+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL FORUM NEWS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: The Threat is Real, very real. (/showthread.php?tid=13951)
The Threat is Real, very real. - Texas - 10-16-2017
Well this should be interesting since a belt loop and a thumb can be used to cause a semi-automatic to fire like a machine gun. I really want to see that definition.
The Threat is Real, very real. - AZHTfreak - 10-16-2017
The Profit Joseph Sith Wrote:Wasn't he one of the people attending the tail hook convention when someone like the secretary of defenses secretary was dragged in a hotel room and raped? My memory is hazy maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
From an Aug 1992 LA Times piece:
U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is catching hell for his attendance at the raunchy Tailhook convention.
Not the raunchy 1991 convention, but the raunchy 1987 convention. In the current political climate, there is no statute of limitations on raunchiness.
McCain's woes started with a reference in a recent Newsweek magazine to a 1987 issue of Hook, the house organ of the San Diego-based Tailhook Assn.
Hook reported that McCain, a former Navy fighter pilot, was "no stranger to Tailhook reunions" and had "participated in the camaraderie of the third deck" at the 1987 convention in Las Vegas, where supposedly much friskiness took place.
Just google Johnny, guy's a carpet bagger who married into AZ liquor distributor money...
The Threat is Real, very real. - stanc - 10-16-2017
AZHTfreak Wrote:From an Aug 1992 LA Times piece:US servicemen, raunchy? Gee, who woulda thunk it possible?
U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is catching hell for his attendance at the raunchy Tailhook convention.
Not the raunchy 1991 convention, but the raunchy 1987 convention. In the current political climate, there is no statute of limitations on raunchiness.
The Threat is Real, very real. - donbcivil - 11-26-2017
Klem Wrote:True, but you cannot deny limiting civilian access to guns makes this sort of atrocity more difficult to commit. Also suggesting that if you do restrict guns then criminals will just find another way like a truck, and therefore it's pointless limiting guns in the first place is a non sequitur.
I get that you are not personally calling for gun bans. However, I think it is worth pointing out to the antis that the time when serious restrictions were possible has come and gone. There are so many firearms in circulation right now....in responsible hands....that gun bans that have been implemented elsewhere are effectively impossible here. I grew up in NY state and the SAFE act has not been complied with in a state with a history of tolerating excessively restrictive gun laws.
I just hope we never get to a place where someone is actually dumb enough to try implementing a ban because things would probably get UGLY.