jakee 1,594 #26 December 4, 2008 QuoteRe: see absolutely nothing... Because he says so in the quote in the news story. I don't see how you could have missed it. Oh really? Please, Joan, quote the part of his post that says that. I dare you. (I know you won't though, because it doesn't exist.)Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #27 December 4, 2008 QuoteI didn't answer because you didn't have any valid point. Ditka's political affiliation is irrelevant. It's his actions that are in question. The fact is, he's calling for a gun ban against all NFL players, because of an accident by just one of them. Do you think that's a proper response? Yes or no? I'm really not sure yet. Remember, I'm one of those guys who is not an ideologue on either side of the gun debate. My gauge as to the whether or not Ditka's response is reasonable is informed by Ditka's motivation. But since he's a self-described "ultra-ultra conservative" who actively stumped for Palin, I'm kind of intrigued as to what would make an ultra-conservative take a seemingly anti-gun stand. You may deem it irrelevant; I don't. QuoteInstead of concentrating on attacking JohnRich,... I'm not part of that crowd. When I think you're being reasonable, I call it that way; when I think you're fulla beans, I call it that way, too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #28 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote It depends. Lots of sensible, responsible people have accidents. That doesn't necessarily make them irresponsible nuts just because they had one accident. It would take a long record of such acts to prove that. Besides, if you're going to brand everyone who has ever had a single accident as irresponsible nuts, then we all fit that definition. I'm not going to judge a man by one mistake. No, I'm not going to judge a man by one mistake either, but this was not PB's first major error in judgement. Also, this incident was not just one mistake. He had an expired FL carry permit. That tells me he took the class and should have understood the do's and don't's of legal carry. #1 New York City has very strict and well known rules on guns. #2 Carrying a gun and going out drinking (unless he was only drinking soda) don't mix. Ever. #3 Sticking a loaded pistol into the waistband of your pants is not a safe way to carry. Sweatpants is even stupider. #4 Grabbing a pistol through clothing so that it doesn't go off isn't too difficult if you know your gun well. Glocks only go off when the trigger is pulled. I only know what I've seen on ESPN, but if it slipped, and went off as he was grabbing it, he really needs some basic gun handling training. I'm fully in favor of responsible, trained individuals being allowed to have the means to defend themselves. I don't see this as a "gun rights" issue. I see this as a criminal issue, and a stupidity issue."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #29 December 4, 2008 Too bad PB can't be charged with "criminal stupidity".HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wolfriverjoe 1,523 #30 December 4, 2008 QuoteToo bad PB can't be charged with "criminal stupidity". There are far too many people that are guilty of that charge. The courts are already backed up and the prisons are overcrowded. Fortunately, the stupid ones generally get caught for something else."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #31 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteIt's his actions that are in question. The fact is, he's calling for a gun ban against all NFL players, because of an accident by just one of them. Do you think that's a proper response? Yes or no? I'm really not sure yet... Well, that's about as wishy-washy as you can get. Anytime someone is trying to ban something from a large number of responsible law-abiding citizens, because some other person did something wrong with it, I'm against it. Period. There's no wishy-washiness to it. It doesn't much matter what the object is, it's the principle of it. Punishing the innocent is never the right thing to do. I don't see how you can be "not sure" about that. Apparently part of you thinks that punishing people who haven't done anything wrong is the right thing to do! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,594 #32 December 4, 2008 QuoteAnytime someone is trying to ban something from a large number of responsible law-abiding citizens, because some other person did something wrong with it, I'm against it. Period. There's no wishy-washiness to it. It doesn't much matter what the object is, it's the principle of it. Punishing the innocent is never the right thing to do. I don't see how you can be "not sure" about that. Apparently part of you thinks that punishing people who haven't done anything wrong is the right thing to do! Y'know, it's great to have principles and all, but seriously dude, no one on this thread has actually advocated the ban that you're talking about. I have literally no idea why you thought you needed to defend against something no-one had said. It's like a drunk guy at a bar accusing random passers by of "Lookin' at my woman!" He want's a fight about something and doesn't mind if he has to manufacture the circumstances that are going to lead to one.