Sign in to follow this  
badlatitude

Just Another High School Shooting

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Ah yes, the good old right-wing mind-reading machine is booted up and clicking away. And the Guy who wants to be reasonable is casting asparagus freely..... rational compromise indeed

-DSK

Mind reading machine?   I'm simply repeating the assertions offered by several posters here - but, if you want to call that mind reading, have at it.  As to rational compromise - I've offered several, and I'm simply tired of the recalcitrance.  
What do you find unreasonable about my position, Steamers - that I don;t agree with some folks here? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Mind reading machine?   I'm simply repeating the assertions offered by several posters here - but, if you want to call that mind reading, have at it.  As to rational compromise - I've offered several, and I'm simply tired of the recalcitrance.  
What do you find unreasonable about my position, Steamers - that I don;t agree with some folks here? 

Actually, often you -are- reasonable and rational. But when you put words in somebody elses mouth and or attack what you say they're thinking, then you're indulging in harmful fallacy. Which is what you just did. The Fox/Rush hate-spew media loves this kind of stuff, it's easy and has a high emotional appeal for people who need a target to abuse.

Disagreeing is fine. It's fundamental to democracy, in fact.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

27 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

You're an echo. That is not an original argument and was probably one of the first voiced in these pages. We are supposed to grow by what we discuss, not raise old issues that we hashed over the years. 

BL - I never claimed it to be an original argument, that doesn't negate its validity.   We disagree in how we see the problem and the solution.  The only additional restriction that I see having any chance to achieve your objective (less people being shot, IIRC) is a complete confiscation.  To achieve THAT - we'll need to implement draconian enforcement measures - suspending the 4th, door-to-door searches, until the confiscation has been verified to be complete.   Even then - I don't think that we will see a reduction in the instances of people being hurt and killed by acts of violence, we'll just see fewer people shot.  

If you want to grow by what you discuss - then lets talk about implementing some of the ideas that have been shared that aren't centered around ineffective prohibitions, when the objective really oughta be keeping people from being hurt by senseless acts of violence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Actually, often you -are- reasonable and rational. But when you put words in somebody elses mouth and or attack what you say they're thinking, then you're indulging in harmful fallacy. Which is what you just did. The Fox/Rush hate-spew media loves this kind of stuff, it's easy and has a high emotional appeal for people who need a target to abuse.

Disagreeing is fine. It's fundamental to democracy, in fact.

-DSK

The position espoused by most of the advocates of increased restrictions by and large don't and won't impact the criminals, but, will impact lawful owners instead.   How's that putting words in someone else's mouth?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The position espoused by most of the advocates of increased restrictions by and large don't and won't impact the criminals, but, will impact lawful owners instead.   How's that putting words in someone else's mouth?   

First, it's just dogma that whatever increased restrictions are imposed will not "impact" criminals. Some new rules will, some won't. It would be better to not make rules that won't; just like it would be better to try enforcing existing rules before making a bunch of new ones.

When you imply... or state outright... that it's the intention to impact lawful gun owners but not criminals, that's putting words in their mouth. And attacking a straw man.

Some time ago you got on my case about misquoting you (which I wasn't) to mis-portray your posts (which I may have been, and now try harder to not do). You're doing the same thing without even doing the curtesy of quoting them.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

First, it's just dogma that whatever increased restrictions are imposed will not "impact" criminals. Some new rules will, some won't. It would be better to not make rules that won't; just like it would be better to try enforcing existing rules before making a bunch of new ones.

When you imply... or state outright... that it's the intention to impact lawful gun owners but not criminals, that's putting words in their mouth. And attacking a straw man.

Some time ago you got on my case about misquoting you (which I wasn't) to mis-portray your posts (which I may have been, and now try harder to not do). You're doing the same thing without even doing the curtesy of quoting them.

-DSK

I honestly don't think I am mis-portraying anything Steamers.  Restricting classes of firearms, increased scrutiny of sales, increased regulation of ammo sales - neither of those address the behaviors that I think we all want to be curtailed, none of those things directly address the people who have demonstrated the intention to engage in those behaviors.   

Something I proposed a while ago is a perfect example of what I mean.  Anyone who is the target of a domestic violence restraining order should immediately, coupled with a review process to mitigate the impacts of malicious claims, and a requirement that if the DV claim is adjudicated in favor of the defendant, that they have their property immediately returned.   I think personally that this should happen with anyone charged with ANY violent felony - again with the stipulation that if the case is adjudicated in favor of the defendant, that they be restored to pre-charge condition without prejudice.   

This isn't a restriction of an object, it applies specifically to individuals who's behavior warrants the infringement, and it doesn't impact everyone else who happens to own a gun. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I honestly don't think I am mis-portraying anything Steamers.  Restricting classes of firearms, increased scrutiny of sales, increased regulation of ammo sales - neither of those address the behaviors that I think we all want to be curtailed, none of those things directly address the people who have demonstrated the intention to engage in those behaviors.   

