• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
badlatitude

Just Another High School Shooting

471 posts in this topic

On 9/18/2017 at 5:11 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I know you don't care that you're dishonestly padding the numbers...your inability to back off in any way prevents it and amuses me.

TOM RAY, DISHONESTY FIGHTER 

Give me a break. You need to correct your extended mangling of Miller's  case law.

Quote

 

No pound of flesh is required but we have an important conversation to continue. So choose some way to back off on your butchering of Federalist 29 too. You see, the Brits had a right to rebel under parliamentary guidelines. The rebellion card which Hamilton had to play (Blackstone's Five Auxiliary Rights) was clearly written into their Bill of Rights in 1689, and it pulled off the peaceful Glorious Revolution.

Why do I press this?

  • Because Larry Pratt has no similar law to stand on in the USA.
  • Secondly, because in Hamilton's mind the Declaration was a formal expression of the Fourth Auxiliary right, grievance. Tom's snippet demonstrates Blackstone's validity with the FF.
  • Thirdly, to point out that to Alexander Hamilton, shooting at tyrants requires four preliminary efforts at diplomacy.
  •  
Quote

(Tom Ray, quoting The Federalist 29) Do you think he (Hamilton) was talking about armed resistance to a tyranical government? I do.

Post 78 Aug. 9 (Joe identifies Blackstone's Fifth Auxiliary right, and enumerates the Parliamentry process by which to legally confront tyrants. Joe explains the historical context which precipitated such wise, predominantly non-violent, organization)

Post 86 Aug. 10

(Tom, again) What do you think it's talking about?

(Joe) In a word, the five auxiliary rights. Sort that shit, Tom

First Correction Post 113, Aug 13

(Tom ) Unfortunately, King George and Parliament, much like our government, neglected to put into law the proper procedures for overthrowing the government

(Joe) Parliament passed Blackstone's fifth auxiliary right, bubba.

Second correction, Post 155 Aug. 14

(Tom) The Founders were not following any "right of armed rebellion" that had been written into British law. 

(Joe) This is my second correction of this mis-statement, Tom.

Third correction, Post 172 Aug. 17

(Tom)  ...despite there being no provision in British laws for the violent overthrow of the government.

... no form of government has ever had prescribed procedures for the violent overthrow of the government.

(Joe) WTF? Tom, this is your third correction.

Fourth correction, Post 186 Aug 17

(Tom) …ones  that did not have a constitutionally-prescribed procedure for the violent overthrow of the government. Meaning, again, every government.

(Joe)  DAILY LIES? You are repeating an untruthful statement for the fourth or fifth time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2017 at 9:36 AM, Rockdog said:

There IS a conspiracy to keep his precious away, correct.  I. Thought that was an end goal for many people in the US - to ban ALL guns.  You are saying there are no people in the US who want to ban guns?

Such persecution you suffer from.

The reason you guys duck, weave, exaggerate, and lie so much in these discussions is because deep down you know you're on a loser.

There is no conspiracy against your hobby - it's just obvious common sense.

You are petrified of confiscation, but your failure to take ownership of the situation ironically makes some sort of police action against your entire hobby more likely. maybe even necessary.

It will not happen in isolation - it will be done as part of a larger cleanup. I would expect within our lifetimes.

When they do come for them, understand that it is your failure now which caused it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:

Such persecution you suffer from.

The reason you guys duck, weave, exaggerate, and lie so much in these discussions is because deep down you know you're on a loser.

There is no conspiracy against your hobby - it's just obvious common sense.

You are petrified of confiscation, but your failure to take ownership of the situation ironically makes some sort of police action against your entire hobby more likely. maybe even necessary.

When they do come for them, understand that it is your failure now which caused it.

I really support your main point here. I get to speak as an angry gunowner, which is nice.

Kooks and extremists (not criminals or Arab terrorists) have made my plinker look bad. They've made semi-automatics look bad. And they've made the USA look bad. No honor is apparent, imo. They show counterfactual thought processes. They ridicule science. They need adult supervision and boundaries.

Quote

It will not happen in isolation - it will be done as part of a larger cleanup. I would expect within our lifetimes.

Care to expand that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Care to expand that?

Well, I am speculating of course.