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #33 December 4, 2008 Quote Y'know, it's great to have principles and all, but seriously dude, no one on this thread has actually advocated the ban that you're talking about. I have literally no idea why you thought you needed to defend against something no-one had said. Uh, Mike Ditka did exactly that. And that's what is being discussed. We're not talking about a bit player in the world of the NFL. We're talking about Iron Mike. That may be lost on the non Americans here. Consider him on par with the Maradonnas of the futbol world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #34 December 4, 2008 Quote Consider him on par with the Maradonnas of the futbol world. You're kidding, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #35 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuote Y'know, it's great to have principles and all, but seriously dude, no one on this thread has actually advocated the ban that you're talking about. I have literally no idea why you thought you needed to defend against something no-one had said. Uh, Mike Ditka did exactly that. And that's what is being discussed. We're not talking about a bit player in the world of the NFL. We're talking about Iron Mike. That may be lost on the non Americans here. Consider him on par with the Maradonnas of the futbol world. What Jakee is referring to is how John somehow read into my OP that I was wanting to ban a person or group of people from owning guns. In my post I never, not once, suggested anything of the sort. While I feel PB has shown himself to be too irresponsible to be allowed to carry a gun, I didn't mention even that until after John suggested i wanted to ban all athletes from carrying.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #36 December 4, 2008 Quote Well, that's about as wishy-washy as you can get. Whoa. Good thing I'm not in Texas right now, or I'd call that a challenge, Pardner. (mandatory ) Quote Apparently part of you thinks... Please. That kind of baiting only works on ordinary mortals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,594 #37 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuote Y'know, it's great to have principles and all, but seriously dude, no one on this thread has actually advocated the ban that you're talking about. I have literally no idea why you thought you needed to defend against something no-one had said. Uh, Mike Ditka did exactly that. And that's what is being discussed. Mike Ditka has not posted on this thread. Check out how John dragged him into the conversation. It makes absolutely no sense.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #38 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote Y'know, it's great to have principles and all, but seriously dude, no one on this thread has actually advocated the ban that you're talking about. I have literally no idea why you thought you needed to defend against something no-one had said. Uh, Mike Ditka did exactly that. And that's what is being discussed. Mike Ditka has not posted on this thread. Check out how John dragged him into the conversation. It makes absolutely no sense. Of course, I don't think Chuck Norris posts on here either, but by God we invoke His Name all the time. Q: What does Mike Ditka eat for breakfast? A: ANYTHING HE FUCKIN' WANTS!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #39 December 5, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Y'know, it's great to have principles and all, but seriously dude, no one on this thread has actually advocated the ban that you're talking about. I have literally no idea why you thought you needed to defend against something no-one had said. Uh, Mike Ditka did exactly that. And that's what is being discussed. Mike Ditka has not posted on this thread. Check out how John dragged him into the conversation. It makes absolutely no sense. Of course, I don't think Chuck Norris posts on here either, but by God we invoke His Name all the time. Q: What does Mike Ditka eat for breakfast? A: ANYTHING HE FUCKIN' WANTS Chuck Norris Lets Him!! Fixed it for ya. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hollypocket 0 #40 December 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteIf there were such a thing as an "Almost-Darwin Award" for those who not quite finish themselves off in a really stupid manner, serious consideration would have to be given to Plaxico Burress for shooting himself in the leg. As I heard on the radio: IF you feel it neccessary to carry a gun into a nightclub...it is probably not worth going into. IF people wear sweat pants into a nightclub...it is probably not worth going into. IF you are so stupid as to carry a loaded gun in the waistband of your sweat pants...you probably deserve to get shot in the leg. Or between them. Why do so many professional athletes, who have the world at their feet, throw their careers and lives away for nothing??? How did this guy ever get through college???? Michigan State! Most of the big sports colleges and universities have special rules for "special" people. Special is right!!!!