The Paul "I'm gonna take ya' guns you filthy monkeys" Thread

[13511]

I don't know how long it's been illegal to bury 55 gallon drums of formaldehyde but the poultry farm that I worked for did it. People who are motivated by profit don't always follow laws. Growth hormones are still legal to be fed to cattle, BTW.

And those "growth" (actually steroidal) hormones are zero day hormones... that have shown NO affect on humans (adults). They are restricted in the hormones that are allowed, most being natural and a few "man-made".

rBST is used primarily in dairy cows to enhance the production of milk. Even your "organic" milk contains hormones.

 

FDA prohibits the use of hormones in chicken and poultry.

 

Burying formaldehyde is different than using growth hormones in chickens (which you inferred in your post as occurring from your breadth of knowledge as a CDL driver for poultry farm). BTW, being the empathic citizen that you are, and being in California and KNOWING how strict they are, why didn't you report that behavior?

 

 

I'm sure it won't change your mind about eating chicken but you should read the rest of the article that you linked to.

I did, and raising (and breeding) food animals to produce the most bang for the buck is all part of farming. I did it when I raised rabbits (culled the runts and encouraged the breeding of the larger healthier rabbits to produce more meat) and when we were raising goats we did the same thing.

My friends that run cattle do the same thing. Cull out the poorer part of the herd and encourage breeding in the healthier portion, to generate a larger animal to produce more meat.

[Paul]

why didn't you report that behavior?

They were reported and not by me. That poultry farm was bought out years ago by the largest poultry farm in California.

[Paul]

Kids accused of stealing 22 guns from gun shop get 21 days juvenile detention

[13511]

Kids accused of stealing 22 guns from gun shop get 21 days juvenile detention

And here you PROVE the point that I (and others) make. Explain to all of us how lax enforcement deters criminal behavior and how this is a "gun issue".

In fact, their father stated

But that punishment is not enough for their father.

I want them to stick him in boot camp or some sort of place you know where he has to follow rules because I’m trying and it’s not working and I don’t want to hurt the boy but he tries to jump on me and everything

To go even further, one report I read on this, the father stated

He would almost rather the state take them off his hands

Cops have been here multiple times,” he said. “Maybe four days prior to this and I called the cops to ask them for help, hey what can we do nothing. I tried texting (child’s name) probation officer saying hey I need help; he’s uncontrollable. Nothing, I got nothing.

 

Now, explain to us how this is a gun problem and not an enforcement issue. Hell, the 14 year old was ALREADY on probation. Further, that 14 year old has made threats of violence on social media....

[Paul]

I wonder where these kids fathers are.

 

[Paul]

Hell, the 14 year old was ALREADY on probation. Further, that 14 year old has made threats of violence on social media....

How would you make that kid change his behavior?

[13511]

I wonder where these kids fathers are.

Oh wow... you finally acknowledging that it may be due to societal issues and not the inanimate objects?

 

Now, can you correlate the fact that a survey in 2020 reflected 40% of respondents (or someone in their family) owned guns, down from 51% in 1978, and that during a period when MORE people reported to own guns we didn't have the issues we currently have when FEWER people report owning guns?

 

Your segment want to continue to blame it on an inanimate object, not wanting to acknowledge that there is a MAJOR societal failure occurring, much of which can be laid at the very feet of the liberal mindset.

The guns from 1970's, 1980's, 1990's and onward are no more "violent" than the guns of today. Yet your segment of society continues to want to blame the inanimate object, but then refuses to continue the logical thought process of "blaming/banning" other inanimate objects that end up causing the deaths and injury of from hundreds of thousands into the millions.

[13511]

no gun needed... 11 killed, 15 injured.

 

Or how about Breitscheidzplatz Christmas market? 12 killed and 48 injured... again, no gun needed.

Or the Bastille day celebration in Nice where 86 were killed.

Or in Manhattan where 8 were killed and 11 injured.

2018 Houston Texas, 3 injured 1 killed when driver intentionally plowed into crowd.

2017 8 people die in Lower Manhattan as result of attack by Sayfullo Saipov, who used a vehicle to run them over.

