muppy
-
Posts
14,977 -
Joined
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by muppy
-
-
3 minutes ago, unbillievable said:
...or you can just watch protestors on youtube.
so you are basing your opinions in youtube fanatics...you just made my point that there may be some but by no means a consensus of Americans want no guns. I just dont believe it and moreso to think it would ever happen here is straight up ridiculous as Ive already posted. No rational or reasonable discussion is allowed its all or nothing RIDICULOUS.......and for the record I dont own guns but would fight as hard for those who do if any such law said all guns to be confiscated....civil war indeed.
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:
Exactly. There is no appeasement of the anti-gunners. They want it all, and if you grant them a fraction of it, it won't stop them. Better to not tolerate any regulation.THIS is the crux and it drives me nuts .....to me this ideology is stressed by gun lobbyists to the detriment of any rational discussion regarding what to do with the epidemic of mass shootings out country is seeing. More fear based rhetoric to enflame gun owners into thinking it is a none or all scenario in regards to gun ownership. This to me is stalemate with no hope of even a tad of compromise and that to me is unacceptable. Even if some would prefer it I say it would Never happen in the USA. The gun lobbies, the gun culture that exists here and in fact the gun owners themselves would straight up refuse to give up all their guns. not to mention the 2nd amendment of the constitution itself mandates the right to ownership. I again as was posted and quoted such a "ban" would lead to civil war and Its not happening here no way NOPE. Just my opinion
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, unbillievable said:
You're delusional if you believe that their aren't millions in the total ban camp in the US. There are continents of people living in total ban countries and many here want to emulate them.
I would put the number around the same as those who want Universal Healthcare.
again your assumption is unprovable and again I'll say ridiculous. This is a quote I fully agree with. To think that a country like the USA would EVER acquiesce to a total ban on guns in my opinion is to use your word "delusional"
Quote
Bruce Watson, Author of 4 books about America, including "Freedom Summer"S0 few Americans support a complete gun ban that pollsters don't even ask the question. NO ONE in power is talking about a gun ban because it would lead to civil war. It's not on the table. It won't be. Meanwhile, the real effort is to get gun owners to understand that basic measures — background checks, trigger locks, bans on certain weapons — are not the first step to that "complete gun ban" they are certain is coming. It's as if you were arrested for drunk driving and you ran around telling everyone the judge was going to take your car. People would think you were… crazy.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:
Because the sad fact is, there IS a slippery slope, and once you allow one inch of regulation, the people who want TOTAL gun control will push for a total ban.
It's not even debatable.
I think what you posted here is certainly debatable. Even if a Very few wackjobs advocate for no guns (total ban) in the private sector the numbers of those folks have to be so low that to even give that notion serious consideration and credibility reflects how distorted this gun control rhetoric gets...to me its overblown fear rhetoric meant to enflame gun owners and does not speak to the majority of American citizens opinions..at all. Its ridiculous this whole slippery slope argument that is SO pervasive that the reality of the need for SOME solution in view of the way things are handled now means "they're coming for all our guns" Ridiculous.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, John from Riverside said:
Sorry late to this thread
I really dont have a problem submitted to a background check tor my gun. I used to actually collect them when I was in the military but gave them all up and only have something for home defense.
I know that might make some angry.....but dont really have a problem registering or submitting to a background check.
I would think responsible gun owners wouldn't see submitting to a backgrounds check as being anything less than responsible and civic duty as a protection for the publics greater good ...protection not necessairily from THEM but the types of individuals these background checks are meant to identify in the first place. I'm all for responsible gun ownership and anything that can help prevent these tragedies from occurring again. And I think most sane responsible law abiding folks would agree with that.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, RaoulDuke79 said:
Vox is a joke of a news source. People B word and complain that nobody does anything, then when something is proposed it's scoffed at. They're already flagging hate speech, but now its some type of problem if they supposed to make an effort to detect a potential shooting threat? If anyone but Trump proposes the same thing Vox wouldn't even have thought about covering it.
just to clarify my personal opinion I have ZERO qualms or reservations in regarding facebook or any other social media platform either for that matter flagging or allowing reports be made about someone who is posting dangerous threatening fanatical rhetoric and who might be seen as unhinged enough to warrant some consideration in that regard...I actually think it was one of Trumps better ideas and a proactive approach that just might save lives. The link I posted may have wanted to paint that in a bad light but Im actually liking it. I said it would "stir the pot" because you KNOW there would be people screaming NO WAY when actually it might actually be a good idea. kind of how I think banning assault rifles and large magazine clips would be also...for the publics overall safety.
