6,082 Forum Posts by "TNT"
At 8/11/14 07:35 PM, Xenomit wrote: Whaaaat?
Until I see more solid evidence, I'm passing this off as a bad joke.
Google his name. There are news links about his death EVERYWHERE! I seriously doubt that it's fake...
At 8/11/14 07:30 PM, MrPercie wrote: Guess I'll have to rewatch flubber.
I want to watch Aladdin tonight, and if I can't find that, then maybe Ferngully, or one of his stand-up acts.
At 8/11/14 07:10 PM, Zachary wrote: RIP
He voiced my favorite Disney Character...
At 8/6/14 07:24 PM, Voltage wrote:
Subaru stuff...
You made me a proud owner of my 2001 Subaru Outback, and yes, it is a great car.
At 8/6/14 12:31 PM, Amaranthus wrote: This picture sums up fieldertiger very well.
Am I the only one who thinks that he's probably trolling?
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Gay marriage should be legal, and I still don't understand why some people are so uptight about it...
At 8/1/14 07:44 AM, TinyClementine wrote:At 8/1/14 12:15 AM, Tybia99 wrote: If only Ron Paul would runBut his son Rand will ! I think he is a deserved son of his father and maybe worth being elected. And I share his peaceful position. If only he was not a Republican...
I thought you didn't know who you'd vote for: http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1371737
At 7/30/14 12:04 PM, TinyClementine wrote: Do you know what disturbs me? A lack of any appropriate candidate.
Tell me, who would you like to run for office then?
The elections are getting closer and closer, but we still don't know whom to elect...
Elections are still months away, and over two years for the presidential election... People have the right to rationalize their choices, don't you think?
Some leaders are determinated, but do you really want to see any of them in power? Maybe a kind wizard from OZ will fly to us and save the situation. Do you believe in miracles?
...what? How about instead of spitting out philosophical nonsence that you provide one potential candidate, hell ANYONE that you think will be fit for an office? Do you even know a single person that could make a good Congressman, Senator, or President to you? For that matter, can you also provide a logical argument on why this person you believe would make a good candidate?
At 7/15/14 10:34 AM, xxxcreep wrote: Decided to post here because I saw an article the other day about a man who owns a barber shop, who kicked people out for having concealed weapons. Now, the Gun nuts aren't happy about that, so they are giving him dead threats.
Can you please provide the sourse(s)? I would like to read about it further.
My opinion on the matter- People are treating guns like they are toys.
I beg to differ. I'm a gun owner, and I know for a fact that they are NOT toys. In fact, everyone I know who owns a gun knows they are not toys either. Everyone on both sides of the fence knows that guns are used for hunting or self-defense (last resort mind you), and they shouldn't be taken lightly because guns CAN and HAVE killed people.
I don't see for any reason why you'd need to take a gun every where you go. It's unsafe to all the people around you.
Not unless the people carrying said guns are doing it safely. I don't carry my concealed handgun everywhere I go, but I know that a lot of people do, and the reason is usually the obvious; they may need it in a life threatening situation. Will that happen in their life time? Probably not, and that's part of the reason why I don't carry it all the time because I'm not paranoid, but there is a saying, "It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it".
31% of accidental deaths are from guns. 194 children were shot and killed last year. IMO, The "smart gun" is the best idea ever! I can't see why the NRA wouldn't want it. Heres an opportunity to keep guns out of the wrong people's hands....and they dislike the idea.
I would also like to see the source of the statistics on accidental deaths, because what I found here: accidental deaths by guns were only 0.6% in 2007. Mind you, this is probably coming from a biased pro-gun site, but the source they got it from was WISQARS Injury Mortality Report, Center for Disease Control, 2007. Either way, accidents happen, and no matter what we do to reduce it (either go pro-gun or stricter gun control), it will never work 100% of the time. This is something that both sides of the argument need to realize.
Which brings me to the NRA. I remember seeing information regarding the Smart Gun online, and I think it is a great idea too! Then when I look into it further, I saw that the NRA members made countless death threats to the makers of the Smart Guns, and they had to quit because they don't want to risk their lives.