2017 Charlottesville, VA, 1 killed and 19 injured when attacked by James Fields driving his car into a group of protestors.

Edited June 11, 2022 by 13511

[Paul]

no gun needed... 11 killed, 15 injured.

Just 45,211 more people to go before they reach last year's number of gun deaths.

[13511]

Just 45,211 more people to go before they reach last year's number of gun deaths.

First, you miss the entire point of the post. You see, they didn't have to have a gun to perform mass killings.... a point that you try to say will "all be solved" with the banning/confiscation of firearms. Meanwhile, we reasonable adults realize that people intent on bad behavior will use whatever tool they can get their hands on.

 

Now, maybe you need to do some further research on the numbers killed/injured by those violent assault vehicles.

 

Here, let me give you that stat (once again). In 2021 there were 42,915 killed by those violent assault vehicles.

Stats show that those violent assault vehicles injure on average 3 MILLION people in the U.S. each year (with around 2 million of them suffering permanent injury).

 

So, your stance that it's the object (gun) that is responsible for the deaths should logically carry over to the object (the vehicle) for the others since you choose to blame an inanimate object for the results. Please feel free to elucidate on why that stance you hold should not carry over.

Edited June 11, 2022 by 13511

[Paul]

You see, they didn't have to have a gun to perform mass killings....

Mass shootings aren't the only problem with guns. 45,222 were killed by guns last year in the United States, they are the number one cause of death for children in this country.

[Paul]

I’m not going to change your mind and you’re not going to change mine. Go have a glass of wine and relax.

[Paul]

Do meat eating gun owners drink wine?

[Sandyman]

Do meat eating gun owners drink wine?

I own a couple of hand guns, I eat lots of meat, and I hate wine and beer.

[Paul]

I own a couple of hand guns, I eat lots of meat, and I hate wine and beer.

Do you drink anything with alcohol in it?

[Sandyman]

Do you drink anything with alcohol in it?

Every now and then I'll have an Old Fashion, but not much of a drinker, clouds the head.

[13511]

I’m not going to change your mind and you’re not going to change mine. Go have a glass of wine and relax.

Not a fan of wine... nor beer, vodka, brandy, cognac or similar.

Will enjoy an occasional pour of a good bourbon or tequila.

 

they are the number one cause of death for children in this country.

sorry, I don't consider 18-19 year olds "children". They are (by law in fact) classified as adults. Hell, why don't we call those less than 25-28 children, since science says the brain doesn't stop maturing until that age (you do realize that an adolescent is NOW considered to be anyone from 10-24 years of age by many scientist, right?)?

I gave you FACTUAL data on deaths caused by those "violent assault vehicles", and the injuries by those "violent assault vehicles" FAR outweigh injuries caused by guns. Those self-same "violent assault vehicles" are also used in mass death attacks. You continue to avoid that small "fact"... and continue to try to blame the inanimate object of the gun as being at fault. You have failed to present any evidence of an unattended gun attacking anyone. Every incidence you relate has a common point to it... a person using that gun illegally. By the same token, I presented the same type of "facts" in relation to vehicles being used to commit mass deaths... but you have NO compunction to ban then from civilian ownership. Why is that?

 

Now, remind us... has society (and it's mores) changed from the 1970/1980/1990's to today? Could those changes be having a negative impact on society that has resulted in a lot of the behaviors of violence older adolescents.

Edited June 12, 2022 by 13511

[Sheldon]

Do you drink anything with alcohol in it?

 

No.

[13511]

Every now and then I'll have an Old Fashion, but not much of a drinker, clouds the head.

Never could get into an Old Fashion.. to sweet for me (guess it's the sugar cube you mull with the bitters). About the only mixed drinks I'll drink is the VERY occasional tequila sunrise, and a Kentucky Mule.

[13511]

Hey @Paul, does this meet the requirements of one of those vicious AR-15 assault rifles?

 

[Paul]

Hey @Paul, does this meet the requirements of one of those vicious AR-15 assault rifles?

 

Will it make an 18 year-old feel like he can shoot up a school full of little kids?