Something I proposed a while ago is a perfect example of what I mean.  Anyone who is the target of a domestic violence restraining order should immediately, coupled with a review process to mitigate the impacts of malicious claims, and a requirement that if the DV claim is adjudicated in favor of the defendant, that they have their property immediately returned.   I think personally that this should happen with anyone charged with ANY violent felony - again with the stipulation that if the case is adjudicated in favor of the defendant, that they be restored to pre-charge condition without prejudice.   

This isn't a restriction of an object, it applies specifically to individuals who's behavior warrants the infringement, and it doesn't impact everyone else who happens to own a gun. 

 

Take the guns first, due process later.  WHAT ABOUT THIS ARE YOU NOT HEARING?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I honestly don't think I am mis-portraying anything Steamers. 

Of course not. If I thought you were deliberately misrepresenting, instead of trying to explain, I'd just dismiss your comments with something snarky (but hopefully funny).

... Restricting classes of firearms, increased scrutiny of sales, increased regulation of ammo sales - neither of those address the behaviors that I think we all want to be curtailed, none of those things directly address the people who have demonstrated the intention to engage in those behaviors.  

Well, the problem here is that this kind of thing has worked well in a few cases..... it's a question of what makes it work. As always, making blanket/universal generalizations leads one astray. On top of that, go back and re-read your post. Even if you weren't intending to malign, you can probably see how people would read it that way.

Something I proposed a while ago is a perfect example of what I mean.  Anyone who is the target of a domestic violence restraining order should immediately, coupled with a review process to mitigate the impacts of malicious claims, and a requirement that if the DV claim is adjudicated in favor of the defendant, that they have their property immediately returned.   I think personally that this should happen with anyone charged with ANY violent felony - again with the stipulation that if the case is adjudicated in favor of the defendant, that they be restored to pre-charge condition without prejudice.   

This isn't a restriction of an object, it applies specifically to individuals who's behavior warrants the infringement, and it doesn't impact everyone else who happens to own a gun. 

 

I would agree strongly with such a proposal, in fact I'm pretty sure there are laws like this in place, here & there. But it would require money to administer a system where the info is collected, stored, and disseminated; and such data on citizens is a form of gov't intrusion all by itself. It would require closing the gun-show loopholes, with teeth (ie prosecuting gun sellers and actually handing down tough sentences).

As mentioned in the Libertarian thread and the Black thread, the basic root of the problem is that some people are jerks. All the laws in the world cannot change that. It seems very much to me that laws about people (your proposal) can address the problem* partially and laws about things (in this case guns) address the problem a little more fully, in combination.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m watching a news report on the National School Walkout.  It seems to me that most of these kids can not afford to miss any class time.  I also find it interesting that they chose 4/20 for the walkout.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raise the age to buy assault rifles to 21.  Wasn't anyone listening to me when I met with those kids?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2018 at 5:55 PM, Steam Flyer said:

News flash.... we've already moved far far away from a society of individual liberties/responsibilities. We now live in a society where, if you fall in a hole because you were walking and texting, it's the fault of the guy who put the hole there.

Yeah and that's fucked up.  More of the same is not the right answer.  Its never too late to say enough of this madness.  The fault of the guy falling in the hole is the idiot texting and not looking where he or she is going.  We don't need to keep doing this stupid shit because we are already wrongly doing this stupid shit.

In such a society, the untrammeled and unrestricted right to buy & carry weapons is a guarantee of murder & mayhem on a large scale..... and that's exactly what we're getting.

This is a case of individual vs community rights. You and I are free to buy any gun we can afford (or get credit for) and both take the risk of being shot by an irate neighbor... "Your goddam dog has pissed on my mailbox for THE LAST TIME!" Personally, I have no qualms with private ownership of weapons. OTOH I have a big problem with the unrestricted sale of firearms to dangerous whackoes.

There is no such thing as "unrestricted sale of firearms to dangerous whackos".  There are many laws in place to stop exactly that.  The fact that we do a shit job of enforcing those laws doesn't mean we should enact more laws that we won't enforce any better.  THAT^^ is the #1 problem here IMHO.  Every new restriction or ban without good enforcement only affects the people who follow the law anyway.  Start enforcing existing laws, and there is a plethora of them, and then and only then am I willing to discuss new ones.

As a society, we've seperated rights from obligations for so long that nobody seems to connect them any more, on any side of the debate.

The freedom to swing ones' fist has to stop at some reasonable margin short of everybody elses' nose. Many gun owners seem to have a problem with that.

And, as my wife observed some months ago in a similar debate..... the 2nd Amendment says nothing at all about the right to buy or sell arms.

How does one "keep and bear" firearms if they are not allowed to buy them in the first place??

-DSK

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DonaldJTrump said:

Take the guns first, due process later.  WHAT ABOUT THIS ARE YOU NOT HEARING?

The fact that you miss the complete irony of your statement is absolutely stunning, but not surprising in the slightest.

