Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Concealed Carry

profile picture
skisteep
Posts: 201 - Karma: 1,057
Anyone on here have their CCP? If so, what model/caliber firearm do you carry and how was your experience with the class if you took it, I am looking into getting mine soon. Thanks
Apr 3 2013 1:29PM
1751 593
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
i'm pretty god damn sure a tank has never been accidentally misfired. I'm not arguing against ccw because they can be misfired...
Apr 12 2013 3:25PM
1 3
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
Click for larger image
Apr 12 2013 3:27PM
1 4
profile picture
Wis_Skier_23
Posts: 2263 - Karma: 245
To answer your question, yes I did read your post and it is evident you have no idea what you are talking about. 

I would love to be informed how the first rifle is used for killing and the second one is not. 

Both rifles are bolt action and fire a .308 round.
M40 Bolt action rifle used by the Marines
Click for larger image
Weatherby .308
Click for larger image


Apr 12 2013 3:43PM
4 0
profile picture
Wis_Skier_23
Posts: 2263 - Karma: 245
And I am pretty sure the people using the tanks have been thoroughly trained on how to use one.  Why are we having this discussion as I never one said you should be able to own one.  Typical anti-gun argument dodging the real issue and arguing over something I never advocated.  I never argued for civilians owning grenade launchers or RPG's, you misfire one of those bad boys and buildings blow up.  
Apr 12 2013 4:02PM
4 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
I said killing people.

Posting two rifles has nothing to do with handguns for concealed carry.

If you think I am scared of guns or don't understand guns you are wrong. I don't have that much experience with handguns, but I have been around guns a lot. I'm not opposed to people owning guns.

Apr 12 2013 4:10PM
1 3
profile picture
Wis_Skier_23
Posts: 2263 - Karma: 245
You said hunting rifles aren't mean to kill people, so I ask what is the difference between a bolt action hunting rifle and a bolt action rifle used by the Military?  Both rifles shown fire the same bullet and both use the same action style, but one kills people and one kills animals.  They are both lethal it is how you use the weapon which is what matters and is my point.  A knife is a knife and can be used for good or bad same said for a gun it can be used for good or bad.  If handguns were all bad, then why are policed armed with them?

I am calling bullshit on that second point because on pg 8 of this thread you wanted to decrease the total amount of guns.  No one who isn't opposed to people owning guns would want to reduce the total number of guns.  That is complete and udder bullshit. 
Apr 12 2013 7:11PM
4 0
profile picture
Campeador
Posts: 7516 - Karma: -1,227
You're a kook. Surfboards aren't decorations. With all that vegan soy estrogen you've been consuming it's no wonder you're such a pussy.
Apr 12 2013 7:13PM
4 0
profile picture
El_Barto.
Posts: 11661 - Karma: 24,354
Not too surprised my fellow Oregonian likes his guns
Apr 12 2013 7:17PM
4 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
haha wtf? First of all I eat almost no soy. Second drinking milk exposes you to way more estrogen.

And finally what the fuck do surfboards have to do with this?
Apr 12 2013 7:27PM
1 3
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
I want to shit on your second amendment. I can't wait for the day you lose your guns. It's gonna happen. The times are changing.
Apr 12 2013 7:30PM
1 3
profile picture
Wis_Skier_23
Posts: 2263 - Karma: 245
You have yet to answer my first question in my previous post and I know you won't because you are and always will be wrong on this issue. 

U Mad Bro?

How can you say you aren't opposed to gun ownership but yet are excited for taking guns away from people?  You are such a hypocrite. 
Apr 12 2013 7:39PM
3 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
I would be opposed to you carrying either of those rifles around the city.