 

Does it make your little pee-pee feel bigger when you hold it?

[13511]

Will it make an 18 year-old feel like he can shoot up a school full of little kids?

 

Does it make your little pee-pee feel bigger when you hold it?

Answer the question... because I've got a specific point to make that will weigh upon the way you answer.

You see, I'm asking a question I want an honest answer to, not some deflection that you usually give.

 

EDIT:

Hell, I'll save you the time of trying to think up some other inadequate response.... yes, that probably DOES meet YOUR idea of an assault weapon.

 

Never mind the fact it's a BOLT ACTION rifle, that you have to manually operate the bolt after each trigger pull, no different than any Ruger M-7 or Remington 700 bolt action rifle. It just happens to have the looks of one of those SCARY assault rifles.

The same company also makes one in a pump action, which operates the same as a Remington 7600 or Model 6.

 

And my main point is, so many of you anti-gunners base your opinions on the simple looks of how "scary" the gun is.... not on the mechanics of said gun, being one to immediately decry how this one is an assault weapon, but it's just fine to own a "hunting rifle", which operates the VERY SAME WAY, but simply looks different.

 

Meanwhile, I guess we need to ban hands, feet and fists... since more people die annually from those than from rifles according to FBI stats.

Please form a single line at your local hospital to have your hands and your feet removed.

Edited June 19, 2022 by 13511

[Paul]

And my main point is, so many of you anti-gunners base your opinions on the simple looks of how "scary" the gun is....

You make way too many assumptions. I have owned three different bolt action rifles in my lifetime, I know how they work. It's much easier to kill multiple people with a gun (except a muzzle loader, which is what our forefathers knew as a gun when the 2nd amendment was written) than it is a toaster.

 

Meanwhile, I guess we need to ban hands, feet and fists... since more people die annually from those than from rifles according to FBI stats.

Please form a single line at your local hospital to have your hands and your feet removed.

45,222 died from guns in the US last year, please STFU with which kind of gun/action they were.

 

America's gun culture - in seven charts

 

[ATTACH=full]2722._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[13511]

You make way too many assumptions. I have owned three different bolt action rifles in my lifetime, I know how they work. It's much easier to kill multiple people with a gun (except a muzzle loader, which is what our forefathers knew as a gun when the 2nd amendment was written) than it is a toaster.

 

 

45,222 died from guns in the US last year, please STFU with which kind of gun/action they were.

 

America's gun culture - in seven charts

 

[ATTACH=full]3118[/ATTACH]

You apparently have a reading comprehension problem still... I SPECIFICALLY stated hands/feet/fists vs RIFLES. Not guns.... and apparently you have great difficulty grasping sarcasm.

and the stats about the deaths that you reflect are include those that take their own lives.... guess what, someone that wants to kill themself and can't get a gun will use another means. I've worked plenty of suicides that used vehicles, either to generate carbon monoxide or ran into a solid object.

In 2020 there were 45,855 persons that committed suicide. BTW, this number declined when compared to the past several years....

 

By the way you lash out, it is readily apparent that I was correct in that you ASSUMED that was one of those vicious assault rifles.... simply based upon the look of it with NO knowledge of the operation of it.

You are one of the members of the radical anti-gun crowd. Then you have the moderate "anti-gun" crowd that are not truly anti-gun, but are "anti-assault weapon", not really knowing what that means.

 

Remind us Paul, when the 2nd amendment was written, what weapon was in use. Was it considered state of the art at the time? Are all the amendments written to be static as to what was "state of the art" or "normal" at the time they were written? Are you a proponent of original intent then?

Edited June 19, 2022 by 13511

[Paul]

guess what, someone that wants to kill themself and can't get a gun will use another means.

Please STFU with this already. How many people killed themselves with a toaster in 2020? People use guns to kill themselves and other people because guns are very efficient at doing so. You really sound like an idiot every time you use that argument.

 

What's going to happen to the Uvlade cops who stood around with their thumbs up their asses while a couple of teachers and a bunch of fourth grade kids were being slaughtered?