-
1
-
-
I saw today that donald Trump advocates policing social media now THIS post will definitely stir the pot.
QuoteQuoteTrump wants social media to detect mass shooters before they commit crimes
What’s more likely is that all sorts of speech — and people — would get swept up in the technology dragnets Trump seems to be proposing.
By Rani Molla@ranimolla Aug 5, 2019, 5:30pm EDThttps://www.vox.com/recode/2019/8/5/20754790/trump-social-media-detect-shooter-crime
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, unbillievable said:Quote
Except that activists, and more importantly, politicians have already stated they want to ban ALL GUNS.
...and it's blatantly obvious why ordinary citizens should be armed, even beyond the need for self defense. The 2nd Amendment was specifically created to combat Tyranny, and the riots in Venezuela, Turkey, Spain, France, Hong Kong, and Oregon prove that that need still exists today.
It's estimated that more than 75% of firearms were NOT turned into the Australian government after the ban. So the statistics are trying to prove the effectiveness of a BAN that didn't occur.
mr/ms unbillievable LOL very respectfully on the bolded can you please post. links? I don't know you from Adam why should I believe what you post? I need to see this in print no offense me not taking your word for it. Im mostly a football chatter not guns Im just going to kindly call you on a couple of things. Youre talking to ME now, just muppy. Its obvious to YOU that we need arming I choose to arm myself with a very territorial and none to pleased with strangers pitbull Dog so please don't try to sell me there are no alternatives to guns HA ? 2nd Amendment is Great!
and again, please no offense if you don't care to reply your call But forme if you want to post absolutes rhetoric you really should use links so it is proven factual to skeptics. Does that seem fair to ask? Thanks. m
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, unbillievable said:
You are more likely to get hit by lightning, or win the Powerball than be involved in a mass shooting...
....yet this irrational fear is enough for people to give up a fundamental Right; and bully others to do the same.
Imagine if we had a debate to close beaches during shark week. (which is much more likely to occur)
speaking only for myself Im in favor of people being allowed to own guns but I believe that assault style weapons have no business being in the hands of civilians. Period. There is seemingly always a slippery slope that gets implied that we mean ALL guns be outlawed I doubt that is a majority belief at all absolutely NOT.
1 minute ago, unbillievable said:There would still not be enough data to prove nothing changed. I can't prove that not having a rock in my pocket attracts Bears.
He can reduce the time to 2yrs and would still be wrong. Don't start an argument with FALSE statement and expect people to believe anything afterward.
we aren't going to agree so Peace Out brother. I just honestly don't get how you cant see any proof that not having assault weapons in the hands of civilians even conceivably saved lives in Australia and in hand MIGHT save lives here. It couldn't freakin hurt Lol. Thanks for the discussion.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, unbillievable said:
You can't do statistical analysis on rare instances.. There just isn't enough data to come up with a statement like "16 incidents prevented". It's equivalent to the false argument that a rock in your pocket prevents bear attacks.
Bottom line: Restating the LIE that "no mass shootings occurred in 22 years" invalidates his argument; proven by the fact that he immediately attaches exceptions.
so let me get this straight you're quibbling over months now wether or not there were no mass shootings in 22 years? .. I posted why its right there in black and white 2 articles in which stated that banning assault style weapons indeed saved lives. Would you have argued if it had said 21 years 6 months? Geesh. I think you're quibbling and not seeing the more important issue and that is that banning assault style weapons indeed saved lives.I think its important.... if you have data to support that action made no difference please post it.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, unbillievable said:
THat last line is a complete lie which invalidates the entire article.