\\> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #41 December 5, 2008 QuoteWhile I feel PB has shown himself to be too irresponsible to be allowed to carry a gun, I didn't mention even that until after John suggested i wanted to ban all athletes from carrying. I've been talking about Ditka wanting to ban gun ownership from football players, not you. Somewhere along the way, those wires apparently got crossed. Jakee seems confused about this too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #42 December 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteY'know, it's great to have principles and all, but seriously dude, no one on this thread has actually advocated the ban that you're talking about. I have literally no idea why you thought you needed to defend against something no-one had said. Uh, Mike Ditka did exactly that. And that's what is being discussed. Mike Ditka has not posted on this thread. Check out how John dragged him into the conversation. It makes absolutely no sense. You apparently don't understand how these conversations work. The thread started with the talk about the football player who had an accidental discharge of his gun, injuring himself. Mike Ditka made a comment about that accident, which makes it a fair subject to introduce into the discussion. They're related - get it? Therefore, it makes perfect sense. It also got sidetracked for a while with people talking about comparable salaries of coaches and teachers. But I didn't see you griping about that as irrelevant. And of course, you, nor anyone else, gets to control what happens in these threads - they just go where they want to go based upon the participants. So either ride along, or if you don't like it, hop off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,594 #43 December 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteY'know, it's great to have principles and all, but seriously dude, no one on this thread has actually advocated the ban that you're talking about. I have literally no idea why you thought you needed to defend against something no-one had said. Uh, Mike Ditka did exactly that. And that's what is being discussed. Mike Ditka has not posted on this thread. Check out how John dragged him into the conversation. It makes absolutely no sense. You apparently don't understand how these conversations work. The thread started with the talk about the football player who had an accidental discharge of his gun, injuring himself. Mike Ditka made a comment about that accident, which makes it a fair subject to introduce into the discussion. They're related - get it? Therefore, it makes perfect sense. And of course, you, nor anyone else, gets to control what happens in these threads - they just go where they want to go based upon the participants. So either ride along, or if you don't like it, hop off. You apparently don't listen, but that's no great shock. It's the manner in which you brought him into the thread, using him to counter suggestions that had not even been made. The accusatory questions you asked of the OP had no basis in what had been written by him or anyone else. You were responding to something that simply wasn't there.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #44 December 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteY'know, it's great to have principles and all, but seriously dude, no one on this thread has actually advocated the ban that you're talking about. I have literally no idea why you thought you needed to defend against something no-one had said. Uh, Mike Ditka did exactly that. And that's what is being discussed. Mike Ditka has not posted on this thread. Check out how John dragged him into the conversation. It makes absolutely no sense. You apparently don't understand how these conversations work. The thread started with the talk about the football player who had an accidental discharge of his gun, injuring himself. Mike Ditka made a comment about that accident, which makes it a fair subject to introduce into the discussion. They're related - get it? Therefore, it makes perfect sense. And of course, you, nor anyone else, gets to control what happens in these threads - they just go where they want to go based upon the participants. So either ride along, or if you don't like it, hop off. You apparently don't listen, but that's no great shock. It's the manner in which you brought him into the thread, using him to counter suggestions that had not even been made. The accusatory questions you asked of the OP had no basis in what had been written by him or anyone else. You were responding to something that simply wasn't there. Exactly right. The OP was about someone handling a firearm without using his brain. It had nothing to do with gun control laws.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #45 December 5, 2008 QuoteThe OP was about someone handling a firearm without using his brain. It had nothing to do with gun control laws. You made that OP, and then in message #3 you were already off on your own tangent about how the football team was more important than the student body. Then in message #6 you started talking about how important the coaches were. jakee's first entry in the thread was in message #11, talking about wreaths and chicken feathers. None of those subjects from the two of you had anything to do with the original topic either. I love irony. You guys are guilty of your own complaint! Apparently you weren't too concerned about things straying off-topic, because you were causing it yourself. You jump on me because I talk about a suggested gun-control proposal offered in response to an accidental shooting, saying that's too far off-topic. Meanwhile, you guys are talking about the football coach's salary and chicken feather wreaths. And you consider that to be on-point? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #46 December 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe OP was about someone handling a firearm without using his brain. It had nothing to do with gun control laws. You made that OP, and then in message #3 you were already off on your own tangent about how the football team was more important than the student body. Then in message #6 you started talking about how important the coaches were. jakee's first entry in the thread was in message #11, talking about wreaths and chicken feathers. None of those subjects from the two of you had anything to do with the original topic either. I love irony. You guys are guilty of your own complaint! Apparently you weren't too concerned about things straying off-topic, because you were causing it yourself. But somehow when I do it, it's a horrible tragedy. Ha! Kallend made the second post, which directly addressed the question I asked about how PB got through college. He also made a remark that is directly related to college sports when he talked about coaches salaries. Jakee's comment on laurels was a direct link to that post by Kallend. Nobody went off on a tangent, the conversation stayed on the subject of how someone with so few brain cells could get through college. Your post, on the other hand, asked me if i wanted to do something that wasn't related either to my original post nor any susequent posts.. QuoteDo you want to deny guns from all sports players, because of an incident by just one? I am still waiting for you to explain where you got the idea that i was even suggesting such a thing. Not everybody is trying to take your guns away, John. (I'm a life NRA member, remember?)HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #47 December 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteDo you want to deny guns from all sports players, because of an incident by just one? I am still waiting for you to explain where you got the idea that i was even suggesting such a thing. I didn't say you were suggesting it. I said Mike Ditka suggested it. Then I asked you if you thought it was a good idea. That's not pointing an accusing finger at you - it's asking for your opinion. Why don't you just answer the question? Yes or No? With a simple two or three letter answer, you can be done with it and end this silly evasiveness. Have you been taking debating lessons from kallend? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #48 December 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteDo you want to deny guns from all sports players, because of an incident by just one? I am still waiting for you to explain where you got the idea that i was even suggesting such a thing. I didn't say you were suggesting it. I said Mike Ditka suggested it. Then I asked you if you thought it was a good idea. That's not pointing an accusing finger at you - it's asking for your opinion. Why don't you just answer the question? Yes or No? With a simple two or three letter answer, you can be done with it and end this silly evasiveness. Have you been taking debating lessons from kallend? I didn't answer it because it was totally out of place, like something you dragged in from left field. Like I said, there was no mention of taking any guns from anyone (except Mr. Shot Myself) until you posted your item that had as much to do with the topic as the speed limit outside the club he was at. So, to answer your question and maybe help you relax a tad, NO, I don't think we should take guns away from athletes because some brainless idiot shot himself. We should only prevent PB from carrying concealed ever again since he has proven he can't handle the reponsibility that goes with it. As easy as it is to point a pistol in the wrong direction, we should be grateful he didn't shoot someone else. Accidents don't "just happen". They are the end result of a chain of events that can be stopped at many different links if people are careful. As far as I am concerned there is absolutely no excuse...NONE!...for firearms accidents. Now, since I went off topic and answered you question, can we please return to the discussion of how athletes with no brains get through college. Your input would be welcome. There are plenty of gun control threads you can post to.