Hey, Canada

[SkyDekker 1,122]

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Well, I would have posted in a similar tone about a male politician “Got it covered, dude.” 

Interesting how much easier it is to perceive denigration of women than men. Almost as though it’s automatic. 

Wendy P. 

Bigun and I have it covered sweetheart.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

The takeaway from this isn't what you imply.

It's that 22,000 gun-toting Americans can have a peaceful protest assembly.

And as AOC says, "Where were all the police?" Didn't need any Babe - they had it covered.   

No it's not. It's fantasizing wannabe's holding what they can only dream was their pecker.

[wmw999 2,121]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Bigun and I have it covered sweetheart.

Actually, I covered the part about calling someone something womanly is way worse than calling them something manly. Because sexism.

But you probably weren't listening

Wendy P.

[BIGUN 1,053]

13 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

No it's not. It's fantasizing wannabe's holding what they can only dream was their pecker.

Same old liberal stance. You can't have a logical discussion, so it becomes some decades old junior high school "pecker" response. You've got your rigs; he's got his guns. Maybe the two of you can rub pecker heads and the first one that smiles; loses. I have guns, rigs and a Harley - I win.   

[gowlerk 1,912]

3 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Same old liberal stance. You can't have a logical discussion, so it becomes some decades old junior high school "pecker" response. You've got your rigs; he's got his guns. Maybe the two of you can rub pecker heads and the first one that smiles; loses. I have guns, rigs and a Harley - I win.   

Not unless you have a trophy wife as well.

[BIGUN 1,053]

9 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Not unless you have a trophy wife as well.

That's [edit] 20 years younger than me; a veterinarian and whom has her own skydiving rigs and Harley.  

Edited January 22, 2020 by BIGUN

[headoverheels 291]

On 1/16/2020 at 4:24 PM, ryoder said:

Gaddamned illegals!

We need a wall on that border!

The first illegal that I ever knowingly knew was a Canadian. He had overstayed his work visa . The second one was from what was then called Yugoslavia , who had also overstayed his work visa (a skydiving chum).

 

[turtlespeed 212]

6 hours ago, headoverheels said:

The first illegal that I ever knowingly knew was a Canadian. He had overstayed his work visa . The second one was from what was then called Yugoslavia , who had also overstayed his work visa (a skydiving chum).

 

Right now . . . I think Canada has some immigration issues they want resolved.

(Cough Cough Harry Cough)

[gowlerk 1,912]

25 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Right now . . . I think Canada has some immigration issues they want resolved.

(Cough Cough Harry Cough)

If it doesn't work out here they could always go to America. He has an anchor wife......

[JoeWeber 2,299]

9 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Same old liberal stance. You can't have a logical discussion, so it becomes some decades old junior high school "pecker" response. You've got your rigs; he's got his guns. Maybe the two of you can rub pecker heads and the first one that smiles; loses. I have guns, rigs and a Harley - I win.   

Keith, I am so sorry. Is that guy you?

Seriously, he didn't show up in hip boots with a drooling Labrador, toting a Remington 870 Wingmaster, and tooting his duck call. Nor is he a Civil War reenactor. Nope, he's just a garden variety wannabe militia man dressed up in his surplus store war suit, toting his useless weapon and being a goddamn idiot in public. 

It's not me who is missing the point entirely.

[BIGUN 1,053]

12 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Seriously, he didn't show up in hip boots with a drooling Labrador, toting a Remington 870 Wingmaster, and tooting his duck call. Nor is he a Civil War reenactor. Nope, he's just a garden variety wannabe militia man dressed up in his surplus store war suit, toting his useless weapon and being a goddamn idiot in public. 

Same old liberal agenda - wanting to tell others how they should fit in their view. So, it's ok if he's carrying a gun dressed like a hunter or a civil war reenactor is ok. - is it ok for the hunter to carry what ever kind of weapon he wants? Whose permission does he have to get to dress like a militia-man? Or, is this just another case of, "ooooh, that looks scary - ban it!?" 

[wmw999 2,121]

15 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Same old liberal agenda - wanting to tell others how they should fit in their view. 

Well, now, that kind of applies to both liberals and conservatives. How many conservatives don't want to be exposed to open homosexuality, anything having to do with non-cis-gendered thought, and the like? One only hears the people who characterize everyone as being the same, not the ones who treat us as individuals.

Wendy P.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Just now, wmw999 said:

How many conservatives don't want to be exposed to open homosexuality, anything having to do with non-cis-gendered thought, and the like? One only hears the people who characterize everyone as being the same, not the ones who treat us as individuals.

As a group; no argument. I akin it to being afraid of a gay rights parade. Those who are uninformed will always be afraid of what they don't or are unwilling to know. No difference.  

[JoeWeber 2,299]

29 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Same old liberal agenda - wanting to tell others how they should fit in their view. So, it's ok if he's carrying a gun dressed like a hunter or a civil war reenactor is ok. - is it ok for the hunter to carry what ever kind of weapon he wants? Whose permission does he have to get to dress like a militia-man? Or, is this just another case of, "ooooh, that looks scary - ban it!?" 

