Merge said:

It’s theoretically possible that the existence of guns is in itself a deterrent. I’m not arguing for getting rid of them, I just don’t buy the whole “I need them to fight off the terrorists” fantasy.

I’m not against guns. I think most people should own them for self defense. Semi automatic rifles are used in self defense a handful of times per year. Handguns - millions of times per year. They’re just not as practice for carrying, or being able to access them if you’re storing them safely. If you want to prepare for the end of times and need to shoot all of the looters from a hundred yards out… then sure, buy a bunch of AR-15s.

Or just buy them because they are fun.

Click to expand...

People own automatic weapons for self defense; some are gun collectors and enjoy owning them; some go to a gun range as a hobby and enjoy marksmanship and competition; some ranchers own them to clear their property of predator animals.

In terms of self protection, there are always bad people out there that will have their targets. Home invasions in an upscale house or in an urban neighborhood. The criminals could have any weapon; heck, even our own government sold automatic guns to criminals (Fast and Furious) and then lost track of the weapons.

We can say any scenario is far fetched but I’m not going to judge someone based on their wanting to prepare. Personally, I think the greatest risk (and justification), would occur in the event of our power grid being shut down for 2-3 weeks.

SHUSA said:

why are people always complaining about biased against reps? they open their mouth the most and get checked on it. and if they were as great as you think why wouldnt they just ace their answers? theyre right after all rihht?

vp debates are usless. thats for certain.

Click to expand...

Because even those in the media admit that the MSM outlets pretty much all lean left. That shouldn’t surprise you.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

Merge said:

It’s a fantasy because it’s extremely unlikely to happen, and if it did happen, the likelihood that you would have the ability and time needed to access your AR-15 makes it seem less and less likely that you would ever use an AR-15 for self defense which is why they rarely are.

If you see something happening from 100 yards out and have time to prepare and shoot from a far, then sure.

Also, the other side of the debate for that shooting was that someone had a weapon who could kill 26 people in a matter of seconds. Asking why we need those weapons after events like that isn’t unreasonable.

My view is that we probably don’t really need them, and would be better off without them, but it’s too late to change so we’ll live with it.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's much of a fantasy. Whether it's a good or a bad idea, there's people with safes with a lot of money in them in their home. So the possibility is more real than you think.

Essentially you're saying the bad guys have them, so should the good guys. what a novel concept.

SHUHoopsFan said:

fantasy of 3 guys breaking in, that’s not my fantasy I promise.

There are many scenarios where people choose those weapons for self defense. Nobody complaining after a 2017 shooting at a church in Texas when an AR15 took out the gunman.

Click to expand...

It’s a fantasy because it’s extremely unlikely to happen, and if it did happen, the likelihood that you would have the ability and time needed to access your AR-15 makes it seem less and less likely that you would ever use an AR-15 for self defense which is why they rarely are.

If you see something happening from 100 yards out and have time to prepare and shoot from a far, then sure.

Also, the other side of the debate for that shooting was that someone had a weapon who could kill 26 people in a matter of seconds. Asking why we need those weapons after events like that isn’t unreasonable.

My view is that we probably don’t really need them, and would be better off without them, but it’s too late to change so we’ll live with it.

Halldan1 said:

I have no proof of this but my dad told me when I was young that he boxed Amos in Newark a very long time ago.

Said he was tough but a good guy.

Click to expand...

He played a tough commando-type in Die Hard 2.

jack 1970 said:

Both Vance and Walz had their moments both good and bad.The moderators who choose the questions were biased towards the Democrats.If theres to be another debate it has to be on Fox to cast some resemblance to fairness in the debate series.Otherwise forget it.

Let's face it most people have their minds made up at this point one way or the other.Time to vote.

Click to expand...

why are people always complaining about biased against reps? they open their mouth the most and get checked on it. and if they were as great as you think why wouldnt they just ace their answers? theyre right after all rihht?

vp debates are usless. thats for certain.

HALL85 said:

You are suggesting one random event. Threats can come in many forms and if that lawful gun owner has it for their reasoning, that’s good for me. Imagine if an October 7th attack happened in your neighborhood…if you knew your neighbor had an AR15, my guess is that you’d be sprinting to his house. So I can play this game too.

People own AR15’s for legitimate reasons. It’s always the non-owners that want to eliminate the owners rights.

Click to expand...

It’s theoretically possible that the existence of guns is in itself a deterrent. I’m not arguing for getting rid of them, I just don’t buy the whole “I need them to fight off the terrorists” fantasy.

I’m not against guns. I think most people should own them for self defense. Semi automatic rifles are used in self defense a handful of times per year. Handguns - millions of times per year. They’re just not as practice for carrying, or being able to access them if you’re storing them safely. If you want to prepare for the end of times and need to shoot all of the looters from a hundred yards out… then sure, buy a bunch of AR-15s.

Or just buy them because they are fun.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

Merge said:

The fantasy that 3 guys are breaking into your house and you’re going to defend yourself is absurd. As if they would announce they are coming from miles away and you’re sleeping with a loaded AR-15.

I prefer Jim Jeffries comment.
“**** off, I like guns”. A much more honest response.

Click to expand...

fantasy of 3 guys breaking in, that’s not my fantasy I promise.

There are many scenarios where people choose those weapons for self defense. Nobody complaining after a 2017 shooting at a church in Texas when an AR15 took out the gunman.

Both Vance and Walz had their moments both good and bad.The moderators who choose the questions were biased towards the Democrats.If theres to be another debate it has to be on Fox to cast some resemblance to fairness in the debate series.Otherwise forget it.

Let's face it most people have their minds made up at this point one way or the other.Time to vote.

NYShoreGuy said:

No chance he is a chameleon

Click to expand...