From that point on I don't like the NRA. They are, what I feel, way too extreme in their stance on how guns should be used in society. Death threats? Really? The NRA needs to take responsibility of their members, and have them permanently banned from participating in their group. Unless someone can prove to me that they have, I have yet to see that happen, and that's why I have no respect for them today.
At 7/9/14 03:10 PM, WahyahRanger wrote: So did you decide you didn't like your major and now are trying to get into a new field or is this just kind of a thing to expand your oppurtunities?
I like my major a lot actually, but overtime I decided that I want to pursue a slightly different career path that still involves Criminal Justice. Someday, I would like to be a Game Warden for Texas Parks and Wildlife. They enforce hunting, fishing, and wildlife regulations to name a few. Sometimes they pull people over for speeding or potential drunk driving as they are licensed peace officers of the State. I feel that being an unpaid intern at a State Park is a great way to get my feet wet.
At 7/9/14 09:18 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: So how do you know when there are too many people in the park? And how did they come up with that number?
That's a good question. At the fee booth, we have a counter that we use to count the number of vehicles entering the park for day use (this does not include overnight use). On top of that, we have one of the rangers observe the parking lots inside the park to determine the number of spaces available at a given time. When it gets full, especially on the weekends during the summer, the ranger will announce via radio that the parking lot is getting close to full, and we make preparations to temporarily close the park. The counter is usually over 200 when it gets full, and it gives us a good idea on how close we are getting to that point.
Now we don't close the park for the whole day, and usually the park closes only for a few hours until enough people leave.
At 7/9/14 02:54 PM, WahyahRanger wrote: *GAAAAASP* *drools*
Where did you happen to go to college, what's the name of the park, and what suggestions can you give to somebody in the Environmental field?
1). I graduated from the University of North Texas with a degree in Criminal Justice.
2). Garner State Park.
3). That all depends on what exactly you want to do in the field.
At 7/9/14 02:54 PM, Makakaov wrote: Are you allowed to shoot off some blacks when they're overpopulating the park?
Absolutely not. Whenever the park gets too crowded, we close the day use booth so no one else can go in without a permit. We do this for safety reasons as people may require medical emergencies like a broken leg or a heart attack. This happens quite often during the weekends here.
At 7/9/14 02:55 PM, SubliminalVirus wrote: Is it possible to reserve a large area of land for a massive fetish party/orgy? If so will there be wildlife there?
If you are willing to pay for all the campsites, shelters, and cabins, then possibly (if that's your thing). We do have wildlife out here. Most of what I've seen so far are deer, turkeys, jack rabbits, birds, and squirrels.
Greetings from the wilderness!
I am interning at a State Park here in Texas, where I do a variety of things that a Park Ranger would do, and observe Park Police Officers doing their jobs. The State Park I'm at provides camping, hiking trails, swimming, tubing, dancing (evenings), fishing lessons, and other occasional activities on the site. I've started the internship in the middle of May, and will continue until early to mid August.
My internet connection is fairly weak where I'm at, so I won't be able to reply too often, but I will do my best to answer each question. A lot of the time, I head to the library ten miles north of here to use their internet for a couple of hours.
Anyway, I hope I can answer some today before I head to work. Ask away!
At 7/8/14 11:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 7/8/14 10:37 PM, TNT wrote: Not exactly. You don't have to own a car, thus you don't need car insurance. However, you get fined for existing (unless you have health insurance of course).That's not an apt differentiation. You do not have the right to drive and you cannot be forced to do so. However, if you show up at an ER with a life threatening injury, you legally must be treated. You have the option if you're conscious and cpale to deny treatment, but if not treatment will be forced upon you.
Right, but comparing car insurance to health insurance isn't a good comparison. As both of us said, no one is forced to drive a car. A better comparison would be something along the lines of Social Security or, ironically enough, Medicare, because they are something we can't exempt from.
At 7/8/14 09:32 PM, Warforger wrote:At 7/8/14 08:05 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: I think Obamacare opened the door to scarier shit than the hobby lobby decision.No, it's not even a precedent. This already exists with car insurance.
Namely, a fine for not carrying health insurance.