BTW - Hi spatial ed.  I see you're back with us.  Digging in the sock drawer I see.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

As mentioned in the Libertarian thread and the Black thread, the basic root of the problem is that some people are jerks. All the laws in the world cannot change that. It seems very much to me that laws about people (your proposal) can address the problem* partially and laws about things (in this case guns) address the problem a little more fully, in combination.

Except that laws about things tends to hit the entire broad based population who are typically not the problem.  So you penalize 99.99999999999769% of the population who are not doing anything wrong.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have run into that school unarmed and dealt with the shooter.   American needs more real men like me.  And we need to arm very weapons talented teachers.  And raise the age to buy guns to 21.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DonaldJTrump said:

I would have run into that school unarmed and dealt with the shooter.   American needs more real men like me.  And we need to arm very weapons talented teachers.  And raise the age to buy guns to 21.

Whatever you say, spatial ed.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Except that laws about things tends to hit the entire broad based population who are typically not the problem.  So you penalize 99.99999999999769% of the population who are not doing anything wrong.

Right. "Laws about things" always hurt innocent people, Like the way the people who can drive really fast JUST FINE thank you but they have to obey the speed limit just like the less-capable who can't drive fast without crashing.

Dumbass knee-jerk response. Not helpful.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, silent bob said:

I’m watching a news report on the National School Walkout.  It seems to me that most of these kids can not afford to miss any class time.  I also find it interesting that they chose 4/20 for the walkout.  

I was watching the local CBS noon report, and the cameraman scanned the crowd and focused on an approximate 8-year-old kid holding a "Fuck the NRA" poster. I about fell out of my chair laughing trying to figure out who was worse, the organizers for giving a child that poster or the camera crew for making it my day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, silent bob said:

I’m watching a news report on the National School Walkout.  It seems to me that most of these kids can not afford to miss any class time.  I also find it interesting that they chose 4/20 for the walkout.  

It's the anniversary of the Columbine massacre. Nothing to do with mary jane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Except that laws about things tends to hit the entire broad based population who are typically not the problem.  So you penalize 99.99999999999769% of the population who are not doing anything wrong.

That's pretty normal for enforcement of many laws. Try some HTFU on the "hit", and on the victimization.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Except that laws about things tends to hit the entire broad based population who are typically not the problem.  So you penalize 99.99999999999769% of the population who are not doing anything wrong.

I believe the answer to that is "Tough Shit - find a new hobby".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

I believe the answer to that is "Tough Shit - find a new hobby".

 Bellyaching about diminishing gun rights is the hobby. Seriously. Like cats, they love to hate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
On 4/19/2018 at 9:55 AM, Steam Flyer said:

And, as my wife observed some months ago in a similar debate..... the 2nd Amendment says nothing at all about the right to buy or sell arms.

 

How does one "keep and bear" firearms if they are not allowed to buy them in the first place??

Who cares? The Constitution does not say one word on the subject.

Now, the people who make a lot of money selling arms certainly have spent a lot of moola lobbying to buy opinions that the Constitution "means" something along the lines of how you would like to interpret it. Watcha gonna do, start your redneck revolution because of what you wished the Constitution said, instead of what it actually does say?

FWIW I agree that existing enforcement sucks and that's the first place to start. And have said so many times.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Who cares? The Constitution does not say one word on the subject.

It doesn't say one thing about many things considered "rights" these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bpm57 said:
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Who cares? The Constitution does not say one word on the subject.

It doesn't say one thing about many things considered "rights" these days.

Very true

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I understand that many of you have a different interpretation - it's fine, but not right.   The supremes have interpreted the intention many times - and their decision hasn't supported your interpretation.  

Do you accept the Supreme Court to be infallible? If not, that isn't an argument against what is claimed about it's original intent, merely an argument regarding how it is interpreted by the judicial system. 

If it helps you stop playing games, I 100% concede that is how the judicial system will act regarding the Second Amendment. Just as they interpret the right to privacy as granting the right to an abortion. Just because a decision is reached that one likes, doesn't mean it's based on unimpeachable logic. 

So back to that Second Amendment, why do you think the law was written without a single reference to personal defence yet expressly uses well regulated militias and the security of a free state as justification? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
10 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

xcept that laws about things tends to hit the entire broad based population who are typically not the problem.  So you penalize 99.99999999999769% of the population who are not doing anything wrong.

Right. "Laws about things" always hurt innocent people, Like the way the people who can drive really fast JUST FINE thank you but they have to obey the speed limit just like the less-capable who can't drive fast without crashing.

Dumbass knee-jerk response. Not helpful.

Poor analogy.  In order to have some semblance of highway safety, its reasonable to have limits on speed. 

However, If you are trying to compare road safety with reducing deliberate uses of gunz to murder folks in today's political climate and what is currently being proposed - the correct analogy is that all cars except 4 cylinder mini-shitboxes are banned in order to stop the tiny fraction of the driving public from killing other people on the roads.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
10 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
On 4/19/2018 at 5:55 PM, Steam Flyer said:

And, as my wife observed some months ago in a similar debate..... the 2nd Amendment says nothing at all about the right to buy or sell arms.