Apr 12 2013 7:57PM
2 3
profile picture
987321654hgfd
Posts: 5133 - Karma: 5,447
This guy (chicken) is such a wet, loose, ungroomed, vagina it's insane. There's no coming back from where he's at. Then he claims people with guns are pussie. I hope he's happy living with gyno and micropenis.
Apr 12 2013 8:06PM
4 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
Click for larger image
Apr 12 2013 8:15PM
1 4
profile picture
987321654hgfd
Posts: 5133 - Karma: 5,447
Everyone, this is chicken

Click for larger image

I didn't really think it needed to be censored because you can't really even see his wiener.
Apr 12 2013 9:09PM
5 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
come one now. everyone knows vegans aren't fat.

I bet you'd like to suck on those titties though you milk drinking pansy.
Apr 12 2013 9:19PM
1 3
profile picture
El_Barto.
Posts: 11661 - Karma: 24,354
We were all having a good time until this
Apr 12 2013 9:26PM
2 1
profile picture
987321654hgfd
Posts: 5133 - Karma: 5,447
Sorry, I just thought everyone should see the side effects of high soy intake.
Apr 12 2013 9:29PM
3 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
that's not even true. There have been like two documented cases. Plus vegans don't need to eat soy.

It's the body builder guys who grow boobs. Probably while making fun of vegans at the same time.
Apr 12 2013 9:38PM
1 2
profile picture
cbj
Posts: 2114 - Karma: 1,136
INB4 ban
Apr 12 2013 9:45PM
2 0
profile picture
Wis_Skier_23
Posts: 2263 - Karma: 245
That wasn't my question.  You referenced that Hunting rifles weren't meant for killing people but handguns were.  My point was what is the difference between a bolt action rifle used in the military from one used for hunting deer?  One is dangerous and the other is not?   That is the same moronic rhetoric all you anti-gun people keep using instead of using your head.  If a gun is black, has a synthetic stock, or has a feature I don't like it must be so much more dangerous than a gun that has a wood stock.  Dumb.


Apr 12 2013 9:46PM
2 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
a synthetic stock doesn't make it any easier to hide under your shirt.
Apr 12 2013 9:58PM
1 2
profile picture
Wis_Skier_23
Posts: 2263 - Karma: 245
No one is trying to conceal rifles or shotguns.  A handgun is another story but to say that a specific rifle is meant for killing and the other isn't is completely false.  It is how you use the gun which is what's important.  Using a gun for Self Defense =/= Killing.  I am a very peaceful person, and I have no intentions of shooting anyone unless they threaten my life, I don't see a problem with that.
Apr 12 2013 10:19PM
2 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
I never said that you. Am I arguing with a highschooler or something?
Apr 12 2013 10:21PM
1 2
profile picture
Wis_Skier_23
Posts: 2263 - Karma: 245
You wrote the following:
"the specific knife in my drawer was not meant to kill people. Just like a hunting rifle was not meant to kill people. It doesn't matter if they are based off a weapon that is. A handgun is meant to kill people. I already said this."

I don't understand how a rifle isn't meant to kill people but a handgun is?  A gun is a gun, it is up to the user how he chooses to use it.  Both guns I posted earlier are .308 Bolt Action Rifles, one is used to kill people in war and one is used to mostly hunt deer/other game.  Both are capable of killing people but the user is responsible for how it's used.  Handguns, much like rifles can be used for good or bad.  They are great for self/home defense, however due to their size, many criminals use them for crime.  Once again my point was guns are guns and you have to be responsible when using them.

 If you don't want to accept that responsibility of owning one that is fine but don't try to limit my ability to do so.  I don't see why you are so against holding people accountable for their actions.  They are the one's doing the killing right?  I mean until guns get up themselves and killing people on their own, I do not support any further gun control measures.  
Apr 12 2013 10:44PM
2 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
yeah. where did I say one rifle is meant to kill people and the other isn't?

nowhere.