I suggest a larger cleanup, because guns in themselves are only a part of a tangle of issues. Many of the concerns raised justifying the current situation with guns are not without merit.

My expectation is that the current system of government is incapable of dealing with the problem. We have now had two consecutive presidents campaigning on Hope and Change. The most recent one wasn't even credible, and still got elected. The peasants are revolting.

 

But maybe I am wrong. Maybe an amazing leader will step up.

We can hope anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Bent does not prefer a definition. You are, once again, wrong.

Yes, using one and standing by that use of it does NOT mean you prefer that definition.

 

On 9/18/2017 at 8:59 PM, Bent Sailor said:

Tom is a sick man drawing amusement from threads about recent school shootings and trying to quibble about what shocks people about kids shooting other kids in school.

Negligent discharges at a school, possession on school grounds by 19 year old trespassers in the middle of the night, and other things that your elk like to count as "school shootings" have nothing to do with kids shooting other kids at school.

They're just ways you pad the numbers to magnify the value of your shock. And what's political about all the shock and concern?

Same as always: gun bans and confiscation programs.

Share this post


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

Yes, using one and standing by that use of it does NOT mean you prefer that definition.

Correct. If I rejected the use of another definition when it was offered, that would show a preference. I didn't do so. However, if you pretend the issue is that I somehow prefer something I have stated actively I do not, then you can continue quibbling about nothing rather than acknowledge the differential between our countries - the basis of why I am shocked by school shootings and you find them an excuse for amusing yourself.

 

Quote

And what's political about all the shock and concern?

Nothing. I never said their was nor started the thread. Take your issues with whether it is political or not up with those arguing that.

Or you could just continue making up people's positions, preferences, and beliefs for them. You haven't changed that schtick over the last seven years, why start now?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Rockdog said:

You[BS] seem like SV lately

With SV's noise gone the peanut gallery denizens can be heard more clearly: yap yap yap... yippity yap. B.S. even has the same therapy dog pal in ShitforBrains.

Ankle biters. 

Share this post


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

Negligent discharges at a school, possession on school grounds by 19 year old trespassers in the middle of the night, and other things that your elk like to count as "school shootings" have nothing to do with kids shooting other kids at school.

 

why does it have to be a kid, shooting a kid, for it to be outrageous? Are those other forms of school shootings "ok?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:

Can we just pause and celebrate the unity here?   This forum has become much less constipated now that he is gone.  

Amen to that, Brah.

Share this post


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

(a petty, useless, tedious, repeated, insignificant bit to Bent)   

Yes, using one and standing by that use of it does NOT mean you prefer that definition.

 

Negligent discharges at a school, possession on school grounds by 19 year old trespassers in the middle of the night, and other things that your elk like to count as "school shootings" have nothing to do with kids shooting other kids at school.

They're just ways you pad the numbers to magnify the value of your shock. And what's political about all the shock and concern?

Same as always: gun bans and confiscation programs.

You have a point here. The understanding of the term "school shooting" could be better...but IIRC part of your schtick was that gang shootings should also be excluded, etc. etc. IMO, gunfire in schools should be counted and reported and the states have a job to deliver schools without gun mayhem.

 

So go for it. Set the Bent Sailor crisis aside. Why dontcha clean up the school shooter figures and definitions, and present us a version that flies?  Even Brady's Best could have been salvaged. At the very minimum you could at least Google something you like, present the numbers based on that to us (for damage control), and STFU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Battlecheese said:

Such persecution you suffer from.

The reason you guys duck, weave, exaggerate, and lie so much in these discussions is because deep down you know you're on a loser.

There is no conspiracy against your hobby - it's just obvious common sense.

You are petrified of confiscation, but your failure to take ownership of the situation ironically makes some sort of police action against your entire hobby more likely. maybe even necessary.

It will not happen in isolation - it will be done as part of a larger cleanup. I would expect within our lifetimes.

When they do come for them, understand that it is your failure now which caused it.

Edited because I hit "reply" before reading BCs next post - and his next post cleared up the question. 

 

Share this post


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

But maybe I am wrong. Maybe an amazing leader will step up.

Scalia is DTS mate.