 

How does one "keep and bear" firearms if they are not allowed to buy them in the first place??

Who cares? The Constitution does not say one word on the subject.

Now, the people who make a lot of money selling arms certainly have spent a lot of moola lobbying to buy opinions that the Constitution "means" something along the lines of how you would like to interpret it. Watcha gonna do, start your redneck revolution because of what you wished the Constitution said, instead of what it actually does say?

FWIW I agree that existing enforcement sucks and that's the first place to start. And have said so many times.

-DSK

Except you and your wife are missing what is actually DOES say.  Its says, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed."  You cannot keep and bear arms if all avenues of acquiring them are blocked by the gov't.  The constitution does not have to spell out anything else and the courts have repeatedly struck down attempts to do exactly what your wife suggests.  In Heller, McDonald and others, ordinances to effectively prevent citizens from purchasing guns, keeping guns and having having the ability to meet requirements to own guns - such as a requirement that you must have training but then banning all shooting ranges so its impossible to meet the licensing requirement have been found to be unconstitutional because they all stop or block the key liberty of "Keep and Bear".  

Here's an analogy that you might get.....  The SCOTUS has been pretty clear that Roe vs Wade is the law of the land and that the right to have an abortion is final.  Right?  So what have anti-abortion folks done since they lost the key fight to declare abortions illegal???  They are doing an end-run around the Constitution to effectively make it impossible to exercise that right by making abortion clinic licensing requirements so onerous that most go out of business in a given state.  And women who might seek an abortion would have to travel hundreds of miles to get the procedure, effectively making that "right" impossible to exercise for most.  And recent SCOTUS decisions have begun to stomp those down too, and rightfully so.  A right is not a right, if you are blocked from exercising it.  

So to answer the question:  "Who cares?"  The SCOTUS cares and have said so.  And so should you care as well.  What happens to one right is how all other rights will be treated.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2018 at 7:44 AM, Steam Flyer said:

It's not just Democrats who want to take away your .22

https://www.google.com/search?q=CPAC+weapons+ban&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

I assume the point of this is that some gatherings prohibit participants from carrying guns if they attend?

 

On 4/15/2018 at 8:05 AM, Steam Flyer said:
On 4/15/2018 at 5:13 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

By the way, I know how to use Google and suggesting search terms for me is laziness, not research.

I've posted lots of examples of (assault weapon, ordinary .22) bans, all of which have exclusively TeamD sponsors/authors.

If you can actually do some research and find me an exception, I'd be interested in seeing it. So far, I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that anyone from TeamR wants to ban our .22's. Unless you count Republican-of-convenience Bloomberg, which I don't.

Just because you don't bother to look, doesn't mean it's not there.

Team R cheerleading, check . Serious debate...... not so much

A "serious" debate might examine the difference between a political group not wanting guns at their gathering and TeamD not wanting my guns at my house.

I can avoid public gatherings and this avoid the gun restrictions. I can't avoid my house.

A non-serious debate would equate the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

What happens to one right is how all other rights will be treated.  

I disagree. What happens to gun "rights" can be sorted differently from speech and voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2018 at 12:41 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I assume the point of this is that some gatherings prohibit participants from carrying guns if they attend?

 

A "serious" debate might examine the difference between a political group not wanting guns at their gathering and TeamD not wanting my guns at my house.

I can avoid public gatherings and this avoid the gun restrictions. I can't avoid my house.

A non-serious debate would equate the two.

The words "Serious debate" and "Steam flyer" should not be in the same sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2018 at 12:58 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Except you and your wife are missing what is actually DOES say.  Its says, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed." 

 

Well, aside from the fact that you're missing half of what it actually says, I still don't see any part that addresses buying and selling arms

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The words "Serious debate" and "Steam flyer" should not be in the same sentence.

Translation- "Wa-a-ahh! Steam Flyer makes my foolish and fantasy-based posts look like foolish fantasy.... wa-ah!"

You and Tom have three basic options: 1- look at reality and reconsider some of your opinions....... 2- stop posting on certain topics...... 3- continue to be made fools of, for your foolish opinions

-DSK

[edit to add] I shouldn't have written the above that implied -all- your posts are delusional & stupid; most of the time you both have good contribution to discussion

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line is Americans are prepared to sacrifice a few children to keep their guns ................. your country is foked .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

A "serious" debate might examine the difference between a political group not wanting guns at their gathering and TeamD not wanting my guns at my house.

I can avoid public gatherings and this avoid the gun restrictions. I can't avoid my house.

A non-serious debate would equate the two.

A serious debate would not entertain the idea of "TeamD", or anybody else, wanting the guns at your house.

Poor Tom. He was all chipper the day before Sandy Hook explaining the benefits of Moore vs. Madison. Then he deteriorated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2018 at 9:58 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

A right is not a right, if you are blocked from exercising it.  