I said a handgun is only made to kill people. A rifle is not. You don't need a handgun to go hunting. You do need one to conceal it.

who decides who is responsible enough to own a concealed weapon? Does a non-violent felon lose the "right" to defend themselves?
Do you know how often handguns are used to intimidate people who are committing non-violent crimes? Is it justifiable to threaten someone with deadly force when defending your property (not yourself)?

being able to to carry a weapon for self defense is not a basic right. If it was then there should be no regulations on them at all. A criminal who has done his time should be given the same rights as anyone else. Children should be given the right. Mentally handicapped people should be given the right. You can't deny ANYONE their basic rights. But owning a gun is not one of them.

Land of the "free" = ban gay marriage, ban abortions, ridiculous prison sentences, no public heath care, massive tuition and a bunch of fucking losers walking around with guns up their vaginas.

fuck republicans.
Apr 13 2013 12:32AM
1 1
profile picture
TinyTigers
Posts: 484 - Karma: 213
You continue having this attitude, I'll continue shooting my guns.
Apr 13 2013 12:39AM
2 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
you'll continue shooting your guns anyways you twat.
Apr 13 2013 12:40AM
1 1
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
enjoy your ban
Apr 13 2013 12:40AM
2 0
profile picture
scandy101
Posts: 460 - Karma: 19
gay marriage was never banned, its more that the states havent changed their definition of marriage, you could argue that abortions are or are not a right, ridiculous prison sentences yup i agree with that one completely, some of our prison sentences are straight fucked. free public healthcare would be taking away a right. massive tuition? not republicans fault, quite the opposite, and how is that related to rights?

i dont see whats not free about it, other than prison sentences maybe.. and apart from MAYBE gay marriage, those arent republicans who are to blame...
Apr 13 2013 1:29AM
2 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
what?

where are the poor supposed to get healthcare?
Apr 13 2013 1:35AM
1 1
profile picture
scandy101
Posts: 460 - Karma: 19
our healthcare system as it is, blows. it definitely needs reform. as it is, you pretty much can get free healthcare. which is one of many reasons that healthcare is so ridiculously expensive, and unaffordable for the poor. ideally, healthcare would be much more affordable, and it would be extremely easy to get to that point if our government wasn't completely retarded.

free healthcare isnt a right, you dont have the right to other peoples money and services, both of which are required for free healthcare. you have a right to earn healthcare yourself without someone or the government stopping you.
Apr 13 2013 2:02AM
2 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
this is literally the most retarded thing i've ever heard.

seriously.

Apr 13 2013 3:12AM
1 1
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
so what does the broke person do when they get cancer?

Apr 13 2013 3:14AM
1 1
profile picture
scandy101
Posts: 460 - Karma: 19
why? you can literally walk into an ER without insurance and they cannot deny you care. we give illegals free care every day. its the primary care providers, specialists, etc.. that can deny care if you cant pay.

Apr 13 2013 3:22AM
2 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
you are so stupid it's unbelievable.
Apr 13 2013 3:31AM
1 1
profile picture
scandy101
Posts: 460 - Karma: 19
ok? thats fantastic, but im right.
Apr 13 2013 3:35AM
2 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
no. you aren't. every other developed country agrees.
Apr 13 2013 3:40AM
1 1
profile picture
scandy101
Posts: 460 - Karma: 19
what the fuck are you talking about? i was saying you can walk into an ER and not be denied care. what does that have to do with other developed countries agreeing with me?
Apr 13 2013 3:43AM
2 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
maybe answer my question. what should a broke person do when they get cancer?
Apr 13 2013 3:44AM
1 1
profile picture
scandy101
Posts: 460 - Karma: 19
with healthcare as it is now? go to an ER and get treatment.
Apr 13 2013 3:51AM
2 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
no. with it the way you want it.

(plus you just said that specialists can deny treatment if they can't pay).
Apr 13 2013 3:53AM
1 1
profile picture
scandy101
Posts: 460 - Karma: 19
ideally, for me, you would not be denied care for life threatening emergencies, as far as how to pay for it? well as it is now, hospitals cover that cost by charging more for other peoples treatments, they bill you until you pay it, if you dont pay it, they report you to collections, they may work with you to reduce the bill, find a payment program etc.. not a horrible system, but definitely not ideal.

