Given we have the 2nd Amendment [Archive] - Debate Policy

Robert A Whit

07-13-2013, 04:51 PM

Who, other than me would approve the school teaching gun safety and shooting during the period of 8th grade to 10th grade? The school would supply guns and ammo and conduct course at a safe location.

Jeff

07-13-2013, 05:11 PM

Who, other than me would approve the school teaching gun safety and shooting during the period of 8th grade to 10th grade? The school would supply guns and ammo and conduct course at a safe location.

Robert here in the South by then most kids have been hunting and know much more safety about guns than many adults I know, my two youngest are 10 and 11 and they both can handle a gun safely and have been able to do so for quite some time, this may be a good idea for inner cities but the liberals would never let it happen

Robert A Whit

07-13-2013, 05:45 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=652053#post652053)
Who, other than me would approve the school teaching gun safety and shooting during the period of 8th grade to 10th grade? The school would supply guns and ammo and conduct course at a safe location.

Robert here in the South by then most kids have been hunting and know much more safety about guns than many adults I know, my two youngest are 10 and 11 and they both can handle a gun safely and have been able to do so for quite some time, this may be a good idea for inner cities but the liberals would never let it happen

Wouldn't that depend on where one lives in the south? What about cities in the South? I took my daughters out and taught them gun safety and the oldest spent a lot of time shooting at police ranges. But is that normal? As to the Libs, may they get skinned alive by some Wolverine.

Jeff

07-13-2013, 05:55 PM

Wouldn't that depend on where one lives in the south? What about cities in the South? I took my daughters out and taught them gun safety and the oldest spent a lot of time shooting at police ranges. But is that normal? As to the Libs, may they get skinned alive by some Wolverine.

Robert I am not sure about say Atlanta but I think the liberal part of the city wouldn't allow it to happen and that's to bad because gun safety is very important and I like you taught my kids at a very young age , my kids have shot guns many adults have never seen just to teach them safety , I mean guns are everywhere and maybe not at my house but maybe at there friends so it is important for kids to know

Larrymc

07-13-2013, 06:16 PM

Who, other than me would approve the school teaching gun safety and shooting during the period of 8th grade to 10th grade? The school would supply guns and ammo and conduct course at a safe location.Interesting Robert, Id say in our day maybe but, now lets hope that stays with a responsible parent.

glockmail

07-13-2013, 06:17 PM

Rifle/ shotgun shooting is part of the BSA curriculum, and boys typically do this around 12-14. I gave my son a head start by giving him his first pistol, a .22 Ruger bull barrel, when he turned 10. When he graduated HS I surprised him with a Remington 700, tactical length barrel, chambered in .223. For his 21st birthday I asked him what he wanted, and he asked for a Glock 23 Gen 4.

Kathianne

07-13-2013, 06:41 PM

Robert I am not sure about say Atlanta but I think the liberal part of the city wouldn't allow it to happen and that's to bad because gun safety is very important and I like you taught my kids at a very young age , my kids have shot guns many adults have never seen just to teach them safety , I mean guns are everywhere and maybe not at my house but maybe at there friends so it is important for kids to know Do you think the schools or parents should be teaching such? Personally, even during revolutionary and civil war times, pretty sure the schools stuck to the 3 r's. If only they did the same today.

aboutime

07-13-2013, 07:16 PM

Do you think the schools or parents should be teaching such? Personally, even during revolutionary and civil war times, pretty sure the schools stuck to the 3 r's. If only they did the same today.

Kathianne. Ya know? If you really think about your suggestion above. What would you say about the children now living in ghetto neighborhoods who carry weapons, and who have probably NEVER had the guidance of a parent to tell them to stick to the 3 r's? As if any of them had any idea what the 3 r's meant.
First. If they have parents. And I do mean real parents who love, and care for them. In today's world. It's probably far more important that children of those ages get some TRAINING, instead of learning the hard way on the street, being maimed, or even killed.
Look at cities like Chicago. How many children in that BATTLE TORN city even know there are 3 R'S?