The Clarence Thomas refrain gets repeated, but always was weak. You are just hiding gunplay behind the fine cachet of freespeech, and voting. I think guns rights are DEFINITELY second-class rights, if they are rights at all.

Try your logic on the Parkland Debate Team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence of more incompetent adults who should be supervising their charges.

De La Torre could not say whether the students who walked away from the school would face any disciplinary action. The superintendent said the school had about 10 individuals keeping an eye on students participating in a walkout to protest recent school shootings.  The walkout was staged within the school campus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I think guns rights are DEFINITELY second-class rights

Finally, an actual opinion from Joe.

Well, besides the one where he admitted he was scared of the idea that a black could own a firearm.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

You and Tom have three basic options: 1- look at reality and reconsider some of your opinions....... 2- stop posting on certain topics...... 3- continue to be made fools of, for your foolish opinions

I looked and decided that people who want to ban and confiscate my .22 in my home are different from people who don't want guns brought to their public gathering.

Did you decide they are the same? That's what "It's not just Democrats who want to take away your .22" suggests to me.

No, it's not the same. And it wasn't the same back when I refused to vote for W in part because he said he'd sign a ban on (assault weapons, our .22's). Was that TeamR cheerleading, or just being consistent on this issue while one half of the Duopoly changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I looked and decided that people who want to ban and confiscate my .22 in my home are different from people who don't want guns brought to their public gathering.

Did you decide they are the same? That's what "It's not just Democrats who want to take away your .22" suggests to me.

No, it's not the same. And it wasn't the same back when I refused to vote for W in part because he said he'd sign a ban on (assault weapons, our .22's). Was that TeamR cheerleading, or just being consistent on this issue while one half of the Duopoly changed?

Well, to insist that Republican never ever want to ban guns, only those dadgum libby-rull faggot Democrats ban gunz! ... when in two seconds I show you a prominent example of Republicans banning guns, that is kinda stupid.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mid said:

Bottom line is Americans are prepared to sacrifice a few children to keep their guns Liberties (such as privacy)................. your country is foked .

FIFY.

Ed Ghandi-Lada agrees with this.  He full-throatedly endorsed dead children in exchange for not interfering with someone's privacy rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 4/22/2018 at 4:51 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

A "serious" debate might examine the difference between a political group not wanting guns at their gathering and TeamD not wanting my guns at my house.

I can avoid public gatherings and this avoid the gun restrictions. I can't avoid my house.

A non-serious debate would equate the two.

A serious debate would not entertain the idea of "TeamD", or anybody else, wanting the guns at your house.

Poor Tom. He was all chipper the day before Sandy Hook explaining the benefits of Moore vs. Madison. Then he deteriorated.

I didn't say that!  Stop fucking up the quotes, joe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I didn't say that!  Stop fucking up the quotes, joe.

It is annoying, but I'm not sure it's Jocal's fault. The quote function has been buggered up since the last website update; they fixed it better but it's not working as well as it used to.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I looked and decided that people who want to ban and confiscate my .22 in my home are different from people who don't want guns brought to their public gathering.

Did you decide they are the same? That's what "It's not just Democrats who want to take away your .22" suggests to me.

No, it's not the same. And it wasn't the same back when I refused to vote for W in part because he said he'd sign a ban on (assault weapons, our .22's). Was that TeamR cheerleading, or just being consistent on this issue while one half of the Duopoly changed?

Well, to insist that Republican never ever want to ban guns, only those dadgum libby-rull faggot Democrats ban gunz! ... when in two seconds I show you a prominent example of Republicans banning guns, that is kinda stupid.

You didn't notice the part of my reply where I mention not voting for TeamR over this same issue, among others?

And again, "banning guns" at their event is different to me from banning my guns in my home. Saying they are the same is kinda stupid. They're not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You didn't notice the part of my reply where I mention not voting for TeamR over this same issue, among others?

And again, "banning guns" at their event is different to me from banning my guns in my home. Saying they are the same is kinda stupid. They're not.

A Holstein is not the same as a Belted Galloway, but they're both cows.

Banning guns at a Republican event is not the same as every single Democrat in the world demanding an instant ban on guns in your home, but they're both gun bans

What is "kinda stupid"??

Not knowing a cow, or insisting that when you see a cow that it can't possibly be a COW

-DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

A Holstein is not the same as a Belted Galloway, but they're both cows.

Banning guns at a Republican event is not the same as every single Democrat in the world demanding an instant ban on guns in your home, but they're both gun bans

What is "kinda stupid"??

Not knowing a cow, or insisting that when you see a cow that it can't possibly be a COW

-DSK

 

Sigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jocal505 said:

A serious debate would not entertain the idea of "TeamD", or anybody else, wanting the guns at your house.

Poor Tom. He was all chipper the day before Sandy Hook explaining the benefits of Moore vs. Madison. Then he deteriorated.

So - I only see the Nutters when quoted - but did I really read Jeff has attended a class on how to be an efficient mass murderer, and then challenge a member to a death match?