Im open to the idea of taxes picking up the slack that patients "cant" but im not open to the idea of paying for other peoples full healthcare coverage. i pretty much believe you should be responsible for every bit of your healthcare, the service of healthcare is not a right. its when it becomes life threatening that im open to a more universal care approach, as at that point, you could argue that its your right to life (even though the right to life is just saying you have the right to not have your life taken from you) but at that point, your forcing doctors to provide service and someone else to pay for it.
Apr 13 2013 4:22AM
2 0
profile picture
scandy101
Posts: 460 - Karma: 19
ideally, for me, you would not be denied care for life threatening emergencies, as far as how to pay for it? well as it is now, hospitals cover that cost by charging more for other peoples treatments, they bill you until you pay it, if you dont pay it, they report you to collections, they may work with you to reduce the bill, find a payment program etc.. not a horrible system, but definitely not ideal.

Im open to the idea of taxes picking up the slack that patients "cant" but im not open to the idea of paying for other peoples full healthcare coverage. i pretty much believe you should be responsible for every bit of your healthcare, the service of healthcare is not a right. its when it becomes life threatening that im open to a more universal care approach, as at that point, you could argue that its your right to life (even though the right to life is just saying you have the right to not have your life taken from you) but at that point, your forcing doctors to provide service and someone else to pay for it.
Apr 13 2013 4:22AM
2 0
profile picture
scandy101
Posts: 460 - Karma: 19
ideally, for me, you would not be denied care for life threatening emergencies, as far as how to pay for it? well as it is now, hospitals cover that cost by charging more for other peoples treatments, they bill you until you pay it, if you dont pay it, they report you to collections, they may work with you to reduce the bill, find a payment program etc.. not a horrible system, but definitely not ideal.

Im open to the idea of taxes picking up the slack that patients "cant" but im not open to the idea of paying for other peoples full healthcare coverage. i pretty much believe you should be responsible for every bit of your healthcare, the service of healthcare is not a right. its when it becomes life threatening that im open to a more universal care approach, as at that point, you could argue that its your right to life (even though the right to life is just saying you have the right to not have your life taken from you) but at that point, your forcing doctors to provide service and someone else to pay for it.
Apr 13 2013 4:22AM
2 0
profile picture
scandy101
Posts: 460 - Karma: 19
woah posted that 3 times somehow, anyway, get this thread back on track, if you want to argue healthcare BS lets not do it here.
Apr 13 2013 4:26AM
2 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
please just go put a bullet in your head. I'm not kidding. I'm sure you have a gun nearby.
Apr 13 2013 4:29AM
1 4
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
Apr 13 2013 4:34AM
1 3
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
so there is an OBJECTIVE measurement which weapons are too dangerous and which arent? what is it? its too dangerous when you can kill more than what? 5 people by accident? 10? what about RPGs? landmines to protect your backyard?





go take a philosophy course and come back when you can argue like a grown up. its subjective what weapons should be outlawed. some people think all guns are ok, others think only smaller handguns and single shot hunting rifles should be available for "private" use. its really just an argument where each individual draws the line and its hilarious how all of you get so butthurt over chickens argument when there is NO factual argument around the whole topic.


if at all, most countries (obviously not right away) become safer without guns in circulation, but you guys wont believe me and read your horseshit made up statistics (i have seen em and discredited them).
Apr 13 2013 6:06AM
1 3
profile picture
Campeador
Posts: 7516 - Karma: -1,227
Whatever the hell you eat, you moss-eating pussy, I couldn't care less.

You should not be dishing out insults. Just one look at your profile clearly shows that you are the definition of a kook, hanging up surfboards around your apartment like they're trophies to be displayed. You are pathetic.

Certainly you wouldn't understand the right that free citizens have to own a gun, your country didn't even have its own constitution until 1982.
Apr 13 2013 7:52AM
3 2
All times are Eastern (-5)