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #49 December 5, 2008 QuoteNO, I don't think we should take guns away from athletes because some brainless idiot shot himself. There, that wasn't so hard, was it? I'll bet it didn't hurt a bit to say that. QuoteNow, since I went off topic and answered you question, can we please return to the discussion of how athletes with no brains get through college. Okay, sticking exactly to your own first thread-starter posting #1, regarding gun accidents and education levels, I have a few more questions: Do you think that people who are smart enough to get through college never have any firearm accidents? Or do only non-college grads have accidental gun discharges? And if so, should a college degree be a required prerequisite to gun ownership? Do they teach gun safety as a mandatory required course in college, like English 101? What is it about patrons wearing sweat pants that would make a nightclub unfit to visit? That nightclub (details here) has a $30 cover charge, and to get a table, there is a minimum one-bottle limit, where a bottle of Absolut vodka will cost you $275. Don't you think that will kind of keep the rif-raf out, regardless of whether or not they're wearing sweat pants? And finally, why do stupid people deserve to have their balls shot off? Wouldn't education be a less drastic remedial measure than castration? I hope you'll entertain those question with answers, since they pertain precisely to points which you mentioned in your own message which started this thread. Thank you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #50 December 6, 2008 Quote That nightclub (details here) has a $30 cover charge, and to get a table, there is a minimum one-bottle limit, where a bottle of Absolut vodka will cost you $275. Don't you think that will kind of keep the rif-raf out, regardless of whether or not they're wearing sweat pants? This incident clearly shows that exorbitant prices don't keep rif-raf out.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Belgian_Draft 0 #29 December 4, 2008 Too bad PB can't be charged with "criminal stupidity".HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #30 December 4, 2008 QuoteToo bad PB can't be charged with "criminal stupidity". There are far too many people that are guilty of that charge. The courts are already backed up and the prisons are overcrowded. Fortunately, the stupid ones generally get caught for something else."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #31 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteIt's his actions that are in question. The fact is, he's calling for a gun ban against all NFL players, because of an accident by just one of them. Do you think that's a proper response? Yes or no? I'm really not sure yet... Well, that's about as wishy-washy as you can get. Anytime someone is trying to ban something from a large number of responsible law-abiding citizens, because some other person did something wrong with it, I'm against it. Period. There's no wishy-washiness to it. It doesn't much matter what the object is, it's the principle of it. Punishing the innocent is never the right thing to do. I don't see how you can be "not sure" about that. Apparently part of you thinks that punishing people who haven't done anything wrong is the right thing to do! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #32 December 4, 2008 QuoteAnytime someone is trying to ban something from a large number of responsible law-abiding citizens, because some other person did something wrong with it, I'm against it. Period. There's no wishy-washiness to it. It doesn't much matter what the object is, it's the principle of it. Punishing the innocent is never the right thing to do. I don't see how you can be "not sure" about that. Apparently part of you thinks that punishing people who haven't done anything wrong is the right thing to do! Y'know, it's great to have principles and all, but seriously dude, no one on this thread has actually advocated the ban that you're talking about. I have literally no idea why you thought you needed to defend against something no-one had said. It's like a drunk guy at a bar accusing random passers by of "Lookin' at my woman!" He want's a fight about something and doesn't mind if he has to manufacture the circumstances that are going to lead to one.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #33 December 4, 2008 Quote Y'know, it's great to have principles and all, but seriously dude, no one on this thread has actually advocated the ban that you're talking about. I have literally no idea why you thought you needed to defend against something no-one had said. Uh, Mike Ditka did exactly that. And that's what is being discussed. We're not talking about a bit player in the world of the NFL. We're talking about Iron Mike. That may be lost on the non Americans here. Consider him on par with the Maradonnas of the futbol world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #34 December 4, 2008 Quote Consider him on par with the Maradonnas of the futbol world. You're kidding, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #35 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuote Y'know, it's great to have principles and all, but seriously dude, no one on this thread has actually advocated the ban that you're talking about. I have literally no idea why you thought you needed to defend against something no-one had said. Uh, Mike Ditka did exactly that. And that's what is being discussed. We're not talking about a bit player in the world of the NFL. We're talking about Iron Mike. That may be lost on the non Americans here. Consider him on par with the Maradonnas of the futbol world. What Jakee is referring to is how John somehow read into my OP that I was wanting to ban a person or group of people from owning guns. In my post I never, not once, suggested anything of the sort. While I feel PB has shown himself to be too irresponsible to be allowed to carry a gun, I didn't mention even that until after John suggested i wanted to ban all athletes from carrying.