What's gone wrong with these guys?  Brain malfunction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

What is "kinda stupid"??

Not knowing a cow, or insisting that when you see a cow that it can't possibly be a COW

Exactly.

 

The battle guns complaint goes directly to Scalia, and Heller.

Battle guns are excluded from Scalia's special protection (by Heller). Some states restrict the LCM platforms, and long tube feeding devices, on some .22's. Therefore our .22's are battle guns.

Saying they are the same is beyond "kinda stupid." I encourage the stupidity in play, I want more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Sigh

Try the waffles. Sit on a spike.

 

21 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Well, besides the one where he admitted he (Joe) was scared of the idea that a black could own a firearm.

Cite your race-baiting, please. Cite it within a full statement. Cite where I'm any more scared of blacks owning arms, than the idea of whites owning arms. (They each have some "right", but screw it up in different ways, IMO.)

 

 

The men behind the Fourteenth were far more worthy than the men behind the revolution itself. Evicting a foreign power is a no-brainer, but the effort behind the Fourteenth was pure, core, red-blooded, "all men are created equal," American values. Unfulfilled values.

@bpm57, I hate to see gun rights and street violence coming along for the ride on the Fourteenth Amendment. McDonald's presentation was not honest in 2010. The 1860's state constitutions were not tallied honestly with regard to their stances on individual gun rights. And the underlying intentions of the amendment were mis-represented.

Having looked into it, I can argue that gun rights were a minor, incidental footnote in both the crafting and intentions of the Fourteenth.

Yeah. We can both play the racial issue, standing on different moral ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2018 at 3:11 AM, Mid said:

Bottom line is Americans are prepared to sacrifice a few children to keep their guns ................. your country is foked .

I'll say it again  .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saorsa said:
5 hours ago, Mid said:

I'll say it again  .

WAR

what is it good for

Absolutely nothing

[jumping up] Good God y'all !!!

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Righty_tighty_lefty_dumbas said:

B61794D5-0ABB-45E4-975E-9D549235F993-520

proof , as if any was needed that my statement rings TRUE .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
19 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You didn't notice the part of my reply where I mention not voting for TeamR over this same issue, among others?

And again, "banning guns" at their event is different to me from banning my guns in my home. Saying they are the same is kinda stupid. They're not.

A Holstein is not the same as a Belted Galloway, but they're both cows.

Banning guns at a Republican event is not the same as every single Democrat in the world demanding an instant ban on guns in your home, but they're both gun bans

What is "kinda stupid"??

Not knowing a cow, or insisting that when you see a cow that it can't possibly be a COW

If you asked a hundred people which group best represents Republican views on guns, I'd guess around 100 of them would say "the NRA" and zero would say "CPAC."

And at the NRA Convention, guns are allowed. So by one of your standards, TeamR isn't the gungrabby team.

"Kinda stupid" is saying that a "ban" I can easily avoid is the same as one I can't avoid at all. One is a ban that affects me, the other is not.

You seem to say lots of bad things about TeamR here. So I guess you consider yourself a TeamD cheerleader?

Look, if you won't accept the fact that authors and sponsors of gun bans that actually affect me are exclusively TeamD, nor the fact that I called them out on it back when notables such as George Bush, that other George Bush, and Donald Trump all supported bans on (assault weapons, ordinary .22's), how about accepting these statements?

On 3/20/2018 at 10:16 AM, kent_island_sailor said:

I haven't studied him in detail, but in general he is to the right of a lot of current Democrats. The more lefty-urban branch of the Ds would never vote for this:

3_142018_beltway-conor8201_c0-78-950-631

KIS is not exactly known as a gun nut nor a TeamR cheerleader but he can see that there has been a change over the years and now only half of the Duopoly supports banning (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) in our homes.

On 3/14/2018 at 11:16 AM, Sol Rosenberg said:

From the little bit I've heard about this race, it sounds like the D candidate is more of an R.  He openly says that Pelosi should be out of leadership positions, is anti-abortion, pro-gun rights, etc.


Sol won't say which "gun rights" position he's talking about but the only one I can find is Conor Lamb's opposition to banning (assault weapons, ordinary .22's)

You may not have noticed the change over the years, as more and more TeamR members dropped support for these bans. I did notice, as did KIS and Sol.

Happy to have helped by bringing to your attention the fact that these days, TeamD wants to ban my guns in my home and TeamR doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom,

I don't think I said anything like what you think I said. I think - I am bit confused by your post.

First off, I was happy to see Connor Lamb do well because even though most Ds and probably me as well are opposed to what I think his gun control positions are, his constituents are in favor of his positions and the Democrats need this kind of variety to do well. They cannot be a monolith of urban leftish positions.

I think we all know few to zero Rs want anything to do with assault weapon-ish (we all know the diff between AR-15s and M-16s :rolleyes:) bans. I personally will vote for a .22 exemption from any ban of you promise to STFU about it :rolleyes::P:P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Tom,

I don't think I said anything like what you think I said. I think - I am bit confused by your post.