Kathianne

07-13-2013, 07:22 PM

Kathianne. Ya know? If you really think about your suggestion above. What would you say about the children now living in ghetto neighborhoods who carry weapons, and who have probably NEVER had the guidance of a parent to tell them to stick to the 3 r's? As if any of them had any idea what the 3 r's meant. First. If they have parents. And I do mean real parents who love, and care for them. In today's world. It's probably far more important that children of those ages get some TRAINING, instead of learning the hard way on the street, being maimed, or even killed. Look at cities like Chicago. How many children in that BATTLE TORN city even know there are 3 R'S? AT. Really, I don't understand many of your pontifications, especially those you direct towards myself. This is one. You may post a snark, I really don't care. Time after time, you direct posts to particular posters, which are either a regurgitation of what they said, with some weird addendums or plain snark based on whether or not you like or agree with them. The few times you post your own opinions, I often agree with the take, but am not a cheerleader of your 'let me add on...'

aboutime

07-13-2013, 07:53 PM

AT. Really, I don't understand many of your pontifications, especially those you direct towards myself. This is one. You may post a snark, I really don't care. Time after time, you direct posts to particular posters, which are either a regurgitation of what they said, with some weird addendums or plain snark based on whether or not you like or agree with them. The few times you post your own opinions, I often agree with the take, but am not a cheerleader of your 'let me add on...'

If you honestly feel I have been snarky to you. I apologize. Seems no matter how I say anything here. You have to always take it in the near total, opposite way I intended.
Never expected you to be a cheerleader here. Somehow. Offering my opinion here will just never be accepted by some. That's too bad. Because, unless someone is totally out in Left Field with their statements. I give them the benefit of the doubt.
If you must feel as you do about what I say. Maybe you should just ignore me too!
Can't seem to win, for losing here. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Can't please anyone. Murphys law applies, Catch-22, and finally. FUBAR to everything. That seems to be the safest way to be.

Kathianne

07-13-2013, 08:12 PM

If you honestly feel I have been snarky to you. I apologize. Seems no matter how I say anything here. You have to always take it in the near total, opposite way I intended. Never expected you to be a cheerleader here. Somehow. Offering my opinion here will just never be accepted by some. That's too bad. Because, unless someone is totally out in Left Field with their statements. I give them the benefit of the doubt. If you must feel as you do about what I say. Maybe you should just ignore me too! Can't seem to win, for losing here. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Can't please anyone. Murphys law applies, Catch-22, and finally. FUBAR to everything. That seems to be the safest way to be. AT, you will have to take my posts the way they are. Others won't. You get this. Others no. If you want to put me on ignore, your loss. The above is my interpretation of how you respond. How I would respond and have for months if not years: AT, I'm sorry if I was too harsh in my response to you, I was trying to meet you in a way that you could understand my point of view also. Sometimes all of us respond in ways that annoy or make it difficult to be understood. I respect you and have thought you did me too. Truly, when you direct a response and name me, I feel you are being critical or taking over my position. Neither of these set well with me. While it may well be my problem, I thought you should know why I often respond negatively.

aboutime

07-13-2013, 08:28 PM

AT, you will have to take my posts the way they are. Others won't. You get this. Others no. If you want to put me on ignore, your loss. The above is my interpretation of how you respond. How I would respond and have for months if not years: AT, I'm sorry if I was too harsh in my response to you, I was trying to meet you in a way that you could understand my point of view also. Sometimes all of us respond in ways that annoy or make it difficult to be understood. I respect you and have thought you did me too. Truly, when you direct a response and name me, I feel you are being critical or taking over my position. Neither of these set well with me. While it may well be my problem, I thought you should know why I often respond negatively.

Kathianne. I honestly feel sorry for you. You thinking that YOU no longer posting, or answering me. Says all I need to hear from you.

And I was led to believe, and even reminded by other members here. To treat you differently, and nicely. You just spoiled that.

Jeff

07-13-2013, 09:01 PM

Do you think the schools or parents should be teaching such? Personally, even during revolutionary and civil war times, pretty sure the schools stuck to the 3 r's. If only they did the same today.