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #36 December 4, 2008 Quote Well, that's about as wishy-washy as you can get. Whoa. Good thing I'm not in Texas right now, or I'd call that a challenge, Pardner. (mandatory ) Quote Apparently part of you thinks... Please. That kind of baiting only works on ordinary mortals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #37 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuote Y'know, it's great to have principles and all, but seriously dude, no one on this thread has actually advocated the ban that you're talking about. I have literally no idea why you thought you needed to defend against something no-one had said. Uh, Mike Ditka did exactly that. And that's what is being discussed. Mike Ditka has not posted on this thread. Check out how John dragged him into the conversation. It makes absolutely no sense.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #38 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote Y'know, it's great to have principles and all, but seriously dude, no one on this thread has actually advocated the ban that you're talking about. I have literally no idea why you thought you needed to defend against something no-one had said. Uh, Mike Ditka did exactly that. And that's what is being discussed. Mike Ditka has not posted on this thread. Check out how John dragged him into the conversation. It makes absolutely no sense. Of course, I don't think Chuck Norris posts on here either, but by God we invoke His Name all the time. Q: What does Mike Ditka eat for breakfast? A: ANYTHING HE FUCKIN' WANTS!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #39 December 5, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Y'know, it's great to have principles and all, but seriously dude, no one on this thread has actually advocated the ban that you're talking about. I have literally no idea why you thought you needed to defend against something no-one had said. Uh, Mike Ditka did exactly that. And that's what is being discussed. Mike Ditka has not posted on this thread. Check out how John dragged him into the conversation. It makes absolutely no sense. Of course, I don't think Chuck Norris posts on here either, but by God we invoke His Name all the time. Q: What does Mike Ditka eat for breakfast? A: ANYTHING HE FUCKIN' WANTS Chuck Norris Lets Him!! Fixed it for ya. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hollypocket 0 #40 December 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteIf there were such a thing as an "Almost-Darwin Award" for those who not quite finish themselves off in a really stupid manner, serious consideration would have to be given to Plaxico Burress for shooting himself in the leg. As I heard on the radio: IF you feel it neccessary to carry a gun into a nightclub...it is probably not worth going into. IF people wear sweat pants into a nightclub...it is probably not worth going into. IF you are so stupid as to carry a loaded gun in the waistband of your sweat pants...you probably deserve to get shot in the leg. Or between them. Why do so many professional athletes, who have the world at their feet, throw their careers and lives away for nothing??? How did this guy ever get through college???? Michigan State! Most of the big sports colleges and universities have special rules for "special" people. Special is right!!!!\\> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #41 December 5, 2008 QuoteWhile I feel PB has shown himself to be too irresponsible to be allowed to carry a gun, I didn't mention even that until after John suggested i wanted to ban all athletes from carrying. I've been talking about Ditka wanting to ban gun ownership from football players, not you. Somewhere along the way, those wires apparently got crossed. Jakee seems confused about this too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #42 December 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteY'know, it's great to have principles and all, but seriously dude, no one on this thread has actually advocated the ban that you're talking about. I have literally no idea why you thought you needed to defend against something no-one had said. Uh, Mike Ditka did exactly that. And that's what is being discussed. Mike Ditka has not posted on this thread. Check out how John dragged him into the conversation. It makes absolutely no sense. You apparently don't understand how these conversations work. The thread started with the talk about the football player who had an accidental discharge of his gun, injuring himself. Mike Ditka made a comment about that accident, which makes it a fair subject to introduce into the discussion. They're related - get it? Therefore, it makes perfect sense. It also got sidetracked for a while with people talking about comparable salaries of coaches and teachers. But I didn't see you griping about that as irrelevant. And of course, you, nor anyone else, gets to control what happens in these threads - they just go where they want to go based upon the participants. So either ride along, or if you don't like it, hop off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #43 December 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteY'know, it's great to have principles and all, but seriously dude, no one on this thread has actually advocated the ban that you're talking about. I have literally no idea why you thought you needed to defend against something no-one had said. Uh, Mike Ditka did exactly that. And that's what is being discussed. Mike Ditka has not posted on this thread. Check out how John dragged him into the conversation. It makes absolutely no sense. You apparently don't understand how these conversations work. The thread started with the talk about the football player who had an accidental discharge of his gun, injuring himself. Mike Ditka made a comment about that accident, which makes it a fair subject to introduce into the discussion. They're related - get it? Therefore, it makes perfect sense. And of course, you, nor anyone else, gets to control what happens in these threads - they just go where they want to go based upon the participants. So either ride along, or if you don't like it, hop off. You apparently don't listen, but that's no great shock. It's the manner in which you brought him into the thread, using him to counter suggestions that had not even been made. The accusatory questions you asked of the OP had no basis in what had been written by him or anyone else. You were responding to something that simply wasn't there.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #44 December 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteY'know, it's great to have principles and all, but seriously dude, no one on this thread has actually advocated the ban that you're talking about. I have literally no idea why you thought you needed to defend against something no-one had said. Uh, Mike Ditka did exactly that. And that's what is being discussed. Mike Ditka has not posted on this thread. Check out how John dragged him into the conversation. It makes absolutely no sense. You apparently don't understand how these conversations work. The thread started with the talk about the football player who had an accidental discharge of his gun, injuring himself. Mike Ditka made a comment about that accident, which makes it a fair subject to introduce into the discussion. They're related - get it? Therefore, it makes perfect sense. And of course, you, nor anyone else, gets to control what happens in these threads - they just go where they want to go based upon the participants. So either ride along, or if you don't like it, hop off. You apparently don't listen, but that's no great shock. It's the manner in which you brought him into the thread, using him to counter suggestions that had not even been made. The accusatory questions you asked of the OP had no basis in what had been written by him or anyone else. You were responding to something that simply wasn't there. Exactly right. The OP was about someone handling a firearm without using his brain. It had nothing to do with gun control laws.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #45 December 5, 2008 QuoteThe OP was about someone handling a firearm without using his brain. It had nothing to do with gun control laws. You made that OP, and then in message #3 you were already off on your own tangent about how the football team was more important than the student body. Then in message #6 you started talking about how important the coaches were. jakee's first entry in the thread was in message #11, talking about wreaths and chicken feathers. None of those subjects from the two of you had anything to do with the original topic either. I love irony. You guys are guilty of your own complaint! Apparently you weren't too concerned about things straying off-topic, because you were causing it yourself. You jump on me because I talk about a suggested gun-control proposal offered in response to an accidental shooting, saying that's too far off-topic. Meanwhile, you guys are talking about the football coach's salary and chicken feather wreaths. And you consider that to be on-point? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #46 December 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe OP was about someone handling a firearm without using his brain. It had nothing to do with gun control laws. You made that OP, and then in message #3 you were already off on your own tangent about how the football team was more important than the student body. Then in message #6 you started talking about how important the coaches were. jakee's first entry in the thread was in message #11, talking about wreaths and chicken feathers. None of those subjects from the two of you had anything to do with the original topic either. I love irony. You guys are guilty of your own complaint! Apparently you weren't too concerned about things straying off-topic, because you were causing it yourself. But somehow when I do it, it's a horrible tragedy. Ha! Kallend made the second post, which directly addressed the question I asked about how PB got through college. He also made a remark that is directly related to college sports when he talked