 

29 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Same old liberal agenda - wanting to tell others how they should fit in their view. So, it's ok if he's carrying a gun dressed like a hunter or a civil war reenactor is ok. - is it ok for the hunter to carry what ever kind of weapon he wants? Whose permission does he have to get to dress like a militia-man? Or, is this just another case of, "ooooh, that looks scary - ban it!?" 

For one, reenactors are, well, reenacting. Every accoutrement, including their arms, are period replicas. It's about history, not fantasy. You do get that, right?

Did I argue that the hunter should be able to show up with any weapon? Nope. I mentioned a favorite shotgun in very common use by duck hunters. If you weren't so sensitive over the subject you might have as easily concluded he was there in support of Duck Hunting, Duck calls, Labradors or even drool.

Ask yourself, why are they all dressed up in homemade war suits, toting military looking weapons, and looking ready for the call to a homemade war? Why aren't there any 16 year old boys and girls toting .22 Mossbergs carrying sign saying Rabbit Hunters for the Second Amendment in their mix?

You can go on hating it until hell freezes over but it's as much a cult as anything else. For many, they are finally a part of something big. And they get to play dress up and carry AR-15's, and Military sniper rifles and have Glocks on their hips just like the real guy's.

Just ask good ol' Corporal Corpulent.

 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by JoeWeber

[BIGUN 1,053]

9 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Ask yourself, why are they all dressed up in homemade war suits, toting military looking weapons, and looking ready for the call to a homemade war?

Because it's their right and they don't need your permission to do so.  

[DJL 232]

47 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Because it's their right and they don't need your permission to do so.  

I think these guys look silly.  But correct, a grown ass adult doesn't need my permission to play dress-up.

Edited January 23, 2020 by DJL

[SkyDekker 1,122]

9 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Because it's their right and they don't need your permission to do so.  

Of course we do ensure to closely guard against the incredible danger of seeing a female nipple.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

10 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Because it's their right and they don't need your permission to do so.  

That's just ridiculous and a silly misdirection. Neither of those points are in question. Get this right Keith, the right to bear arms in America, as gifted by DC v. Heller, does not require anyone to wear a surplus store war suit when exercising that right. That is a choice made for entirely different reasons. Otherwise why not uniform yourself in Swiss Guard Pantaloons, an Eisenhower jacket, and a Fez hat? The obvious reason is that would not be acceptably militia looking enough for your clan. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by JoeWeber

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

29 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

 that would not be acceptably militia looking

Hi Joe,

^^^^^^^^^ This.  End of discussion.

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,400]

15 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Ask yourself, why are they all dressed up in homemade war suits, toting military looking weapons, and looking ready for the call to a homemade war?

Because they feel that they absorb some valor - valor they can obtain no other way - by making themselves look like soldiers.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

8 hours ago, billvon said:

Because they feel that they absorb some valor - valor they can obtain no other way - by making themselves look like soldiers.

That is why it is not benign. Along with the assumed identity comes a sense of belonging. We do not need to relearn how cults can manipulate followers into committing the most dastardly of acts; acts their own families would never believe possible of them.

It might happen in an underground parking garage at a fertility clinic, at a Federal Building in Oklahoma, in the Kool Aid line somewhere or, possibly next, at a wall on our southern border. Armed, already in groups, and ready to defend their sense of self in the name of some perceived horror inflicted on the clan, they'll be ready. And so will their masters.

 

Nothing happening in our nation requires the aggregation of heavily armed, angry, white men, dressed in camouflaged and possessed of paramilitary fantasies. No good can come of it.

 

 

[turtlespeed 212]

15 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

That's just ridiculous and a silly misdirection. Neither of those points are in question. Get this right Keith, the right to bear arms in America, as gifted by DC v. Heller, does not require anyone to wear a surplus store war suit when exercising that right. That is a choice made for entirely different reasons. Otherwise why not uniform yourself in Swiss Guard Pantaloons, an Eisenhower jacket, and a Fez hat? The obvious reason is that would not be acceptably militia looking enough for your clan. 

I don't think you are capable of looking at this objectively.

 

[BIGUN 1,053]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Nothing happening in our nation requires the aggregation of heavily armed, angry, white men, dressed in camouflaged and possessed of paramilitary fantasies. No good can come of it.

What about black men? 

[Coreece 190]

33 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Nothing happening in our nation requires the aggregation of heavily armed, angry, white men, dressed in camouflaged and possessed of paramilitary fantasies. No good can come of it.

What about black men? 

Didn't you know that Joe is racially color blind?  I suppose he thinks all the "black guns matter" shirts were literally talking about black guns, as apposed to chrome 45's.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Coreece

[turtlespeed 212]

52 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Didn't you know that Joe is racially color blind?  I suppose he thinks all the "black guns matter" shirts were literally talking about black guns, as apposed to chrome 45's.

 

 

 

 

That must be the exception that proves the rule!!!

Is that the same guy that Joe had pictured in his other post?