Jump to content


Community Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Gugny

  1. 16 minutes ago, Wacka said:

    Way to not read  and miss the point. The reasons  for the so-called food desserts are the people in the neighborhood ripping off the stores.  

    BIL was unloading the truck. The black manager of the  Family Dollar  had the  sidearm as a deterrent. Didn't say he used it. Guns do work as a deterrent.


    Goes back to the old saying "Don't s***t where you eat."



    Is your B-I-L black or white?  We've got a black businessman and a black Family Dollar manager.  I'm just trying to keep up.

  2. 1 hour ago, Wacka said:

    And the reason there  are not tons of food stores is because of he people in the neighborhood robbing the stores.   Years ago there was a Loblaws across the street from the rock pile. Was closed for years. Finally a black businessman  op\ened itup as FIGMOS (Finally I Got My Own  Supermarket); I lqaasted a year before closing. When the news interviewed him, he said  there was so much "shrinkage" ( stealing) that there was no way he could stay in business.

    Also my B-I-L used to deliver  for Sysco to th eFamily Dollar  on Willam near downtown. The cases would go down the rollers  to the dock. The manager had a sidearm. B-I-L asked him why/ He said that people would run up and grab the cases and run before they got to the endow the rollers.


    Your B-I-L was going to shoot people for stealing cans of food?

  3. 8 hours ago, Johnny Hammersticks said:

    I guess I’m guilty of the same thing when I hear flat-landers rave about Heady Topper.  So many better beers in Vermont 🤣


    Heady Topper isn't even the best Alchemist beer, let alone best beer in VT.  I'll take a Focal Banger over a Heady any day.  I'll be exploring other VT breweries this summer!!

    • Agree 2
  4. 4 minutes ago, Aussie Joe said:

    As this will be the most profitable outcome … probably…



    Ditto for me…hope it stays just with those December games as I don’t travel that late in the season anyway…but this is going to be a pain in the backside to people …


    The targeted demographic will have a) plenty of money and b) plenty of flexibility to adjust to late schedule changes.

  5. 12 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:


    Still waiting to hear why you jump over posts that PROVE you're incorrect (and if you want to add to the list of companies/producers that could be sued due to their products being able to kill large number of people)


    Completely untrue. Do you know what the worst school massacre was in the United States? What was used?


    Here we go.  


    Please do tell me about the 1927 bombings and then try to tell me how that is, in any way, relevant to the modern day gun violence/mass shootings using semi-automatic weapons.

    • Awesome! (+1) 1
  6. 2 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:


    The Boston show was expensive. It's sold out now and resale is going for $300+. I could fly to Chicago and get $29 lawn seats, though.


    That's the show I was looking at because I figured that's where you'd go.  Looks like the seats I saw are all "companion" seats.  What a bummer.  The ticket sales industry is so broken.


    The cheapest resale ticket for the Pearl Jam MSG show is $627 and it's a nosebleed ... behind the stage.  Crazy.

    • Like (+1) 1
  7. 10 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

    The only summer show I have planned is the Zappa Band up in Plymouth NH (The Flying Monkey.) I was interested in Tears for Fears but tickets were way too much. Same with Roxy Music in the fall. Stupid $$$$.


    Aww, man.  Tears for Fears would be great.  I do see some tix in the $50-$60 range, but they're pretty far from the stage.

  8. 30 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

    I think banning semi-autos is not a realistic outcome.  I think other things can be done like needing to take training courses, proving you are not a physical threat by keeping a clean criminal record, ongoing education, common sense laws around background checks and waiting periods, registration, etc.  Banning this or that is too extreme and will just cause division between both sides.  I think there is middle ground but how can we get there if one side is saying ban and the other side is saying no?  Sounds like we are still pretty far apart


    I agree that banning semi-automatic weapons is a bit of a pipe dream, but I do believe it's what is necessary.


    And (this is not pointed toward you) to all the people who like to beat the "CRIMINALS ARE GONNA GET THESE WEAPONS EVEN IF THEY'RE ILLEGAL" drum ... no effin sh!t.  We all know that.  But it's too goddamn easy for any joe schmo to purchase one.


    Mental illness is one of .. if not the .. biggest plagues our nation faces.  And it's also not being addressed properly.  Background checks need to be extensive.  Applicants' social media activity needs to be reviewed/monitored.  As you mentioned, waiting times need to be be appropriately long.


    There is so much more that can be done if these weapons continue to be available to the general public.


    But I will always maintain that eliminating them is the answer. 

  9. 1 minute ago, KDIGGZ said:

    Lol, well that's not a helpful response.  I'm honestly and truthfully just giving the perspective of gun owners when laws like that are suggested.  I think both sides just end up getting frustrated and are like oh well, nothing we can do I guess!


    I have no problem with responsible gun ownership.  I grew up with guns and hunted at a young age.  I DO have a problem with semi-automatic weapons.  They are killing machines with no other purpose.  There's a lot we can do.  And yes ... I agree ... nothing gets done because people dig their heels in.  There IS a logical solution.  It just doesn't include semi-automatic weapons.

  10. 21 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:


    Explain how'd you even begin to do that.  A few things... 1. Most people would tell the government to f-off and 2. Most small town LEO and sheriff's in conservative states (like all of middle-America) would also tell the federal gov. to f-off. I know for a FACT, my county sheriff would never be part of a gun 'take back' program. 


    So how are you going to take semi-auto firearms from people? Good luck with that. 



    It's a goal we should work toward.

    11 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

    By definition criminals break the law, yes?  By banning semi-autos you would just be taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens.  Do you think criminals can't get whatever gun they want if they are willing to break the law?


    So let's say they do ban semi-autos.  We are left with what, pump shotguns and hammer fired revolvers?  Do you think a crazy person couldn't go to Tops with a pump shotgun and shoot 10 people?  Then they will want to ban shotguns.  It doesn't end until law abiding citizens have no guns but the criminals and military do.


    Oh, yes.  Then forget it.  Mea culpa.

    • Like (+1) 1
  11. Just now, KDIGGZ said:




    Well that escalated quickly.  Unfortunately, as I mentioned to the gentleman earlier in the thread, this is how these types of discussions usually go which is why nothing ever gets resolved.  There are extreme points of view on both sides of the aisle, and everyone has their heels dug in and not willing to budge.  Somewhere in the middle might be some common ground common sense laws that could be enacted but we will never get there if both sides refuse to have respectful dialogue


    So you can look at the gun violence statistics in this country and honestly say that removing all semi-automatic weapons is extreme??  Common man.  That's not extreme.  It's logical.

  12. Just now, ArdmoreRyno said:


    You exclude the rest I see.. LOL 


    My point? I am probably one of the best shooters you'll ever talk to online or offline. I was able to attend sniper school in the Army until they told me I'd have to go through 11C training (I was an 88M) to be allowed to attend. I've been ranked nationally with the AR-15.


    You skipped everything else I said. Not surprised. 


    This is very badolish.  Hmm.  Anyhoo ... you can toot your horn as much and as loudly as you want.  If you were that good, you'd be able to shoot an unarmed ***** animal in the heart with one shot.  But you need to be able to fire a shot per second.  Something's not adding up, here.

  13. 14 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:


    I served in the US Army, competed nationally with the AR-15 platform, I now just do it locally and I hunt. 


    You have absolutely NO CLUE what you are talking about when it comes to firearms and hunting. Zero. So why don't you stick to something you understand. This is something, you don't.  


    Honestly, who gives a rat's ass about your military experience?  That means LITERALLY nothing.

  • Create New...