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

No, I don't think they give away guns for free. They have to buy them just like everyone else.

mainejeff2 wrote:Another angry young white man with an assault rifle.

Ho-hum....just another weekend mass shooting in Putin’s Amerika.

Are you this obnoxious everywhere or just on this board?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

css75 wrote:

mainejeff2 wrote:Another angry young white man with an assault rifle.

Ho-hum....just another weekend mass shooting in Putin’s Amerika.

Are you this obnoxious everywhere or just on this board?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Do you not take it as well as you dish it out?

mainejeff2 wrote:Another angry young white man with an assault rifle.

Ho-hum....just another weekend mass shooting in Putin’s Amerika.

Meanwhile in gun-free Chicago, 35 shot and 7 dead over the weekend by young angry black men.

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...

mainejeff2 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...

You couldn't pay me enough to step foot in that crapola state again.

Great...we don’t want you here...but you’re still welcomed to come...

mainejeff2 wrote:

Baldy wrote: Meanwhile in gun-free Chicago, 35 shot and 7 dead over the weekend by young angry black men.

Yeah.....we covered that.

Now back to Texas where even more lax gun laws go into effect.....but those big old Texas men with their big old guns couldn't protect an innocent person if their life depended on it.

If everybody carried, you wouldn’t have to depend on anybody else to protect yourself. But, as a typical lib, you put the responsibility on someone else, then chastise them when they fail.

mainejeff2 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
If everybody carried, you wouldn’t have to depend on anybody else to protect yourself. But, as a typical lib, you put the responsibility on someone else, then chastise them when they fail.

I don't live in Texas.....I thought that everyone carried a gun in Texas? They should. That would eliminate some of the Texas advantage in the Electoral College.

Then don’t speak about what you don’t know.

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

Correct. Stay the fuck out.

Mojo Country!

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.

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.

Houndy, I have heard some gun owners talk that way...but I believe they are a minority...

I know lots of Texas folks with an LTC (Texas License to Carry) and none of them are vigilantes...You are correct that there are some extremists that act and talk that way...just as there are extremists who want to take all or most guns away from law-abiding folks...

But talk is cheap...the folks I’ve heard with the big talk most likely are the same folks who run and hide when the SHTF!!!

Col Hogan 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.

Houndy, I have heard some gun owners talk that way...but I believe they are a minority...

I know lots of Texas folks with an LTC (Texas License to Carry) and none of them are vigilantes...You are correct that there are some extremists that act and talk that way...just as there are extremists who want to take all or most guns away from law-abiding folks...

But talk is cheap...the folks I’ve heard with the big talk most likely are the same folks who run and hide when the SHTF!!!

I'm actually kind of a fan of the vigilante attitude...
I have mixed feelings but overall mostly okay with it



The George Zimmerman type aren't my favorite - stalking and shooting unarmed teenagers
but that typically isn't the case
its usually an attitude of "I don't expect anybody to save me" including the police

AZGrizFan wrote:

mainejeff2 wrote:
Yeah.....we covered that.

Now back to Texas where even more lax gun laws go into effect.....but those big old Texas men with their big old guns couldn't protect an innocent person if their life depended on it.

If everybody carried, you wouldn’t have to depend on anybody else to protect yourself. But, as a typical lib, you put the responsibility on someone else, then chastise them when they fail.

Nice dodge. Quick feet for a big fella....his point is legit - the "good guy with a gun" is the gold standard for gun owners, but its a mirage. Somebody so afraid of going outside that they have to take a gun with them is going to save the day with his snub-nose .38. yeah right...we all saw at Parkland how useful a good guy wityh a gun is in that kind of situation - mind you I'm squarely with the cop on that one. Taking on an AR with your service pistol is a suicide mission that nobody should be expected to undertake and if he had he would have been just one more dead body in the schoolyard.

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.

Molly Ivins was awesome. I miss reading her columns.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

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.

Says the guy from Illinois...

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...

Illinois is over-regulated, not backward.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You do not understand 2nd amendment well do you?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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?

Yeah, that was perhaps the most stupid comment I've seen HD make, and that's saying something.