Proud of my company
03-03-2018, 04:13 PM
#241
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,725
“This message is hidden because AllenAllert is on your ignore list.”
Once you guys figure this ^^^^ out you’ll find your life much more peaceful. The guy is a total troll.
Once you guys figure this ^^^^ out you’ll find your life much more peaceful. The guy is a total troll.
03-03-2018, 04:32 PM
#242
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Position: Airbus 320 Captain
Posts: 481
03-03-2018, 04:59 PM
#243
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
You and little hoss should get along - you being one of those chalky old men trying to control the ladies reproductive decisions and little hoss trying to be more like Trump by patting the ladies backside and assuming the lady has the hots for him.🎚🌈and🦄
03-03-2018, 05:29 PM
#244
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
Anyone who looks up “chalky” in the urban dictionary might want to stop using that epithet. 
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chalky
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chalky
03-04-2018, 04:31 AM
#246
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Anyone who looks up “chalky” in the urban dictionary might want to stop using that epithet.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chalky
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chalky
That’s the same logic we get from the “chalky” old men in Washington causing nothing to get done. At some point it’s time for them to move on. 🐐
03-04-2018, 04:47 AM
#247
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Did you ever read ‘flying the line’ or take the time to learn the history of UAL or ALPA? Sad that coming from CAL to United you haven’t embraced the opportunities you have here at United. You’ll still be junior to all the 570 and your anti-ALPA messages get ground out by the good things ALPA has done since merger. Instead of saying you’re living the dream, you keep saying you’re living the lie. Good to see your head out of the sand. SAD—————-
03-04-2018, 06:44 AM
#248
Banned
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 540
Originally Posted by regularguy View Post
ok one post wrote “common sense” as the idea of how to approach this issue. The problem is how people define “common sense.”
i for one understand the abortion issue is out of the box and can’t be stuffed back in. Where i highly disagree is the whole “woman’s body” argument. Why? Because anyone with “common sense” would see it took two to tango and there is the potential third party involved. But others “common sense” see it another way. And “common sense” might ask the question, in these days of proper birth control, “why is abortion a viable option for birth control?”
i don’t think anyone believes it’s a viable option for birth control. Yes, it does take two to tango but when the tango is over there is normally just one to answer for a mistake - that’s the female. Her chose and option. As my wife would say screw the chalky old man - he’s not the father and he doesn’t have any skin in this.
The chalky old man, or the man who fathered the baby should have a say as well. What if the woman decides to keep the baby and sue for child support as the result of a one night stand? The law says it's okay but it's not okay should the man want to keep the baby, or give it up for adoption rather than abortion? That is yet another hypocracy. Let's not forget the right or wrong aspects of "killing a baby". And if it's the "religious right" as you said attacking this is that a bad thing? You said "religious" which i would argue is more parroting of the MSM's constant blathering. There is nothing wrong with being religious or not being religious. The morals and ethics we sort of use these days came from somewhere and it wasn't "man being nice to man". Check the Bible, you might be surprised what's in there. And no I haven't been to Church in decades.
ok to me “common sense” tells me we need to protect our children as long as they are in our care. Additionally we need to protect the crowd in common areas (think concert), but “common sense” tells me banning all guns isn’t the fix for the issue and yet that is what the “common sense” of others is telling them.
nobody is saying ban all guns - most are saying m16/ak47 assault type weapons on the street - killing in mass.
Do you think M16/AK47s are the only semi auto's on the market? Do you think they kill more people in this country a year or another type of weapon you don't want to outlaw? You should look up what weapons kill the most, and more surprisingly where (which cities - answer might be cities that already have huge gun "bans".
so why isn’t there a real “conversation” over this?
You got it, “common sense.”
Common sense probably needs to be defined: good sense, sense, native wit, sensibleness, judgment, levelheadedness, prudence, discernment, canniness, astuteness, shrewdness, wisdom, insight, perception, perspicacity.
With that in mind it might do your "argument" some good to view it through the above definition and apply some tweaks...
btw i agree that while this is being argued we are ignoring the safety of the innocent.
What am i for? The proper instruction and certification of those who want to enjoy the recreation of shooting in these united states. I also believe that includes the ownership of “assault weapons” (again what a definition and painting of a picture) and other dangerous things.
What is your definition of assault weapons? Is it something that looks like what a soldier carries but shoots only semi-automatically? If that's the case then what about all the other guns that shoot semi-auto but don't look like military issue? Do you know what the criteria was for the first ban? It was based on how something looks.
The big picture is those people that believe in the constitution are not going to agree with a weapons ban. Those who don't believe in the constitution need to adjust their perspective such that they don't go after the 2nd Amendment. Once through that hurtle THEN constructive talk will occur about how to make schools safer.