Share this post


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

Negligent discharges at a school, possession on school grounds by 19 year old trespassers in the middle of the night, and other things that your elk like to count as "school shootings" have nothing to do with kids shooting other kids at school. STRAW MAN ALERT

Gunfire in or near any school is the issue. This issue is not convenient to education. Your presentation is sociopathic, IMO.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Gunfire in or near any school is the issue. This issue is not convenient to education. Your presentation is sociopathic, IMO.

 

"Gunfire near any school" - yeah, that's exactly what's commonly understood to be a "school shooting".   One of the skeet ranges I frequent borders the property of a rural middle school.  By your logic - every meet would be a "school shooting", and you'd gleefully add every .12 gauge shell fired at that range to your "school shooting" statistics.  

 

Share this post


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

"Gunfire near any school" - yeah, that's exactly what's commonly understood to be a "school shooting".   One of the skeet ranges I frequent borders the property of a rural middle school.  By your logic - every meet would be a "school shooting", and you'd gleefully add every .12 gauge shell fired at that range to your "school shooting" statistics.  

 

Imagine!

Share this post


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

"Gunfire near any school" - yeah, that's exactly what's commonly understood to be a "school shooting".   One of the skeet ranges I frequent borders the property of a rural middle school.  By your logic - every meet would be a "school shooting", and you'd gleefully add every .12 gauge shell fired at that range to your "school shooting" statistics.  

 

Yeah, your imaginings are noted, and some mis-quoting (which is beneath you IMO). Our local gun range adjoins the local high school directly. We  manage okay anyway.

Like Bent, I can can factor for either a good definition or bad definition of "school shooting." Where is yours? 

 

What I am saying is that the growing pattern of misc. gunfire around schools is to be noted, and considered.It's an effing canary in a coal mine, of course.  

Share this post


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

Imagine!

No need to imagine, Petunia - JoCal has said quite plainly that he considers "any discharge near a school" as a school shooting.   Take it up w/him if you don't like it.    

Share this post


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

No need to imagine, Petunia - JoCal has said quite plainly that he considers "any discharge near a school" as a school shooting.   Take it up w/him if you don't like it.    

Jocal sets the definitions for the CDC? Who knew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

Jocal sets the definitions for the CDC? Who knew?

Not at all - was I replying to the CDC?  Go hump somebody else's leg - mine's wet enough already. 

Share this post


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

No need to imagine, Petunia - JoCal has said quite plainly that he considers "any discharge near a school" as a school shooting.   Take it up w/him if you don't like it.    

Try not to be like Pooplius. And go find a full sentence to quote. I even repeated my idea for you. This is after your peek-a-boo communication. Sad.

You guys are benchwarmer material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
  2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Gunfire in or near any school is the issue. This issue is not convenient to education. Your presentation is sociopathic, IMO.

 

23 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Try not to be like Pooplius. And go find a full sentence to quote. I even repeated my idea for you. This is after your peek-a-boo communication. Sad.

You guys are benchwarmer material.

You said it - you own it. 

Share this post


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

 

You said it - you own it. 

really? Pedantry isn't usually your schtick. I thought Tom had a lock on that.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

really? Pedantry isn't usually your schtick. I thought Tom had a lock on that.....

Perhaps you could explain to me how calling out someone on a completely fallacious description is pedantry?   

I've got a schtick?  That's neat - I didn't think I was cool enough for that. 

Share this post


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

You said it - you own it. 

Your presentation is not honest. It fails, like bondo over dumbass surface prep

I didn't say what you claimed. 

Quote

 Guy: JoCal has said quite plainly that he considers "any discharge near a school" as a school shooting.

Joe: Gunfire in or near any school is the issue.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

yap yap yap... yippity yap.

Indeed

Share this post


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

Perhaps you could explain to me how calling out someone on a completely fallacious description is pedantry?

It's not. Given that said "calling out" tends to be one sided, it is somewhat hypocritical however. I get it though, I've told jocal before he needs to tamp it down and having done my civic duty, generally scroll past his attempts to taunt Tom. Perhaps you've called out Tom in the past and are doing the same.

 

4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I've got a schtick?  That's neat - I didn't think I was cool enough for that. 

Not yet, but give it time. You too, with a modicum of effort and no self respect, can join the ranks of Tedious Tom and Princess Jeffie if only you stick to being a dick at all times. :lol: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can your little kangaroo court find where I said any and alll gun discharges are school shootings? If not, buzz off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Raz'r said:
On 9/20/2017 at 5:25 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Negligent discharges at a school, possession on school grounds by 19 year old trespassers in the middle of the night, and other things that your elk like to count as "school shootings" have nothing to do with kids shooting other kids at school.