Kat in today's day and age where the Government is trying all it can do to outlaw guns yes to teach saftey in school I think would be a good idea,some parents have no idea themselves so if you had a experienced safety person to gibe advice it may help, I had a friend back in middle school that was at a friends house and they decided to play with a unloaded shot gun or so they thought , that boy died . if those boys had know the first thing you do when picking up a gun is make sure it is empty ( even if I have just cleaned a gun I drop the mag and slide it back to make sure there is nothing in there )

But of course parents should be teaching it at home but like I said some parents have no idea , we teach sex ed at school and yes I also try and teach my boys about sexat home as well

Kathianne

07-13-2013, 09:40 PM

Kat in today's day and age where the Government is trying all it can do to outlaw guns yes to teach saftey in school I think would be a good idea,some parents have no idea themselves so if you had a experienced safety person to gibe advice it may help, I had a friend back in middle school that was at a friends house and they decided to play with a unloaded shot gun or so they thought , that boy died . if those boys had know the first thing you do when picking up a gun is make sure it is empty ( even if I have just cleaned a gun I drop the mag and slide it back to make sure there is nothing in there ) But of course parents should be teaching it at home but like I said some parents have no idea , we teach sex ed at school and yes I also try and teach my boys about sexat home as well While I'm a strong advocate for the 2nd amendment, I disagree with you here. Schools should have no more input in gun safety or competence than in religious discussions. IMHO, they should have only the basics regarding sex ed and I blame parents for that. Facts, how conception occurs. What STD's are and how to avoid, What abortion is, at ever month. Why to abstain and effective birth control. I'm pretty sure that the average high school students can relate abortion month to month regarding the pregnancy cycle. Indeed, it may shock the media how much so.

gabosaurus

07-13-2013, 10:25 PM

Who, other than me would approve the school teaching gun safety and shooting during the period of 8th grade to 10th grade? The school would supply guns and ammo and conduct course at a safe location.

This opens way too many cans of worms to even consider. and has been thoroughly debated in several past threads.

Robert A Whit

07-14-2013, 12:18 AM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=652053#post652053)
Who, other than me would approve the school teaching gun safety and shooting during the period of 8th grade to 10th grade? The school would supply guns and ammo and conduct course at a safe location.

Interesting Robert, Id say in our day maybe but, now lets hope that stays with a responsible parent.

Autos present more danger than guns IMO. Driving ED was one of the courses we were taught. Some of us also joined the CA Cadet Corps, the state version of ROTC and were highly trained to use guns, including machine guns. I have long had a healthy respect for guns and the proper use of them. I believe we would have less gun deaths with proper training.

Marcus Aurelius

07-14-2013, 12:58 AM

Autos present more danger than guns IMO. Driving ED was one of the courses we were taught. Some of us also joined the CA Cadet Corps, the state version of ROTC and were highly trained to use guns, including machine guns. I have long had a healthy respect for guns and the proper use of them. I believe we would have less gun deaths with proper training.

 http://cadet.org/cms/lib6/CA03001308/Centricity/Domain/88/CR3_17_JAN_07.pdf

Rifles

Only smallbore rifles as defined in NRA Rule 3.2, “Any Rifle” (with metallic sights as defined in NRA Rule 3.7(a) or air rifles as defined in rule 4.2, Sporter Air Rifle, of the National Standard Three-Position Air Rifle Rules may be used.

Missileman

07-14-2013, 09:30 AM

Who, other than me would approve the school teaching gun safety and shooting during the period of 8th grade to 10th grade? The school would supply guns and ammo and conduct course at a safe location.

My school did run a hunter's safety course for those about to turn 16. They also provided a 20-guage shotgun and ammo and all of us got a couple shots at clay pigeons. This occurred a few decades ago though.

Missileman

07-14-2013, 09:34 AM

http://cadet.org/cms/lib6/CA03001308/Centricity/Domain/88/CR3_17_JAN_07.pdf

You do know that you'll have to dig up a 1940s, 50s or 60s manual if your intent is to impeach what he wrote?