First off, I was happy to see Connor Lamb do well because even though most Ds and probably me as well are opposed to what I think his gun control positions are, his constituents are in favor of his positions and the Democrats need this kind of variety to do well. They cannot be a monolith of urban leftish positions.

I think we all know few to zero Rs want anything to do with assault weapon-ish (we all know the diff between AR-15s and M-16s :rolleyes:) bans. I personally will vote for a .22 exemption from any ban of you promise to STFU about it :rolleyes::P:P

 

I asked what made him a "Blue Dog" in your view and your answer centered around his opposition to (assault weapon, ordinary .22) bans.

That suggests a party loyalty litmus test is one's position on such bans.

As I have said many times, I'll stop talking about the fact that "assault weapon" bans cover ordinary .22's like mine the day after they stop covering those. Now please post your letters to representatives asking that gungrabberz stop trying to ban our .22's and stop talking about votes you know you'll never have the opportunity to take.

You did avail yourself of the opportunity to complain about this legislation, right? If not, STFU about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I asked what made him a "Blue Dog" in your view and your answer centered around his opposition to (assault weapon, ordinary .22) bans.

That suggests a party loyalty litmus test is one's position on such bans.

As I have said many times, I'll stop talking about the fact that "assault weapon" bans cover ordinary .22's like mine the day after they stop covering those. Now please post your letters to representatives asking that gungrabberz stop trying to ban our .22's and stop talking about votes you know you'll never have the opportunity to take.

You did avail yourself of the opportunity to complain about this legislation, right? If not, STFU about it.

The one trick pony, since ~Dec. 8, 2016, who didn't have much of a trick.

Seems antagonistic, desperate, and ugly...while being about a fictitious problem, and here I want to type the words, "assault weapons, our. 22's." LMFAO.

Poor Tom. It might be the swamp gas.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2018 at 10:59 AM, jocal505 said:

The one trick pony, since ~Dec. 8, 2016, who didn't have much of a trick.

Reading is a pretty good trick. You should probably try it.

That way, you might not say stupid stuff like this:

20 hours ago, jocal505 said:

BTW Tom's un-dated article is probably 20 years old.


About an article that's clearly dated and is 6 days old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parkland shooting survivor: Here's what it was like to watch my friends die in Room 1216

I wrote this article for one reason and one reason only. So you, readers, would know what it was like to have been in room 1216 on Valentine’s Day.

Quote

People kept telling me how it only gets easier from there. But for me, it got worse. As days went by, it became more apparent that 17 lives were taken from this world. And I was in the same room with three of those lives as they were murdered.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/04/05/parkland-school-shooting-survivor-watched-friends-die-column/487169002/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 4/24/2018 at 7:59 AM, jocal505 said:

The one trick pony, since ~Dec. 8, 2016, who didn't have much of a trick.

Reading is a pretty good trick. You should probably try it.

That way, you might not say stupid stuff like this:

On 4/25/2018 at 5:09 AM, jocal505 said:

BTW Tom's un-dated article is probably 20 years old.


About an article that's clearly dated and is 6 days old.

Half truth, again. Transferred from some other thread again, too. How stupid, the move of a dumbshit.

Tom's article itseld is dated, but refers to bogus link to a survey, probably recent, but undated. The bogus Kleck surrvey was withdrawn , on some unspecified date, in the past six days.

Quote

(Source: This research provided by Tom Ray) UPDATE: You will note the original link doesn't work right now. It was pointed out to me by Robert VerBruggen of National Review that Kleck treats the CDC's surveys discussed in this paper as if they were national in scope, as Kleck's original survey was, but they apparently were not.

GARY KLECK'S SURVEY WAS NOT A STUDY, AND DIDN'T SURVIVE SIX DAYS OF SCRUTINY.

Here is your link Tom.

Quote

SSRN Abstract Database Search Results

The abstract you requested was not found.

Please check your search criteria and try again.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3124326

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2018 at 10:53 AM, Steam Flyer said:

A Holstein is not the same as a Belted Galloway, but they're both cows.

Banning guns at a Republican event is not the same as every single Democrat in the world demanding an instant ban on guns in your home, but they're both gun bans

What is "kinda stupid"??

Not knowing a cow, or insisting that when you see a cow that it can't possibly be a COW

-DSK

 

Well,

9 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

One is required by law, the other is not. So yes, there is a difference


Thanks, Bent! Couldn't have said it better myself!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Thanks, Bent! Couldn't have said it better myself!

I imagine if the NRA were forced to have the Vice President speak for them, my comment would be applicable. Unfortunately, the NRA are not forced by law to have the VP there, so you'll have to find someone else to misrepresent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I imagine if the NRA were forced to have the Vice President speak for them, my comment would be applicable. Unfortunately, the NRA are not forced by law to have the VP there, so you'll have to find someone else to misrepresent.

I would be forced by law to comply with TeamD bans on (assault weapons, our .22's) and I'm not forced by law to attend any convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I would be forced by law to comply with TeamD bans on (assault weapons, our .22's) and I'm not forced by law to attend any convention.

