Grendel

Registered bored user

Happiness is a good meal, a good cigar and a good woman - or a bad woman; it depends on how much happiness you can handle.

megrendel wrote:
squrlz4ever  so therefore it can't be the food

That's just it, it's NOT the food. It's the misuse of it.

The Lib's solution would be to outlaw food.

And your solution would be to revert back to the harvesting techniques of 250 years ago, which could not support today's population.
megrendel wrote:
squrlz4ever That is why, of course, the 2nd specifies 'arms' instead of 'muskets only'.  Our forefathers got it right.

Unless, of course, you won't mind submitting all post via hand-cranked printing press and delivered by horse...as this is obviously the intent of the 1st Amendment, as it specifies 'freedom of...the press."
megrendel wrote:
mrteatime I've never send that implicated.

It's a tall vehicle, ergo a high center of gravity.  Nothing wrong with that, unless you try and drive it like a corvette.  

Any resulting rollover is not the fault the the design nor the car.
megrendel wrote:
Gerry1of1 Fucking Savage. (And hilarious)
megrendel wrote:
I have no idea it took to set this up, but this time was not wasted.
megrendel wrote:
Excellent! The Wilhem Scream sold it.
megrendel wrote:
tjstorm Is there ANY social gathering where it ISN'T an easy-victim zone.

Don't recall many mass shootings at gun shows.

Probably for the same reason PETA throws red paint on fur-wearing model at fashion shows and not on leather-wearing bikers at Sturgis. 
megrendel wrote:
Well, that's what you get when you base your impressions on movies and fiction.
megrendel wrote:
Claiming this tweet cast blame on the students is a FUCKING HUGE leap of mental gymnastics. (Heavy on the Mental.)
megrendel wrote:
daegog I hadn't realized Hillary was visiting. 
megrendel wrote:
thubanstar  No one should have a gun in school. 

And yet, people wanting to intentionally harm people seem to be able to bring one to school.

I have no problem with multiple guns at school carried by responsible adults.

I DO have a problem with there being exactly ONE gun at school...brought it by someone that ignored the law and the sign. 

thubanstar   No one is conveniently showing up to these things with a weapon and shooting it out to save lives. 

Well, yeah, as weapons are outlawed at school, there's no one with a weapon that can intervene. So the homicidal maniac that IS armed finds easy pickens. 

Of course, if you'd research Defensive Gun Uses, you'd find them quite common.
megrendel wrote:
skeeter01  And you’re ok with this? 

Am I okay with it? Hell No!

Do I think outlawing guns is the answer? Hell No!  Look how well it worked to make drugs illegal?  For that matter, look how well it worked to make murder illegal.

Plus, it was illegal to bring a gun onto school grounds?  So how do you expect to make a 'special' law that criminals will suddenly decide to abide by?

How about this? How about NOT creating easy-victim zones?
megrendel wrote:
 the freedom of all people (sane, crazy, whatever) to have unchallenged access to guns that are capable of executing 

Yup, definitely NOT biased bullshit writing right there....

megrendel wrote:
holygod  Pretty easy definition.  

As with most 'definitions' when someone is trying to cite statistics, this one is widely variable. 

Let's look at those 18 'school' shootings.
  • 2 were suicides, one in a parking lot one in a bathroom. Neither went to that school.
  • 4 were shots from non-school shooting but where bullets busted windows and/or holed walls of a nearby schools. NO ONE was hit.
  • 2 were students firing guns at school, where no one was hurt.
  • 1 was where a third-grader pulled the trigger of a cops gun...no one was hurt.
  • 1 shot fired in school, no one injured.
  • 4 were shootings where someone was actually injured. 
  • 3 were shootings where someone died. 
  • 1 was this one.


Some of these are like when a train slams into a Budweiser truck on the tracks and the media reports 'Alcohol involved accident'.
megrendel wrote:
normalfreak2  There is NO WAY the founding father's envisioned what weapons have morphed into. 

But, they were intelligent enough to know that invention presses on. That's why they specified 'Arms' rather than 'Mark I Musket'.