So is Harris and that hasn’t stopped her political career.

the 30 mins i watched it was clear waltz not only knew what he was talking about, clearly had common sense , but also had past experience and examples to prove each point.

jd vance came across like a well spoken idiot with no actual answers to the questions he recieved, instead opting for attacking "kamala's" regime.

that being said i really wish trump would act more like vance. and kamala more like walsh. it was so much more..... normal.

Merge said:

The fantasy that 3 guys are breaking into your house and you’re going to defend yourself is absurd. As if they would announce they are coming from miles away and you’re sleeping with a loaded AR-15.

I prefer Jim Jeffries comment.
“**** off, I like guns”. A much more honest response.

Click to expand...

You are suggesting one random event. Threats can come in many forms and if that lawful gun owner has it for their reasoning, that’s good for me. Imagine if an October 7th attack happened in your neighborhood…if you knew your neighbor had an AR15, my guess is that you’d be sprinting to his house. So I can play this game too.

People own AR15’s for legitimate reasons. It’s always the non-owners that want to eliminate the owners rights.

SHUHoopsFan said:

Let's cut through the fluff and just get right to the point. I think the reason most own a gun is to protect themselves in the most dangerous of situations. If you think a handgun is all anyone needs you're nuts. Sorry when 3 guys break into you're home, you may be good with only a handgun while others want more and should be afforded the right to have more.

Click to expand...

The fantasy that 3 guys are breaking into your house and you’re going to defend yourself is absurd. As if they would announce they are coming from miles away and you’re sleeping with a loaded AR-15.

I prefer Jim Jeffries comment.
“**** off, I like guns”. A much more honest response.

silkcitypirate said:

Thank you for some common sense there is no reason to win a type of semi-automatic rifle or machine gun . When they wrote the second amendment they did not forsee these types of arms . Anyway can not wait for this election to be over and the start of HALL BB to start . GO PIRATES !! BY the way SHhoopsfan I started as a 8th grade teacher and then a remedial math teacher and test coordinator . Also coached some BB back in the 80s . So there is basically my resume and also throw in bartending . So now leave me the F alone PLEASE do not respond back . WE are made up different so leave it at that . PEACE and again LETS GO PIRATES !!!!!!

Click to expand...

I’m taking my ball and running home….wahhh

SPK145 said:

This is actually categorically incorrect. The Founders believed the citizenry should be able to have the same weapons as the government. They would not have been happy with this recent construct of a line drawn.

Click to expand...

Technically I’d probably agree, though the purpose was because a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the free state. Citizens were expected to take up arms if necessary. That doesn’t really apply anymore so it’s hard to suggest that we could know how the founders would view weapons of war (or even any gun to be honest) in a time when no citizen would ever be called to fight using their own weapons.

SPK145 said:

This is actually categorically incorrect. The Founders believed the citizenry should be able to have the same weapons as the government. They would not have been happy with this recent construct of a line drawn.

Click to expand...

You're wrong. He has friends who were history teachers in Paterson.

Merge said:

We have established that people have the right to bear arms, but obviously we have limits as a fully automatic machine gun is not legal to own. We've accepted as a society that a machine gun is too dangerous for people to own, so there is a line. Where that line should exist is certainly debatable.

Our opinions aside, the toothpaste is out of the tube. Tens of millions of semi-auto rifles are currently owned legally.
Confiscation would be impossible so not really worth debating in my opinion. I think any progress to be made will be by mitigating risks for the guns which are currently legal.

Click to expand...

Let's cut through the fluff and just get right to the point. I think the reason most own a gun is to protect themselves in the most dangerous of situations. If you think a handgun is all anyone needs you're nuts. Sorry when 3 guys break into you're home, you may be good with only a handgun while others want more and should be afforded the right to have more.

Merge said:

We have established that people have the right to bear arms, but obviously we have limits as a fully automatic machine gun is not legal to own. We've accepted as a society that a machine gun is too dangerous for people to own, so there is a line. Where that line should exist is certainly debatable.

Our opinions aside, the toothpaste is out of the tube. Tens of millions of semi-auto rifles are currently owned legally.
Confiscation would be impossible so not really worth debating in my opinion. I think any progress to be made will be by mitigating risks for the guns which are currently legal.

Click to expand...

Thank you for some common sense there is no reason to win a type of semi-automatic rifle or machine gun . When they wrote the second amendment they did not forsee these types of arms . Anyway can not wait for this election to be over and the start of HALL BB to start . GO PIRATES !! BY the way SHhoopsfan I started as a 8th grade teacher and then a remedial math teacher and test coordinator . Also coached some BB back in the 80s . So there is basically my resume and also throw in bartending . So now leave me the F alone PLEASE do not respond back . WE are made up different so leave it at that . PEACE and again LETS GO PIRATES !!!!!!

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

Seton75 said:

I pass. I'll listen to Gary.

Click to expand...

sigh

SHUHoopsFan said:

Who the hell are you or I to tell anyone how to protect themselves?

Click to expand...

We have established that people have the right to bear arms, but obviously we have limits as a fully automatic machine gun is not legal to own. We've accepted as a society that a machine gun is too dangerous for people to own, so there is a line. Where that line should exist is certainly debatable.

Our opinions aside, the toothpaste is out of the tube. Tens of millions of semi-auto rifles are currently owned legally.
Confiscation would be impossible so not really worth debating in my opinion. I think any progress to be made will be by mitigating risks for the guns which are currently legal.

HallX2 said:

What becomes of the WCC? St Mary’s?

Click to expand...

I think they will be fine. The WCC is now a collection of similar schools. I think its wildly unrealistic for St. Mary's to have continued success once Randy Bennett retires. The guy has turned down the Cal job on three separate occasions. How many coaches out there that are willing to do that?