about coaches salaries. Jakee's comment on laurels was a direct link to that post by Kallend. Nobody went off on a tangent, the conversation stayed on the subject of how someone with so few brain cells could get through college. Your post, on the other hand, asked me if i wanted to do something that wasn't related either to my original post nor any susequent posts.. QuoteDo you want to deny guns from all sports players, because of an incident by just one? I am still waiting for you to explain where you got the idea that i was even suggesting such a thing. Not everybody is trying to take your guns away, John. (I'm a life NRA member, remember?)HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #47 December 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteDo you want to deny guns from all sports players, because of an incident by just one? I am still waiting for you to explain where you got the idea that i was even suggesting such a thing. I didn't say you were suggesting it. I said Mike Ditka suggested it. Then I asked you if you thought it was a good idea. That's not pointing an accusing finger at you - it's asking for your opinion. Why don't you just answer the question? Yes or No? With a simple two or three letter answer, you can be done with it and end this silly evasiveness. Have you been taking debating lessons from kallend? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #48 December 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteDo you want to deny guns from all sports players, because of an incident by just one? I am still waiting for you to explain where you got the idea that i was even suggesting such a thing. I didn't say you were suggesting it. I said Mike Ditka suggested it. Then I asked you if you thought it was a good idea. That's not pointing an accusing finger at you - it's asking for your opinion. Why don't you just answer the question? Yes or No? With a simple two or three letter answer, you can be done with it and end this silly evasiveness. Have you been taking debating lessons from kallend? I didn't answer it because it was totally out of place, like something you dragged in from left field. Like I said, there was no mention of taking any guns from anyone (except Mr. Shot Myself) until you posted your item that had as much to do with the topic as the speed limit outside the club he was at. So, to answer your question and maybe help you relax a tad, NO, I don't think we should take guns away from athletes because some brainless idiot shot himself. We should only prevent PB from carrying concealed ever again since he has proven he can't handle the reponsibility that goes with it. As easy as it is to point a pistol in the wrong direction, we should be grateful he didn't shoot someone else. Accidents don't "just happen". They are the end result of a chain of events that can be stopped at many different links if people are careful. As far as I am concerned there is absolutely no excuse...NONE!...for firearms accidents. Now, since I went off topic and answered you question, can we please return to the discussion of how athletes with no brains get through college. Your input would be welcome. There are plenty of gun control threads you can post to.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #49 December 5, 2008 QuoteNO, I don't think we should take guns away from athletes because some brainless idiot shot himself. There, that wasn't so hard, was it? I'll bet it didn't hurt a bit to say that. QuoteNow, since I went off topic and answered you question, can we please return to the discussion of how athletes with no brains get through college. Okay, sticking exactly to your own first thread-starter posting #1, regarding gun accidents and education levels, I have a few more questions: Do you think that people who are smart enough to get through college never have any firearm accidents? Or do only non-college grads have accidental gun discharges? And if so, should a college degree be a required prerequisite to gun ownership? Do they teach gun safety as a mandatory required course in college, like English 101? What is it about patrons wearing sweat pants that would make a nightclub unfit to visit? That nightclub (details here) has a $30 cover charge, and to get a table, there is a minimum one-bottle limit, where a bottle of Absolut vodka will cost you $275. Don't you think that will kind of keep the rif-raf out, regardless of whether or not they're wearing sweat pants? And finally, why do stupid people deserve to have their balls shot off? Wouldn't education be a less drastic remedial measure than castration? I hope you'll entertain those question with answers, since they pertain precisely to points which you mentioned in your own message which started this thread. Thank you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #50 December 6, 2008 Quote That nightclub (details here) has a $30 cover charge, and to get a table, there is a minimum one-bottle limit, where a bottle of Absolut vodka will cost you $275. Don't you think that will kind of keep the rif-raf out, regardless of whether or not they're wearing sweat pants? This incident clearly shows that exorbitant prices don't keep rif-raf out.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