Australia had one horrific shooting resulting in double digit deaths which caused the hysteria that pushed gun control. They didn't have many before that and don't have many after. The frequency didn't change much.
Although, you can argue the methods did get a little more creative.
I disagree that the article I quoted is discredited and here is why... quoted from this link ….are you saying the banning of assault style guns had no effect? I would strongly disagree with you again. https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/mar/20/strict-firearm-laws-reduce-gun-deaths-heres-the-evidence
QuoteTheir research also showed that while there had been 13 mass shootings (using the definition of five or more people killed) in the 18 years before the law changes, there had been none in the 22 years following (though there was one mass shooting involving seven members of one family at Margaret River in Western Australia in May 2018).
Modelling suggested that if shootings had continued at a similar rate as that prior to the NFA, then approximately 16 incidents would have been expected by February 2018.
-
1
-
-
very interesting https://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/ Australia banned assault type guns and...….
QuoteSo what happened after the assault-weapon ban? Well therein lies the other half of the story twist noted above: Nothing.
Nothing, that is, in a good way.
Australian independence didn’t end. Tyranny didn’t come. Australians still hunted and explored and big-wave surfed to their hearts’ content. Their economy didn’t crash; Invaders never arrived. Violence, in many forms, went down across the country, not up. Somehow, lawmakers on either side of the gun debate managed to get along and legislate.
As for mass killings, there were no more. Not one in the past 22 years.
-
4
-
1
-
-
I have a few comments to add to this discussion not brought up.
1. The common denominator in these shootings are guns and predominately if not all shooters are men. I find that interesting especially if you are going to tout music and video games as causational to gun violence .hmmmm correct me if women aren't as exposed to those things as men but How to identify just which individuals might be prone on acting out and how to alleviate/mitigate those triggers...a very difficult task in the society we live in but needs be researched at the very least and while these people are young enough to be reached and hopefully treated and their ideologies expressed without violence
2. Rational discussion regarding guns and what to do about the violence they wreak is about as possible as rational discussion between Trump supporters and non supporters. Paranoia and mistrust abide on both sides and consensus seems next to impossible. How to fix That and needs to occur no matter how seemingly impossible.
3. solutions are even less often discussed with calm and rationality because each side is so entrenched and fear they will "lose" wether it be their guns or their freedom to own them at all. NRA lobby is super strong and congress wont act due to fear of losing their support as well as their voting constituent members of the NRA.
I think common sense is none too common in this gun control debate...one solution just may be to eliminate those 100 clip ammunitions which to my way of thinking are unnecessary for non military usage....rapid fire weapons which have been known to be used to kill large numbers of people and have limited non military use Ditto.
Background checks are a Must and can they be expanded in a way to vet out extremists...I don't know or have all the answers
All I can say is something needs to give...wether it be governmental rules and requirements but also the societal issues that contribute to this....I dont think infrastructure will ever completely irradicate ideological extremists but we need Try to somehow allevite domestic terrorist acts from happening.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, CNY315 said:
to Mark Ludwiczaks first tweet I would love to see that on video Ed Oliver bowling ball 3 linemen Rawr ?
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, MR8 said:
I dunno Muppy, I am on the fence on this...
Melvin Gordon wants an extension so he isn't risking injury before heading into a FA period... that's actually reasonable. Where as guys like OBJ and Antonio Brown who are vets with 3 + years LEFT On their MEGA deals, and they want more money just because other guys have signed bigger deals in the 1-2 years since they signed theirs... that's just flat out greedy BS, and they should be ashamed....
There is "get paid when you can" and "money grubbing dick bag"... I feel like most guys are just trying to get paid while they can... but there are definitely the money grubbers who make the rest look bad.
Thanks man that is a great post right there....I shouldn't simply assume he is solely greedy for his holdout...it was the greedy ones I have more of an issue with.