 

why does it have to be a kid, shooting a kid, for it to be outrageous? Are those other forms of school shootings "ok?"

I don't think trespassing is OK, let alone shooting someone while doing it.

I also don't think that incident created any danger for any kids. It's just possible to make it seem like it did and use that to promote gun control.

But you know how to play it, just like you did before: lump that "school shooting" in with negligent discharges, gang shootings that happened near schools, and any other shooting you can come up with, call them all "school shootings" and then propose gun bans to protect the children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2017 at 1:27 AM, Bent Sailor said:

Same. As someone from a country where the rate of school shootings are measure in decades, not weeks...

Bent, do you stand by this statement? And by "this statement" I mean every word of it, including that last one.

Share this post


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

Bent, do you stand by this statement? And by "this statement" I mean every word of it, including that last one.

When you cannot even be honest enough to stick to a full sentence, you're going to need someone else for your games Tom.

I made a statement about my shock level at kids shooting kids in schools, expressing a shared condolence to another poster. I believe that to be a human and compassionate response to the incident. Perhaps think about what it means that you find entertainment in the subject and are more interested in trying to turn someone expressing shock into another pissing contest about Favre. Most would think that's pretty fucked up, but I'm guessing your obsession with firearms blinds you to how twisted your pursuit of an argument has become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2017 at 1:27 AM, Bent Sailor said:

As someone from a country where the rate of school shootings are measure in decades, not weeks, the idea of someone opening fire in a school kind of shocks me to the core.

Do you stand by every word of this sentence, Bent? Even the bolded one?

Share this post


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

I don't think trespassing is OK, let alone shooting someone while doing it.

I also don't think that incident created any danger for any kids. It's just possible to make it seem like it did and use that to promote gun control.

But you know how to play it, just like you did before: lump that "school shooting" in with negligent discharges, gang shootings that happened near schools, and any other shooting you can come up with, call them all "school shootings" and then propose gun bans to protect the children.

Think of the children. If it saves just one child.....  

Share this post


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

Do you stand by every word of this sentence, Bent? Even the bolded one?

I meant it - I'm done with your games Tom.

Reread the post below. Do yourself some good. Get some help. Or remain a fucking gun nut caricature. Whatever works for you.

8 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I made a statement about my shock level at kids shooting kids in schools, expressing a shared condolence to another poster. I believe that to be a human and compassionate response to the incident. Perhaps think about what it means that you find entertainment in the subject and are more interested in trying to turn someone expressing shock into another pissing contest about Favre. Most would think that's pretty fucked up, but I'm guessing your obsession with firearms blinds you to how twisted your pursuit of an argument has become.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Siri, It's annoying inn'it when someone picks apart your words rather than understand the meaning from the context. Now who do we know around here that does that daily?  

Share this post


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

Now who do we know around here that does that daily?  

Tom. As Eva Dent.

Share this post


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

Do you stand by every word of this sentence, Bent? Even the bolded one?

I meant it - I'm done with your games Tom.

Fair enough. I was just wanting confirmation that you think of an accidental shooting that occurs at a school as a "school shooting."

If those are the stats you want to use, that's your choice. I still look at it as more padding of numbers.

Share this post


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

Fair enough. I was just wanting confirmation that you think of an accidental shooting that occurs at a school as a "school shooting."

If those are the stats you want to use, that's your choice. I still look at it as more padding of numbers.

You're not "just wanting" anything but another argument about Favre. Just fuck off, Tom, I'm not interested.

Share this post


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

Think of the children. If it saves just one child.....  

This is the thing that's total b.s.  (bullshit) as many of us know. As awful as it seems, kids dying at the hands of crazy people with weapons, drunk drivers, domestic ugliness, distracted drivers, air bags, shark bites, peanut allergies, measles, whatever, are the risks we all take and accept as the price of admission.

Most people are able to understand there are risks to life. Desirable? Nah. Acceptable? Gotta be. The gun issue is just low hanging fruit. Again, we're talking US not them Aussies. They can, and do, what they want.