But the “common sense” of others want to deny such things, even when they include proper training and certification. Basically i believe it eventually becomes a control issue and has little to do with protecting the innocent.
You are right on the control issue, and it's the haters of the Constitution that are seeking to have such control.
Cheers,
Biff
ok one post wrote “common sense” as the idea of how to approach this issue. The problem is how people define “common sense.”
i for one understand the abortion issue is out of the box and can’t be stuffed back in. Where i highly disagree is the whole “woman’s body” argument. Why? Because anyone with “common sense” would see it took two to tango and there is the potential third party involved. But others “common sense” see it another way. And “common sense” might ask the question, in these days of proper birth control, “why is abortion a viable option for birth control?”
i don’t think anyone believes it’s a viable option for birth control. Yes, it does take two to tango but when the tango is over there is normally just one to answer for a mistake - that’s the female. Her chose and option. As my wife would say screw the chalky old man - he’s not the father and he doesn’t have any skin in this.
The chalky old man, or the man who fathered the baby should have a say as well. What if the woman decides to keep the baby and sue for child support as the result of a one night stand? The law says it's okay but it's not okay should the man want to keep the baby, or give it up for adoption rather than abortion? That is yet another hypocracy. Let's not forget the right or wrong aspects of "killing a baby". And if it's the "religious right" as you said attacking this is that a bad thing? You said "religious" which i would argue is more parroting of the MSM's constant blathering. There is nothing wrong with being religious or not being religious. The morals and ethics we sort of use these days came from somewhere and it wasn't "man being nice to man". Check the Bible, you might be surprised what's in there. And no I haven't been to Church in decades.
ok to me “common sense” tells me we need to protect our children as long as they are in our care. Additionally we need to protect the crowd in common areas (think concert), but “common sense” tells me banning all guns isn’t the fix for the issue and yet that is what the “common sense” of others is telling them.
nobody is saying ban all guns - most are saying m16/ak47 assault type weapons on the street - killing in mass.
Do you think M16/AK47s are the only semi auto's on the market? Do you think they kill more people in this country a year or another type of weapon you don't want to outlaw? You should look up what weapons kill the most, and more surprisingly where (which cities - answer might be cities that already have huge gun "bans".
so why isn’t there a real “conversation” over this?
You got it, “common sense.”
Common sense probably needs to be defined: good sense, sense, native wit, sensibleness, judgment, levelheadedness, prudence, discernment, canniness, astuteness, shrewdness, wisdom, insight, perception, perspicacity.
With that in mind it might do your "argument" some good to view it through the above definition and apply some tweaks...
btw i agree that while this is being argued we are ignoring the safety of the innocent.
What am i for? The proper instruction and certification of those who want to enjoy the recreation of shooting in these united states. I also believe that includes the ownership of “assault weapons” (again what a definition and painting of a picture) and other dangerous things.
What is your definition of assault weapons? Is it something that looks like what a soldier carries but shoots only semi-automatically? If that's the case then what about all the other guns that shoot semi-auto but don't look like military issue? Do you know what the criteria was for the first ban? It was based on how something looks.
The big picture is those people that believe in the constitution are not going to agree with a weapons ban. Those who don't believe in the constitution need to adjust their perspective such that they don't go after the 2nd Amendment. Once through that hurtle THEN constructive talk will occur about how to make schools safer.
But the “common sense” of others want to deny such things, even when they include proper training and certification. Basically i believe it eventually becomes a control issue and has little to do with protecting the innocent.
You are right on the control issue, and it's the haters of the Constitution that are seeking to have such control.
Cheers,
Biff
03-04-2018, 10:09 AM
#249
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
Biff
Thanks for the responses, but basically my whole post and the idea of “common sense” is sarcasm and the idea there will never be a real point of agreement.
This thread has also proven just coming to an agreement in terms and understanding the shooting sports in the USA is an almost impossible task.
In the mean time our schools, crowds and such go unprotected.
Oh, I do stand on the premise there are many who basically want to take the rights of others away and will use any excuse to do so. It’s a social elitist mentality.
Thanks again.
Thanks for the responses, but basically my whole post and the idea of “common sense” is sarcasm and the idea there will never be a real point of agreement.
This thread has also proven just coming to an agreement in terms and understanding the shooting sports in the USA is an almost impossible task.
In the mean time our schools, crowds and such go unprotected.
Oh, I do stand on the premise there are many who basically want to take the rights of others away and will use any excuse to do so. It’s a social elitist mentality.
Thanks again.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