Bottom line have a Great agent who will advocate for you STRONGLY uphold YOUR interests Period. Get Paid.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:
Then that goes to Teams as well right. They Signed it They should Honor it. Not Cut a player
That is a really interesting take and It is logical that my premise should indeed cut both ways but clearly doesn't. I would then have to say that the contract itself is written what moneys is paid if a guy is cut while signing a deal and he does sign that as part of the deal I guess Im just a "if you sign it dont cry later you're not happy because someone else is earning more wah wah wha I just dont care for that.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:
Thats the Nature of the business. And I am ok with it. However that is what also always gets me with the “Honor the Contract” you signed Argument when it comes to players holding out. You Never hear that Honor the Contract Argument back to the Owners when cutting players
YEP i get super annoyed when I hear that guys sign and then whine they want more money. Being in san diego an example here is they are dealing with Melvin Gordon I have not heard of any resolution there yet I firmly agree that if you signed it you should honor it. Period.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:
Agree kind of cold but that is the business of the NFL. They knew he was too far behind at this point to make the backend of the roster. So wanted to Free Up trainers time to deal with INJ on players that will and said here is your money go rehab on your own.
its is a cold business with a capital COLD I have had that beaten into me through numerous cuts of players I really admired ... Now its just rooting for the roster in general..a friend of mine calls it "rooting for the laundry"
-
1
-
-
I'm really enjoying all the input posted for training camp Props 2BD posters top to bottom. This is as close as many of we transplants all around the country will get to Pittsford
#kindahomesickactually
#GOBILLS
-
5
-
-
Thanks yolo and MJS good to know appreciate the input
-
1
-
-
LOL Tom Brady...seeing him jump off that cliff recently I was thinking to myself "too bad he was holding his daughters hand..otherwise I'd have been praying for shallow water"
.....does that make me a terrible person? ?
-
1
-
-
On 7/27/2019 at 9:02 AM, MJS said:
So he took a banned substance. His suspension will hold for sure.
With the list of stuff they can't take being a mile long, why would they not check every single time they are about to try something new? Seems simple.
Its a cautionary tale to NFL players they should have that banned list and have their physicians check and double check that they will test clean before taking ANYTHING. If there were NO fertility enhancing drugs available that allow he to test cleanly then I'd say he has a valid issue with the NFL unless their rationale is football before family...Id like to see THAT defended in court oboi SMH
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:
I'm sure if you wrote your ticket rep and said you were going to do what your friend did I bet that would be more than happy to sell them to you
Sounds like an amazing person
yes he was...I could write some very uncomplimentary words and adjectives regarding pancreatic cancer but you catch my drift Im sure.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 7/18/2019 at 11:49 AM, Buffalo716 said:
That's to stop all the Patriots fans who buy our seasons at a fraction of the cost of theirs
Then resell every game and make money while going to the Patriots at Bills
well I can see why the Bills would want to sell to locals sure but I had a buddy in NYC who had his season tickets faithfully for years, attended a couple games, sold a couple and donated all the rest to WNY childrens charities ..that's just the kind of guy he was though The Best...RIP Tonto
On 7/18/2019 at 11:23 AM, Chandler#81 said:QuoteBills territory/Bills Country. It’s a state of mind more than geology
. Born & raised in WNY, been a fan from their inception. I now live in significantly better climate -by choice, but still attend a game live from time to time and my fandom is as rabid as ever.
Why the reason for the inquisition?
haha I love that quoted sentence CONCUR. Born and raised Batavia and a HUGE billsbackers group here in san diego at gamewatches it feels Just like home :-)))))
-
2
-
Your first Bills game
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
my very first Bills game was the first ever Monday Night football game in Buffalo held at Rich Stadium the date was Oct. 29, 1973: Chiefs 14 at Bills 23 (W)
I remember vividly we leaving Batavia 4 hours ahead of game time to be able to tailgate and due to the traffic logistical nightmare we didn't make it to our seats until halftime...and many ticket holders didn't get it at all. Huge stink..they just didn't have the traffic patterns figured out at all....
a very distinct memory of that game was a picture posted to the scoreboard of a tantruming toddler with Howard Cosells' head attached with the caption "You're Our Baby Howard" and they then TV cameras showing he laughing at it..it was classic ?