Jocal and his small herd of progressive elk here won't be dissuaded but the other side is just as determined.

Share this post


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

Think of the children. If it saves just one child.....  

I'm sure you find that sentence funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the SA Gun Club and Mostly Silent Gun Club Choir to be a real hoot. The entire Second Amendment movement is a sham.

Share this post


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

This is the thing that's total b.s.  (bullshit) as many of us know. As awful as it seems, kids dying at the hands of crazy people with weapons, drunk drivers, domestic ugliness, distracted drivers, air bags, shark bites, peanut allergies, measles, whatever, are the risks we all take and accept as the price of admission.

Most people are able to understand there are risks to life. Desirable? Nah. Acceptable? Gotta be.The gun iss ue is just low hanging fruit. Again, we're talking US not them Aussies. They can, and do, what they want.

Jocal and his small herd of progressive elk here won't be dissuaded but the other side is just as determined.

What's wrong with low hanging fruit? The SAF and CATO are just that. John R. Lott and Joyce Lee Malcolm are just that. Scalia was a con. Tom and Jeff's egos give me column inches. They are static dummy bags, basically. Carry on.

Spokane _SHOOTER2.JPG_t1170.jpg

Share this post


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

You've chosen to ignore content by jocal505. Options 

 

 LMFAO. If You Can't Stand the Heat IV.  Peekaboo time 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Raz'r said:
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Think of the children. If it saves just one child.....  

I'm sure you find that sentence funny.

No, I don't.  Not in the slightest.  I also don't find any humor in the fact that ya'll use this same sentence as a political slogan every chance you get when you know it's utter and complete Bullshit.  

If I could save just one child by severely restricting 1st Amendment Free Speech or Freedom of the Press rights, would you agree to it?  Fuck no, you would not!

If I could save just one child by severely restricting 4th Amendment Privacy and the need for warrants for search rights, would you agree to it?  Fuck no, you would not!

If I could save just one child by severely restricting due process 5th Amendment rights, would you agree to it?  Fuck no, you would not!

So why does it surprise you when many of us also say we do not agree that saving just that one child is not worth giving up or severely restricting our 2nd Amendment rights???  

Share this post


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

No, I don't.  Not in the slightest.  I also don't find any humor in the fact that ya'll use this same sentence as a political slogan every chance you get when you know it's utter and complete Bullshit.  

If I could save just one child by severely restricting 1st Amendment Free Speech or Freedom of the Press rights, would you agree to it?  Fuck no, you would not!

If I could save just one child by severely restricting 4th Amendment Privacy and the need for warrants for search rights, would you agree to it?  Fuck no, you would not!

If I could save just one child by severely restricting due process 5th Amendment rights, would you agree to it?  Fuck no, you would not!

So why does it surprise you when many of us also say we do not agree that saving just that one child is not worth giving up or severely restricting our 2nd Amendment rights???  

who's y'all, y'all?

Share this post


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

who's y'all, y'all?

YOU and all the rest of your elk.  You know.... ya'll.

Share this post


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

YOU and all the rest of your elk.  You know.... ya'll.

sorry, I don't see anyone here saying "ban all guns to save the kids"

you're projecting. again.

Share this post


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

sorry, I don't see anyone here saying "ban all guns to save the kids"

you're projecting. again.

Imagine I said that.  Just Imagine.  I didn't say "ban all gunz" either.  I said "severely restrict".  Do you think it would be ok to severely restrict the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc Amendments to the Constitution in order to save just one child.

Or how about this..... what about even just "mildly restrict" the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc Amendments to save just one child?  You OK with that? 

Share this post


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

Imagine I said that.  Just Imagine.  I didn't say "ban all gunz" either.  I said "severely restrict".  Do you think it would be ok to severely restrict the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc Amendments to the Constitution in order to save just one child.

Or how about this..... what about even just "mildly restrict" the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc Amendments to save just one child?  You OK with that? 

Did I ever say we should "severely restrict" the 2nd? What does that even mean? Hate to break it to you, but the US has a couple hundred years of experience in limiting the weapons owned by citizens. That will continue.  And it doesn't mean that your rights are "restricted" as you still have the right to own gunz. Just not all variations, and not in all situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, a 4-year-old reaches into her grandma's purse for candy, and eats a bullet instead.