Likewise: There is NO WAY the founding fathers envisioned the computer with which you spew your ignorance.  The 'Press' mentioned in the 1st Amendment actually only meant manually operated Printing Presses.  Your puter is not covered. We'll send some goons right over to confiscate it. K?

normalfreak2  the 2nd Ammendment needs to be AMENDED!

Go for it, idiot.  The founding fathers even TOLD YOU HOW TO DO IT. Why, I even think it's called the AMENDMENT process. (Article V of the constitution, if you're so inclined to educate yourself....doubtful, you haven't demonstrated that ability so far.)

But, even if you are able to get the 2nd amended (which you will not be able to because there's not THAT many idiots in the US), it still will not solve the problem. 


megrendel wrote:
daegog So why must we accept mass slaughter?

You don't. But you have to find a way to deter it that:
  1. does not infringe on a constitutionally recognized right & 
  2. has some semblance of working.  (after all, we see how well outlawing drugs has worked, haven't we?)

There's nothing 'magical' about guns. They are a known, simple technology that are easy to manufacture. If you could wave your magic wand and make them all disappear today, by tomorrow there would be thousands manufactured in backyard workshops.

How about some things that may actually work? Like keeping a closer eye on known psycho's like this kids was known to be.  Like NOT making 'free-fire' zones (aka: gun free zones).

Most guys at my high-school had firearms in their cars/trucks during hunting season. We had a ROTC shooting range on school grounds where everyone was allowed to bring their rifles and site them in.  Strangely, nobody ever got shot. 
megrendel wrote:
Can state, from experience, that this is an accurate portrayal.

EVERY female in the South is 'ma'am'.  When my nieces were 4 and asked me a question I would reply, 'Yes Ma'am.'
megrendel wrote:
daegog  so people can hunt ducks with military styled rifles. 

Sorry, false narrative. The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

Please try again. 
megrendel wrote:
daegog Is that the leftist belief you are referring to or something else?

That remark was aimed at leftists beliefs in general. Disagreeing with a Liberal is the fastest way to get called 'Racist', 'Sexist', 'Homophone', etc. 

daegog knowing the clear stance that the president of the company has towards gays, 

He claimed to be against same-sex marriage.  That does not equate to calling for public stoning. 

daegog don't you think it would be pretty silly for a gay person to go to work there?

And yet, many do. Plenty work there, and there have been zero confirmed instances where someone was hired/fired/harassed for their sexual orientation.

daegog  if you were gay would you try to work for chik fil a?

Does it pay? Yes. Do they discriminate based on sexual orientation? No.  So answer: Yes. 
megrendel wrote:
I live 200 feet from, and 4 feet above, the gulf.  I am not worried. 
megrendel wrote:
skeeter01 I always found them dry (though very good with enough mashed potatoes and gravy on them).

Hardy's has good biscuits.
megrendel wrote:
daegog Snopes?  Really?

And Gerry said "Chick-fil-a .... anti-gay".  There has been zero evidence that any Chick-fil-a has hired, fired or mistreated any person based on their sexual orientation.  So, Chick-fil-a cannot be labeled as 'anti-gay'.

Chick-fil-a also has a charitable organization, WinShape, that provides scholarships, summer camps, day camps, foster-homes.  Some of the charitable donations went to family groups some like to label 'anti-gay'. 

Also, some things that the chief operating officer says does not jive with leftists beliefs, so he must be labeled 'anti-gay'.
megrendel wrote:
kalron27  if you don't drink coffee then you can't call it crap. 

Not saying the beverages they serve are crap. Just saying I don't consider it coffee.

Coffee is beans & water, peculate until hot and strong.  The minute you add anything with the terms 'milk', 'soy', 'frap', or 'pumpkin spice' it no longer meets what I consider 'coffee'.

I DO go to Starbucks, to pick up some for my wife. I have it written down: Grande' Caramel-Frap, Lite w/Cream and two Splendas.  I can't hack it, but she loves it. 
megrendel wrote:
daegog I've never found any chain red beans and rice that I considered done right.

The best red beans and rice I had (beside homemade) was on the John James Audubon Riverboat in New Orleans.