Argue all you want, it's a fucked up precedent.
Not exactly. You don't have to own a car, thus you don't need car insurance. However, you get fined for existing (unless you have health insurance of course).
At 7/7/14 03:29 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Except for the fact that in other retail establishments (like say my local wal-mart) where there are strict gun control policies in the state (we're in Jersey), no one has ever been shot or put into a gun violence situation? Let's just ignore that so that way the alarmist, NRA sponsored, argument sounds reasonable.
Curious question. What city is your Walmart at? Also, are there any city ordinances or state laws that also effect gun control in your area? I am wanting to know if there are other outside influences that helped deter illegal gun activity.
At 7/8/14 04:59 AM, Freaki-boy92 wrote: can i just point out that great britain and australia haven't had a mass shooting since the 1990s, when guns in both countries had heavy restrictions placed on them
That's great! What kind of restrictions did they place? I would like to know more.
At 7/8/14 12:00 PM, Wriggle wrote: From my cold dead hands.
Why argue anymore? The best advice I can offer is change the culture - You liberals LOVE to fix "Social Issues" so fix the ones that cause gun violence, but other than that-
From my cold dead hands.
Any questions?
Yeah. Why not argue about it?
Changing your viewpoints isn't always a bad thing. As everyone said, it means you're open minded.
When I was a kid, I hardly questioned the Republican Party. President Bush was the best president that ever existed only because my parents said so. So I blindly "supported" him (as much as a 10-17 year old could), until I got a bit more interested in politics, especially during the McCain/Obama election.
Then my political mind started to take some shape, and I started to realize the Iraq war shouldn't have happened, and my stance on Abortion changed from pro-right to pro-choice for instance. By the time I could vote in the 2012 election, I became an all out supporter for Ron Paul. Blindly, I pretty much agreed on everything he said, with his stance on Abortion as an exception, and rarely would I research opposing view points.
I feel I've gotten better about it though, as now I read sources from both sides, and read the politics forum to gather information from their viewpoints on the topic. If I were to state what my political views are now, I'd say probably slight libertarian. I still like Ron Paul, but now I feel that some of his viewpoints are impractical in today's world.
if you haven't read Liberty Defined by Ron Paul, go check it out. It's a good read.
At 7/3/14 06:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Here's a quetion: why should Target allow guns in their stores?
I feel that people should have a right to carry a gun for self defense in the worst case scenario. It doesn't mean that anytime a robbery were to happen that they immediately pull out their pistol and become vigilantes, but if I were to be stuck in a corner with no other option to escape from some maniac with a deadly weapon, then you bet I would pull out my concealed weapon if I feel that my life is in danger. But I know, and every other gun owner should know that they should only use it for that reason alone. The absolute last resort.
I just don't think Target, or any other business (with special exceptions, like bars where 51% or more of their sales are alcohol related) should be able to ban reasonable personal protection.
At 7/3/14 08:39 PM, TheKlown wrote: These liberals are ruining our stores. Out of protest for Target being a liberal cock sucking parasite of a store, I think we should stop buying from them. People should have the right to defend themselves.
They haven't banned open carry or concealed carry at their stores yet...
At 7/3/14 09:49 AM, wildfire4461 wrote: Well it looks like it worked:
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/moneywatch-june-jobs-report-target-asks-customers-to-leave-guns-at-home/
But... It's not an actual ban. They're just asking people to not bring them.
And proof anti gun soccer cunts are behind the petition: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/should-target-allow-large-guns-in-its-stores/
There's now a counter-petition to have Target take back what they said: http://nagr.org/2014/Stop_Target_anti-gunners.aspx?pid=fb1a
I wouldn't be surprised if the NRA gets involved as well.
At 7/2/14 11:40 PM, Warforger wrote:
Hey guys be honest, when you clicked on this thread, did the average one of you gun rights posters think that it was about banning guns entirely in stores? Because that's the way you guys are posting. This thread is about unconcealed weapons vs. concealed weapons. So yes you just have to have common sense to see why having unconcealed weapons can drive away business. It has nothing to do with banning guns in stores.