And I am not calling you a hypocrite for either of those assertions. Find someone else to troll, Tom, my post had nothing to do with the fish you're trying to catch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:
6 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I would be forced by law to comply with TeamD bans on (assault weapons, our .22's) and I'm not forced by law to attend any convention.

And I am calling you a hypocrite for either of those assertions.

OK, how is it hypocritical to point out that laws apply to me? And that this includes TeamD bans on (assault weapons, our .22's)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

OK, how is it hypocritical to point out that laws apply to me? And that this includes TeamD bans on (assault weapons, our .22's)?

I have already corrected my post. Just so you don't have to scroll up half a tick (correction emphasised)...

4 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

And I am not calling you a hypocrite for either of those assertions. Find someone else to troll, Tom, my post had nothing to do with the fish you're trying to catch.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

And I am not calling you a hypocrite for either of those assertions. Find someone else to troll, Tom, my post had nothing to do with the fish you're trying to catch.

 

26 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

TeamD bans on (assault weapons, our .22's)...

The fish run off when they see Tom coming. Sad situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm sure you were positively salivating at the thought I had taken your bait. :rolleyes: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

True enough and thanks for your sympathy. But take it to Fishin' Anarchy.

Even better, you could take your .22 complaints over there. Do you do white boy race-baiting over there too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

OK, how is it hypocritical to point out that laws apply to me? And that this includes TeamD bans on (assault weapons, our .22's)?

It is hypocritical to be such a raging cheerleader for Team R, and deny that your buddies would never never EVER ban firearms, when they just did.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

It is hypocritical to be such a raging cheerleader for Team R, and deny that your buddies would never never EVER ban firearms, when they just did.

-DSK

As I have to explain to other partisans, saying bad things about your team's prohibition program is NOT cheering for the other team. I say bad stuff about their prohibition program too, just in another thread.

You can look at selected, irrelevant convention rules and ignore NRA convention rules all you want.

I look at legislation.

And the (assault weapon, ordinary .22) bans I have discussed here ALL have exclusively TeamD cosponsors, so I point it out.

And of course TeamD partisans are appalled that I break the Party Taboo and say bad things about gun control and think I must be the worst of their partisan enemies. I'm not.

Prove me wrong. Quote some TeamR cheerleading posts, keeping in mind that saying bad things about TeamD is NOT saying good things about TeamR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These Families Of Parkland Shooting Victims Are Still Waiting To Hear From Trump

Quote

 

President Donald Trump last week invoked the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas while speaking to the nation's most prominent gun rights gathering. “Our entire nation was filled with shock and grief by the monstrous attack on a high school in Parkland, Florida,” Trump said. “We mourn for the victims and their families.”

The mention came as a surprise to the families of students and staffers who died, who wondered why Trump would discuss the mass shooting at a political event — but not reach out to them personally. Two dads of Parkland victims took to Twitter hours after his speech to say as much.

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/remysmidt/parkland-florida-families-parents-trump-shooting-victims?utm_term=.hbYKRRKqwP#.jeZPjjPBav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So commonplace it almost didn't make the news cycle.

 

1 student injured in Florida high school shooting; suspect in custody, officials say

Source: ABC News

A suspect was taken into custody Friday following a shooting at a high school in central Florida, authorities said. 

Gunshots broke out Friday morning at Forest High School in Ocala, some 38 miles south of Gainesville. 

Within minutes, a school resource officer on campus found a 17-year-old student who had sustained non-life-threatening injuries. The officer also located the suspected shooter, identified as a 19-year-old male who is not a student at the school, according to Marion County Sheriff Billy Woods. 

The suspect was taken into custody without incident, and the wounded student was transported to a local hospital for treatment, the sheriff told reporters at a news conference Friday afternoon..

Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/injured-florida-high-school-shooting-suspect-custody-officials/story?id=54608040&id=54608040&__twitter_impression=true 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

So commonplace it almost didn't make the news cycle.

 

1 student injured in Florida high school shooting; suspect in custody, officials say

Source: ABC News

A suspect was taken into custody Friday following a shooting at a high school in central Florida, authorities said. 

Gunshots broke out Friday morning at Forest High School in Ocala, some 38 miles south of Gainesville. 

Within minutes, a school resource officer on campus found a 17-year-old student who had sustained non-life-threatening injuries. The officer also located the suspected shooter, identified as a 19-year-old male who is not a student at the school, according to Marion County Sheriff Billy Woods. 

The suspect was taken into custody without incident, and the wounded student was transported to a local hospital for treatment, the sheriff told reporters at a news conference Friday afternoon..

Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/injured-florida-high-school-shooting-suspect-custody-officials/story?id=54608040&id=54608040&__twitter_impression=true 

“Not a student? Clearly not a school shooting.” (Likely Gunny Tom quote)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

“Not a student? Clearly not a school shooting.” (Likely Gunny Tom quote)

Worse, it was an adult shooting up a school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites