas and not had a great time. They are mostly big-hearted people who would literally give you the shirt off their back and they'll argue politics with you for hours in the same way we do it here - in fact, that's the crux of why I'm ok with Texans: they can take it as well as they dish it out and they can make fun of themselves better than you can. Hell, Jeffro, Molly Ivins was from Texas and they don't come no funnier than that.

Col Hogan wrote:

houndawg wrote:

Now c'mon bro, Texas is pretty backward in a lot of ways and is filled with walking redneck jokes, but I've never been to Texas and not had a great time. They are mostly big-hearted people who would literally give you the shirt off their back and they'll argue politics with you for hours in the same way we do it here - in fact, that's the crux of why I'm ok with Texans: they can take it as well as they dish it out and they can make fun of themselves better than you can. Hell, Jeffro, Molly Ivins was from Texas and they don't come no funnier than that.

Says the guy from Illinois...

houndawg wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:The question posed by Jeffie is most likely a dig at Texas gun laws...and the fact that no citizen with a legal gun stopped this mad man...

Well, he was driving around...so that by the time someone with a License to Carry realized what was going on, the mad man was gone...

I’ll take our laws, and the number of armed citizens any day, over Chicago...or Baltimore...or St. Louis any days...

And remember this...an armed citizen is not a police officer...is not a swat team...and I, for one, plan on first making sure my family is protected...then any innocent citizens that I can immediately protect...

I’m not going to ride to the rescue of just anybody or everybody...that’s what the police and swat teams are there for.

So, Jeff, try coming to Odessa or Midland, and pulling a gun in a resturant, or on the street...and find out just how much of a gun-free zone it is...

One of my problems with things as they stand is that your (correct) opinion here is a very minority position judging by the rhetoric of gun owners. In support of their position they invariably fall back to some form of the "good guy with a gun" argument. What they mean is that they want license to be a vigilante without any accountability.

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
One of my problems with things as they stand is that your (correct) opinion here is a very minority position judging by the rhetoric of gun owners. In support of their position they invariably fall back to some form of the "good guy with a gun" argument. What they mean is that they want license to be a vigilante without any accountability.

Wrong. What they mean is, when a bad guy with a gun breaks into their house, the good guy with a gun who lives there can defend themselves. But expecting a good guy with a gun to ride to your rescue simply because you’re too lazy to take responsibility for your own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness doesn’t make the good guy with a gun the bad guy.

houndawg wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Wrong. What they mean is, when a bad guy with a gun breaks into their house, the good guy with a gun who lives there can defend themselves. But expecting a good guy with a gun to ride to your rescue simply because you’re too lazy to take responsibility for your own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness doesn’t make the good guy with a gun the bad guy.

You always try to change the subject when you start hyper-ventilating.

You can defend your house the same way I do - with a Remington 870 or something similar.


Wait until the gun grabbers figure out that all they have to do is move high-capacity semi-auto weapons into the same BATF category as machine guns.

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:


You always try to change the subject when you start hyper-ventilating.

You can defend your house the same way I do - with a Remington 870 or something similar.


Wait until the gun grabbers figure out that all they have to do is move high-capacity semi-auto weapons into the same BATF category as machine guns.

Yes, that's the next logical step for them and that's why we don't want to even begin to go down that road. I want the ability to defend my house with whatever the fuck I want to defend my house with. Period. End of discussion. As CID says, you want to change the law, amend the fucking constitution. Absent that, STFU.

houndawg wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Yes, that's the next logical step for them and that's why we don't want to even begin to go down that road. I want the ability to defend my house with whatever the fuck I want to defend my house with. Period. End of discussion. As CID says, you want to change the law, amend the fucking constitution. Absent that, STFU.

So join the well-regulated militia. They'll issue you some great stuff you can use to defend your home. They'll keep them safe in an armory, and you can bear them when necessary.

css75 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
So join the well-regulated militia. They'll issue you some great stuff you can use to defend your home. They'll keep them safe in an armory, and you can bear them when necessary.

You do not understand 2nd amendment well do you?

houndawg wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Yes, that's the next logical step for them and that's why we don't want to even begin to go down that road. I want the ability to defend my house with whatever the fuck I want to defend my house with. Period. End of discussion. As CID says, you want to change the law, amend the fucking constitution. Absent that, STFU.

So join the well-regulated militia. They'll issue you some great stuff you can use to defend your home. They'll keep them safe in an armory, and you can bear them when necessary.

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:


You always try to change the subject when you start hyper-ventilating.

You can defend your house the same way I do - with a Remington 870 or something similar.


Wait until the gun grabbers figure out that all they have to do is move high-capacity semi-auto weapons into the same BATF category as machine guns.

Yes, that's the next logical step for them and that's why we don't want to even begin to go down that road. I want the ability to defend my house with whatever the fuck I want to defend my house with. Period. End of discussion. As CID says, you want to change the law, amend the fucking constitution. Absent that, STFU.

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:


You always try to change the subject when you start hyper-ventilating.

You can defend your house the same way I do - with a Remington 870 or something similar.


Wait until the gun grabbers figure out that all they have to do is move high-capacity semi-auto weapons into the same BATF category as machine guns.

Yes, that's the next logical step for them and that's why we don't want to even begin to go down that road. I want the ability to defend my house with whatever the fuck I want to defend my house with. Period. End of discussion. As CID says, you want to change the law, amend the fucking constitution. Absent that, STFU.