Actually, banning guns outright is an option a store owner can make. I've only addressed that I would allow concealed carry inside as opposed of open carry. Sorry if I wasn't clear in the beginning.
Pardon my ignorance, but what made these four pills different from the other sixteen?
At 7/2/14 12:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote: This is a pretty good idea, but I would still ban all guns seen by the store.
Ok. Let's hear them!
Guns have no place in a store (save for a store that sells them, and then the only ones that do are either on the shelf or on the way from the shelf to checkout). They drive away business, if they do not expressly drive away business they create an uncomfortable atmoshpere which has a downward effect on how much people will buy at any given trip.
We seem to be on the same level regarding open carrying of guns.
Even if a store was better protected from robbery with civilian guns present, the cost benefit weight heavily against allowing them. In a robbery you may lose a few thousand dollars of merchandise with a possible x2 of damage. On the worst case scenario, it may reach 6 figures. 1 person gets injured because you allowed guns in your store and you'll be easily liable for a mutli-million dollar lawsuit. It would take a significant amount of robberies to equal the cost of one bothced incident involving a civilian with a gun. Add that the the downward pressure open cary guns put on number of shopping trips and the amount purchased during those tirps and you have a very expensive deterrent for a quite rare and relatively inexpensive nuisance.
We would have to compare the number of accidental shootings in a public place to robberies inside a store like Target. The lawsuit would be more expensive than a robbery inside a store, so that's a fair point. But what we should factor in is how common robberies are in these chains compared to accidental shootings in general. In a small business, it would be a major blow for someone to accidentally discharge their weapon and potentially kill someone inside. They would go out of business. However, for big chains like Target, they probably get a robbery quite a few times a year in different locations across the US; more than an accidental shooting at their business. That in combination may equal, or exceed the amount a lawsuit would entail unlike one Target Store down the street from where I live for instance.
This is only mere speculation though. I would have to look into the number of robberies and amount lost for Target and other stores.
As far as it comes to feeling protected, y'all are pretty trusting of strangers for being entirely xenophobic of strangers. Who's to tell you whether the man carrying that AR15 in Target is a good guy or is merely loitering around for the best time to shoot up the place? Are you going to walk up to the guy with a gun (who already has strong personal issues, hence the dire need to bring a gun into a store) and ask him if he's a criminal or not? Aside from asking an off kilter person such a question, how are you to believe anything that person says? Wouldn't it be pretty easy for a criminal to lie and say he's the good guy, then shoot your child as you walk away?
I would say that he's the stupidest criminal on the planet, or he's mentally unstable (for lack of a better word). Cameras everywhere will know exactly what he looks like, and what gun he is carrying. Had he decided to commit a mass shooting exposed like that, he can be easily identifiable and charged with very little effort. Most, if not all criminals would have their weapons concealed, or they would barged to the nearest person immediately for money or to hold him/her hostage.
But as I said before, for business reasons, I wouldn't allow anyone to open carry a weapon inside unless they happen to be law enforcement.
Perhaps the massive quagmire that is involved would make a company simply decide to put their foot down and keep all the issues outside of their property.
Thanks for posting a different take on how businesses should imply gun policies.
At 7/2/14 02:35 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
because alot of states don't allow open/unconcealed carry most do if your out in public but thats mostly pertains to handguns states like Texas, Idaho and Kentucky allow that. here in Minnesota/North Dakota (live in a border cities) its wierd in Minnesota to open carry you have to get concealed carry and in North Dakota the same, and these are heavy hunting states we're talking I see open/concealed kinda in between (like a detective in law n order with a jacket concealing)
Ok. Then lets strictly speak for those States that do allow open carry. Or we could be hypothetical and say that "all states allow open carry of weapons, and it's up to private owners to dictate what people can and can't do with guns on their premises".
lol what? some butthurt middle aged houswives swearing off Target? please like thats going to hurt Target in the slightest and it will probably increase business because all of a sudden it got popular to the 2A people and the NRA.
Back in 2009 I think, I attended a Hunting and Gun Safety Course to get a special permit that allows me to hunt without adult supervision (I was 17 at the time). I recall something where about 10% of people support hunting, 10% who doesn't, and the other 80% simply doesn't care. I'm willing to bet that the same 10% that doesn't support hunting are also for gun control, if not banning guns outright. 10% might not seem like a big deal, but for businesses like Target, we're talking about potentially millions of dollars in losses to the competition. You did say that there could be an increase in sales due to gun supporters and NRA members, but I think that's only short term at best. In the long run, I think it will still be a loss in profit.
good you aren't one of thosefeel good idiots. otherwise I would have to go on a looooong rant.
Why thank you then. :)
At 7/2/14 02:13 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
lol these are just a bunch of butthurt mid twenty to middle aged woman. a fraction of a fraction of the demographic that Target target (lol pun!) and won't even hurt their bottom line financially go to walmart? they allow open and concealed and many other stores allow concealed because their licesnesd.
Not many people carry their guns unconcealed in those stores though, or at least I haven't seen one person carry a gun(s) inside a Target or Walmart to this day. And I think you're underestimating the number of people sensitive to guns; some more sensitive than others. Maybe not so much in Texas and other red States, but get enough pro-gun people motivated to carry their guns openly inside a Target, I'm sure it will stir away some business.
no it wouldn't the Cunts Demand Action want retarded reform that only inhibit or make it difficult for law abiding citizens which has little to no effect on crime. dont believe me? go to the east side of LA or southside of Chicago. and the Gun rights wont let that happen because it violates court rulings and the 2A.
Well you can't please everyone. It seems like the best scenario for business in the long run though.
follow state laws and adopt the policy to those if there's no open carry in that state no open carry.
this restaurant made its self "gunfree" and got robbed. same thing with this Jack in the Boxsince it declared itself Gun Free got robbed 3 times in less than 2 weeks. all they do is say COME ROB ME! at least if you allow concealed you keep the idiot criminals guessing!
I don't disagree that announcing a gun free zone doesn't deter gun wielding criminals.
At 7/2/14 12:50 AM, Korriken wrote: Criminals don't follow gun laws. placing up a big sign that says, "No guns allowed in here!" is basically a sign that read, "We're defenseless! Kill us!"
So you'll allow customers to carry their guns unconcealed, concealed, or both? I'm asking this because in Texas, some businesses have signs that say "the unlicensed possession of a weapon on these premises is a felony..." We don't have an open carry license as far as I know, but that message obviously does not restrict conceal carry holders.
I'm aware that there is a gun control thread, but I think this specific topic can be on its own, because I'm looking for different opinions on how gun policies should be implemented in businesses. If it needs to be in a gun control thread, then lock away!
With that out of the way, a friend of mine on Facebook shared a petition that wants Target to "create gun sense policies to protect customers in its stores". In this link, they state that Target has little to no gun policies, which means that people can carry their weapons inside unconcealed. I think this would make an interesting discussion on what policies you would adopt regarding guns in your business (rather you own a business or not).
If I was the CEO of Target, I wouldn't allow unconcealed weapons in any of my stores. Quite frankly, this has nothing to do with my stance on gun safety, but on how it effects potential customers from entering the store. Since making a profit is one of the biggest, if not the biggest goal in any business, guns being carried by random civilians could make other customers uncomfortable. Because of this, they will most likely choose to shop elsewhere, which means a lost of potential profit. How much of a lost profit is uncertain, but I wouldn't be surprised that if Target openly allows open carry of rifles and shotguns, a good percentage of people wouldn't shop there anymore (that of course depends on the State, and what gun laws are in affect as well).
However, if licensed, gun owners may carry their concealed handgun inside the store. This would satisfy both sides of the party. The gun owners can have their gun inside a store, while those who are uncomfortable with guns wouldn't know they are carrying one. In the end, there's more money.
How would you implement gun policy in your business?
I wish my cat was as badass as this cat in the link! Thankfully the boy will be fine.
I'm sorry.
But the last severe thunderstorm we had in our area produced SOFTBALL SIZED HAIL! Try convincing a meteorologist that this particular storm wasn't "severe".
Troll Story of the year.
Bravo!
WHERE'S MY CHOCOLATE FROSTY!?!?!?!?!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