504449110_20037135_8col.jpg

One day last week, 4-year-old Yanelly Zoller reached into her grandmother's purse looking for candy, her father says.

Instead, she found a gun. She accidently pulled the trigger and was shot in the chest.

Shane Zoller, 22, is the father of three children: one living, another on the way and the little girl he will bury today.

"She just wanted some damn candy," Zoller said Wednesday.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/tampa-girl-4-dies-of-gunshot-reaching-for-candy/2338224

Share this post


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

Meanwhile, a 4-year-old reaches into her grandma's purse for candy, and eats a bullet instead.

504449110_20037135_8col.jpg

One day last week, 4-year-old Yanelly Zoller reached into her grandmother's purse looking for candy, her father says.

Instead, she found a gun. She accidently pulled the trigger and was shot in the chest.

Shane Zoller, 22, is the father of three children: one living, another on the way and the little girl he will bury today.

"She just wanted some damn candy," Zoller said Wednesday.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/tampa-girl-4-dies-of-gunshot-reaching-for-candy/2338224

Darwin's a bastard. Is grannie in the klink?

Share this post


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

Darwin's a bastard. Is grannie in the klink?

No, but it's under investigation. The real crime is that in Florida this is a merely a misdemeanor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple trigger lock or smart weapon would have impeded granny's ability to respond to a home invasion.  It would have made her and her family she was protecting with her weapon ineffective.  We need loose guns so that grannies can respond to candy snatchers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

talking about this is convenient to grabbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without gun registration, we would have no ability to make sure these irresponsible gun toters are denied their precious.  Grannies too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

talking about this is convenient to grabbers

Explain that, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a revolting talking point. not discussing it is convenient to extremists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

just a revolting talking point. not discussing it is convenient to extremists

A 4-year-old is a revolting talking point, how far we have come as a civilization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

A 4-year-old is a revolting talking point, how far we have come as a civilization.

Yawning at 20 six year olds getting cut into pieces with an AR15 was very effective in desensitizing us to the liberty and freedom gun hobbyists demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Spatial Ed said:

Yawning at 20 six year olds getting cut into pieces with an AR15 was very effective in desensitizing us to the liberty and freedom gun hobbyists demand.

Sorry, I forgot that if that 4-year-old had her own gun she could have prevented this.

Share this post


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

Sorry, I forgot that if that 4-year-old had her own gun she could have prevented this.

Candy.  Had the 4 year old only had government supplied candy, would she be safe because she wouldn't be rifling through granny's bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2017 at 1:51 AM, Battlecheese said:

Such persecution you suffer from.

The reason you guys duck, weave, exaggerate, and lie so much in these discussions is because deep down you know you're on a loser.

There is no conspiracy against your hobby - it's just obvious common sense.

You are petrified of confiscation, but your failure to take ownership of the situation ironically makes some sort of police action against your entire hobby more likely. maybe even necessary.

It will not happen in isolation - it will be done as part of a larger cleanup. I would expect within our lifetimes.

When they do come for them, understand that it is your failure now which caused it.

I disagree.  Each and every one of us is equally responsible for allowing the majority of those perpetrating violence using a gun to walk the streets.  

Years ago people I knew owned guns for hunting.  I honestly don't recall anyone who into them for hobby/shooting sports. A lot of the young guys I work with are seriously into shooting sports and building guns.  I guess the difference with them is their guns are somewhat documented so much easier to confiscate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Candy.  Had the 4 year old only had government supplied candy, would she be safe because she wouldn't be rifling through granny's bag.

The little girl was guilty of rummaging through a purse she had no business opening. She should be charged in abstentia.

Share this post


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

The little girl was guilty of rummaging through a purse she had no business opening. She should be charged in abstentia.

Trespassing and property crimes are capital offenses, according to our gun slingers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Trespassing and property crimes are capital offenses, according to our gun slingers.

True, but if it had been my mother who had been that negligent I would have shot her on the spot.

Share this post


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

True, but if it had been my mother who had been that negligent I would have shot her on the spot.

Yeah, big talk.  She was a pistol packing granny.  She'd already had the drop on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Spatial Ed said:

Yeah, big talk.  She was a pistol packing granny.  She'd already had the drop on you.

Nope, it was in her purse and she forgot it was there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now