Marcus Aurelius

07-14-2013, 10:28 AM

You do know that you'll have to dig up a 1940s, 50s or 60s manual if your intent is to impeach what he wrote?

Not necessarily. The response to the email I sent last night to Colonel Larry K. Morden, the current executive officer of the CCC, should suffice. I'll post it when I get it.

EDIT: Here's a 1951 manual. Skip through to page 107. Rifle marksmanship. Nothing in here about machine guns.
http://cadet.org/cms/lib6/CA03001308/Centricity/Domain/6/CDT_MANUAL_1951.pdf

Don't see any machine guns here...

52625263

EDIT: Now, there are lots of pieces online about actual ROTC machine gun training, but nada about the California Cadet Corps training with machine guns.

Robert A Whit

07-14-2013, 04:26 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=652053#post652053)
Who, other than me would approve the school teaching gun safety and shooting during the period of 8th grade to 10th grade? The school would supply guns and ammo and conduct course at a safe location.

My school did run a hunter's safety course for those about to turn 16. They also provided a 20-guage shotgun and ammo and all of us got a couple shots at clay pigeons. This occurred a few decades ago though.

I believe that in excess of 3,000 students were attending the high school. Maybe 3-6 classes daily were teaching the boys about the army. California had the California Cadet Corps, modeled on the ROTC or vice versa.

As students we were able to practice a lot with .22 cal target rifles since we had the range beneath one of the shop buildings on campus. Weekends and summers we could to to other ranges to fire machine guns for instance. Behind the University of California at Berkeley was a range that I believe was for the college ROTC where I fired machine guns one day.

We did not shoot shotguns. But the CCC courses were only taken by volunteers. I did it 2 years then went to playing high school football. My experience was from 1952-54.

I admit all that high school training proved invaluable when I was later drafted.

So, the vast majority in my school never were trained using firearms. Too bad too.

Robert A Whit

07-14-2013, 04:36 PM

You do know that you'll have to dig up a 1940s, 50s or 60s manual if your intent is to impeach what he wrote?

Um yeah. But the man is nuts and thinks shit like he pulls makes me look bad. It is himself he makes look bad.

As I posted moments ago, I was in the CCC circa 1952-54. At the school we were issued the 1906 30.06 army bolt action rifle. I can't recall firing it. Maybe I did but I don't recall.

I do recall firing target .22 cal rifles during range practice. We had the range beneath a wood shop. We also had our class room beneath that same building. Much of our time was spent learning military lessons. I happened to go to Fort San Louis Obispo in CA for 2 weeks Army training.

California has changed greatly since my days in the CCC and i have not kept up with those changes. I explained in a past post where I fired the machine guns. I fired on that day the .30 cal machine gun, the .50 cal machine gun and a .45 cal machine gun nicknamed the grease gun.

On active duty, I fired other machine guns but not the .50 cal on active duty. We did not have grease guns when i was on active duty since we had more modern machine guns on active duty such as the M-60 machine gun that I was very fond of shooting.

Robert A Whit

07-14-2013, 04:43 PM

Not necessarily. The response to the email I sent last night to Colonel Larry K. Morden, the current executive officer of the CCC, should suffice. I'll post it when I get it.

EDIT: Here's a 1951 manual. Skip through to page 107. Rifle marksmanship. Nothing in here about machine guns.
http://cadet.org/cms/lib6/CA03001308/Centricity/Domain/6/CDT_MANUAL_1951.pdf

Don't see any machine guns here...

52625263

EDIT: Now, there are lots of pieces online about actual ROTC machine gun training, but nada about the California Cadet Corps training with machine guns.

Nobody said we as CCC students TRAINED using machine guns.

Behind the campus of the university of CA at Berkeley in a area called Wild cat canyon there was a range, which probably was for the university ROTC classes where on one occasion we were bussed to that range and fired one time some machine guns.

I wish I understood Marcus vendetta. The man is seriously suffering mental problems.

Again, at the high school we fired .22 cal target rifles. Someone had put some rounds through heavy steel plate though I did not. The plate was to divert the .22 cal bullets downwards to the dirt. And the building was next to a creek and two story construction.

A mother fucker who will write to the current CCC commandant has to be flat out bathit crazy.

Hey Marcus, in case you don't yet get it, there are many comments made by many posters you can get busy trying to piss all over.

Your damage to this forum is plainly awful.

Now watch About Time chime in.

Robert A Whit

07-14-2013, 04:46 PM

Who, other than me would approve the school teaching gun safety and shooting during the period of 8th grade to 10th grade? The school would supply guns and ammo and conduct course at a safe location.*

hjmick

07-14-2013, 04:55 PM

Do you think the schools or parents should be teaching such? Personally, even during revolutionary and civil war times, pretty sure the schools stuck to the 3 r's. If only they did the same today.

The three Rs...

Does anyone else find it amusing that of the "Three Rs" only one of them starts with an "r?"

As to the topic of this thread...

Were my children still in the age group being discussed, I would no more want a school to teach them about firearms than I would want said school to teach them about a particular religion or political ideology.

Some things are and should remain the responsibility and purview of the parents, not the schools and certainly not the government.

Robert A Whit

07-14-2013, 05:01 PM

The three Rs...

Does anyone else find it amusing that of the "Three Rs" only one of them starts with an "r?"

As to the topic of this thread...

Were my children still in the age group being discussed, I would no more want a school to teach them about firearms than I would want said school to teach them about a particular religion or political ideology.

Some things are and should remain the responsibility and purview of the parents, not the schools and certainly not the government.

My parents approved my high school training so much they knew experts would teach me gun use and safety.

But keep in mind that I did not state that the rest of the students got that training since only a few of us were in the Calif Cadet Corps in 52-54. My parents alsos approved 2 weeks of military training I took at Ft. San Louis Obispo. There I simply can't recall firing any weapons.

red state

07-14-2013, 05:03 PM

You know, it is an outright shame that some of our members with a more liberal mindset are open to some things (other than the 3R's such as SEX EDUCATION) yet closed minded and intolerant of others's who feel that the more a child can learn, the better for that child. Our children would benefit greatly if a well rounded education actually taught history and other subjects (to include culture of ALL people and "theories" of all sciences).

What is wrong with our schools is that we have not only turned a back on TRUE education but we've reverted to indoctrinating our kids. As we've seen here, some of our teachers seem to attack other's opinions/heritage/faith. When we actually taught our kids and had gun classes, we were a stronger, more civil Nation for the most part. Yes, we had things we had to fix but we've come a long way in fixing those problems in our society while worsening/weakening other areas that should have been left alone. Shooting, as with archery, is a SPORT and it would be to the Nation's benefit to teach ALL things that could benefit our military, our society and our individuality.

I would be all for our children being taught ALL religions, ALL history, ALL science and have all the opportunities that our athletics dept. COULD offer (if not for the liberal movement. Instead of a child knowing basic skills to survive a catastrophe or to save a life, we are teaching them how to rubberize a cucumber and that is not only WRONG....it is a tragedy.

And for the record, I do hope my spelling and grammar has crossed all the I's and dotted all of the T's. I'd hate to offend anyone within this PC world or ours.

Robert A Whit

07-14-2013, 05:11 PM

Autos present more danger than guns IMO. Driving ED was one of the courses we were taught. Some of us also joined the CA Cadet Corps, the state version of ROTC and were highly trained to use guns, including machine guns. I have long had a healthy respect for guns and the proper use of them. I believe we would have less gun deaths with proper training.

God damn him. This must be my comment he turned purple with rage over to the point he says he wrote to the state commandant of the CCC.

I am sick of the ultra high standards my comments are held to, though others can say any damned thing they want to say and Marcus leaves them alone.

I said we were trained to use guns. I know for certain I said we shot the .22 cal target rifle at high school were I also stated the school had a range.

Though I shot some machine guns on a field trip where the school bussed us to Wildcat Canyon, the few shots I fired from those machine guns were only training to the extent we were instructed in their use and how to fire them.

I have no fucking clue if the Major commanding the class had some such rule or not. All I know is I shot machine guns one Saturday in Berkeley CA and nobody in a sane mind should make this an issue for me to keep defending myself.

red state

07-14-2013, 05:16 PM

Bottom Line: We've had gun classes/clubs within the larger schools (back in the day) and we've had guns (a another member pointed out having in some of the smaller schools...via the Game & Fish Agencies). I don't recall EVER an "incident" that would cause fear in those who are either too ignorant regarding guns or simply intolerant in allowing others to exercise their freedom (along with those who would exercise ONLY their ideology). Today, many schools (both large and small) have archery and the last time I checked, archery involves weapons that can kill. As another member pointed out, we have driver's ed and I believe automobiles kill many more Americans than guns ever thought about killing. Of course, those of us with ANY sense, realize that automobiles nor guns kill anyone....it is people operating such "tools" that kill.

BOTTOM LINE...

hjmick

07-14-2013, 05:40 PM

My parents approved my high school training so much they knew experts would teach me gun use and safety.

But keep in mind that I did not state that the rest of the students got that training since only a few of us were in the Calif Cadet Corps in 52-54. My parents alsos approved 2 weeks of military training I took at Ft. San Louis Obispo. There I simply can't recall firing any weapons.

The benefits of coming up in a, some would say, simpler time.

It's sometimes amusing to think about the changes in childhood experiences across the generations. Sometimes it's just damn sad.

Robert A Whit

07-14-2013, 06:41 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=652254#post652254)
My parents approved my high school training so much they knew experts would teach me gun use and safety.

But keep in mind that I did not state that the rest of the students got that training since only a few of us were in the Calif Cadet Corps in 52-54. My parents alsos approved 2 weeks of military training I took at Ft. San Louis Obispo. There I simply can't recall firing any weapons.

The benefits of coming up in a, some would say, simpler time.

It's sometimes amusing to think about the changes in childhood experiences across the generations. Sometimes it's just damn sad.

Mom's brother was killed in the first few days of the Korean War. Given "Gene" had survived the hell of war in the Pacific and happened to be based in Japan when the North Koreans invaded, Mom was wary of my time in military training. She showed no resistance to my quitting the CCC.

But to your point ... yes, all over this land, people were raised the same in many ways yet with differences depending on where you were raised. Had I grew up in a huge city, no doubt that could have changed me. I came from country stock and still consider myself a lot more country than city.

Marcus Aurelius

07-14-2013, 11:32 PM

[/COLOR]

God damn him. This must be my comment he turned purple with rage over to the point he says he wrote to the state commandant of the CCC.

I am sick of the ultra high standards my comments are held to, though others can say any damned thing they want to say and Marcus leaves them alone.

I said we were trained to use guns. I know for certain I said we shot the .22 cal target rifle at high school were I also stated the school had a range.

Though I shot some machine guns on a field trip where the school bussed us to Wildcat Canyon, the few shots I fired from those machine guns were only training to the extent we were instructed in their use and how to fire them.

I have no fucking clue if the Major commanding the class had some such rule or not. All I know is I shot machine guns one Saturday in Berkeley CA and nobody in a sane mind should make this an issue for me to keep defending myself.

So, essentially, you lied when you said...

... the CA Cadet Corps, the state version of ROTC and were highly trained to use guns, including machine guns....

You were not 'highly trained to use machine guns' by your own admission.

Note... had you not embellished your statement to say you were 'highly trained' on machine guns in the CCC, I'd have left it alone. Think, before you post.

Robert A Whit

07-15-2013, 09:31 AM

If you honestly feel I have been snarky to you. I apologize. Seems no matter how I say anything here. You have to always take it in the near total, opposite way I intended.
Never expected you to be a cheerleader here. Somehow. Offering my opinion here will just never be accepted by some. That's too bad. Because, unless someone is totally out in Left Field with their statements. I give them the benefit of the doubt.
If you must feel as you do about what I say. Maybe you should just ignore me too!
Can't seem to win, for losing here. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Can't please anyone. Murphys law applies, Catch-22, and finally. FUBAR to everything. That seems to be the safest way to be.

Few object to your topics that are not rants about posters.

Sadly like dog turds in the park, you leave them around. And it won't end.

Topics = OK
Your snarky comments about posters = NOT OK

Marcus Aurelius

07-15-2013, 09:55 AM

Few object to your topics that are not rants about posters.

Sadly like dog turds in the park, you leave them around. And it won't end.

Topics = OK
Your snarky comments about posters = NOT OK

off topic.

aboutime

07-15-2013, 01:20 PM

Few object to your topics that are not rants about posters.

Sadly like dog turds in the park, you leave them around. And it won't end.

Topics = OK
Your snarky comments about posters = NOT OK

Robert. Please read what I said below again. If you got what I tried to say as nothing more than a rant.

I feel sorry. I mean, really, really sorry for you.

I suggest you either Visit a Psychiatrist, or find another Forum where everyone will absolutely LOVE YOU, no matter how dumb you sound.

Robert A Whit

07-15-2013, 01:58 PM

Robert. Please read what I said below again. If you got what I tried to say as nothing more than a rant.

I feel sorry. I mean, really, really sorry for you.

I suggest you either Visit a Psychiatrist, or find another Forum where everyone will absolutely LOVE YOU, no matter how dumb you sound.

That is true sit down comedy. Thanks for the laugh.

Marcus Aurelius

07-15-2013, 02:01 PM

That is true sit down comedy. Thanks for the laugh.

really? After being warned by a mod?

aboutime

07-15-2013, 03:34 PM

That is true sit down comedy. Thanks for the laugh.

IF YOU WANT TO CALL "BEING SERIOUS AS A HEART ATTACK" sit down comedy. You are proving my point.

Robert A Whit

07-15-2013, 04:13 PM

IF YOU WANT TO CALL "BEING SERIOUS AS A HEART ATTACK" sit down comedy. You are proving my point.

Can't tell with you. Me, I prefer you have that heart attack you mentioned. So, you qui9t being funny eh?

Marcus Aurelius

07-15-2013, 04:15 PM

Can't tell with you. Me, I prefer you have that heart attack you mentioned. So, you qui9t being funny eh?

That, should be grounds for a thread ban.

aboutime

07-15-2013, 04:21 PM

That, should be grounds for a thread ban.

Marcus. Can't really say I'm surprised with that. Besides. I'm two Heart Attacks ahead of him.

jimnyc

07-15-2013, 04:30 PM

Another thread going down the crapper. If some that fight literally day in and day out cannot learn to ignore one another, and make the place readable for others, I will help it along. Robert and Marcus removed from thread. Aboutime, please, don't inject yourself into the fights and become part of this, unless in the cage of course. I don't want to get involved, or thread ban people, but this is too much anymore.

red state

07-15-2013, 04:45 PM

I'm still relatively new (in my opinion) to DP and the policies but what exactly is the cage and how long does a thread ban in a cage last. Also, if you place M & R in a cage....is it together and can they say or do anything they want to each other while in the cage. When I first came to DP, I thought the cage was just another personal ONE on ONE debate match up but now it seems that is not the case. I do hate when a thread is derailed...especially good ones. Sorry to see either go on this one cuz I've enjoyed some of their posts in the past. Surely a thread ban isn't a perma ban to that particular thread. A day seems fair but it is Jim's site and it is a pretty darn good one so maybe whatever it takes is exactly what the doc ordered.

hjmick

07-15-2013, 05:10 PM

Another thread going down the crapper. If some that fight literally day in and day out cannot learn to ignore one another, and make the place readable for others, I will help it along. Robert and Marcus removed from thread. Aboutime, please, don't inject yourself into the fights and become part of this, unless in the cage of course. I don't want to get involved, or thread ban people, but this is too much anymore.

Shit, I have my issues with R.A.W., but I am still quite able to have a civil exchange with the old guy from time to time. Some days he just rubs me the wrong way. The problem is probably as much mine as his. I see no need to seek out or continue the confrontations...

jimnyc

07-15-2013, 05:40 PM

I'm still relatively new (in my opinion) to DP and the policies but what exactly is the cage and how long does a thread ban in a cage last. Also, if you place M & R in a cage....is it together and can they say or do anything they want to each other while in the cage. When I first came to DP, I thought the cage was just another personal ONE on ONE debate match up but now it seems that is not the case. I do hate when a thread is derailed...especially good ones. Sorry to see either go on this one cuz I've enjoyed some of their posts in the past. Surely a thread ban isn't a perma ban to that particular thread. A day seems fair but it is Jim's site and it is a pretty darn good one so maybe whatever it takes is exactly what the doc ordered.

The cage is just a forum down towards the bottom. We request that if people MUST fight, to please keep it in that forum, so as not to ruin good threads, and so that others can avoid it if they choose to. It's just another forum, like politics, or current events, or the lounge. This allows members to both post politically, and have a place to go if they must fight and want to get something off of their chest. But if they ruin good threads instead of taking it to the cage, then we remove them from the 'good' thread, which is permanent. Keep in mind, they easily have the right to participate in the good threads AND go to the cage. It is their CHOICE to fight in places and ruin otherwise good threads for others.

glockmail

07-15-2013, 08:58 PM

Oh man Robert shits on another one. :laugh:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-16-2013, 09:59 AM

The 2nd Amendment has already been downsized. Too many restrictions are already in place and truthfully none of them are legal. Allowing all the previous restrictions is exactly what has given our government the idea that it can now just decide to confiscate our guns and make no mistake taking the guns is their plan! They took the guns in Germany first and then abolished the previous government to install the glorious reign of Hitler. Same thing is in the works here folks.. They take our guns and then they announce the Constitution null and void. What we going to do, fight them with shovels and brooms? History is important because it teaches us what can happen and how and why it often comes to pass that it does happen!--Tyr

aboutime

07-16-2013, 01:25 PM

5271 Most of us still have it. Nobody can take it away.

red state

07-16-2013, 05:56 PM

The cage is just a forum down towards the bottom. We request that if people MUST fight, to please keep it in that forum, so as not to ruin good threads, and so that others can avoid it if they choose to. It's just another forum, like politics, or current events, or the lounge. This allows members to both post politically, and have a place to go if they must fight and want to get something off of their chest. But if they ruin good threads instead of taking it to the cage, then we remove them from the 'good' thread, which is permanent. Keep in mind, they easily have the right to participate in the good threads AND go to the cage. It is their CHOICE to fight in places and ruin otherwise good threads for others.

Thanks Jim...now I know for sure. The one on one debate is what I liked most about this site last year but folks rarely use it and that's OK but I have had a great time reading them....perhaps I was not reading a one on one tho and was merely following a cage fight. I distinctly remember the white, skunk haired avatar from one of the characters on Sopranos....can't recall his name (or who he was fighting). It may have been DMP.

Anyway, thanks for getting back to me....that's a good part of the site as well (instead of ban someone for two weeks for NOTHING really).

jimnyc

07-16-2013, 06:05 PM

Thanks Jim...now I know for sure. The one on one debate is what I liked most about this site last year but folks rarely use it and that's OK but I have had a great time reading them....perhaps I was not reading a one on one tho and was merely following a cage fight. I distinctly remember the white, skunk haired avatar from one of the characters on Sopranos....can't recall his name (or who he was fighting). It may have been DMP.

Anyway, thanks for getting back to me....that's a good part of the site as well (instead of ban someone for two weeks for NOTHING really).

The skunk was a former member named "OCA", who lived for fighting and being in the cage.

red state

07-16-2013, 06:08 PM

The skunk was a former member named "OCA", who lived for fighting and being in the cage.
Well, I know this is all off topic but who was the other skunk? Was my memory spot on regarding the other one?