dylan winter

Gunlickers - are you proud of this?

Recommended Posts

On 8/10/2019 at 10:34 AM, bpm57 said:
  On 8/10/2019 at 10:14 AM, jocal505 said:

Oh come on. We went through this. You slinkied away after Patrick J. Charles took your pants down, in front of your gf.

Sir John Knight and his party travelled lawfully with arms, as justices of the peace, for the Duke of XYZ.

This was recently laid out, for you, at your request with superb documentation. Patrick J. Charles had chased it down. 

Sir John Knight was the sheriff, DeadEye.

 

Deadeye is set, he's focused on a 3% exception. Computerization has revealed that, in the writings in the days of the founding fathers, 97% of the use if the term "bear arms referred to military situations. DeadEye can't see the significance of the 97% use,  because the 3% get in the way. DeadEye got stuck in his own beligerance.

What to do? We will leave DeadEye Dick right there, and ponder other matters...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Raz'r said:
On 8/7/2019 at 6:05 PM, Repastinate Tom said:

So you think "the people" means "the militia" huh? That's never been the case, but OK.

We've never closed a car registry and prohibited possession of previously-legal cars or you would have seen infringement on car ownership. But guns are more stringently regulated than cars in that regard.

Bullshit Tom. There are lots of cars that aren’t street legal. More regulations on guns? So fucking untrue.

I'm talking about possession and you're talking about public use. Let's talk about the same thing: prohibited possession.

 

8 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
8 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Bullshit Tom. There are lots of cars that aren’t street legal.

And there are previously legal cars that are no longer legal. Dogballs has been corrected on this before in fact. Which leaves two choices - he's a congenital liar, or he's a fucking moron. Don't worry - both is an option in the poll.

I have never heard of prohibiting possession of a previously-legal car and you are an anonymous clown who can't cite what you claimed happened. It didn't, any more than prohibition of possession of previously-legal cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

I'm talking about possession and you're talking about public use. Let's talk about the same thing: prohibited possession.

 

I have never heard of prohibiting possession of a previously-legal car and you are an anonymous clown who can't cite what you claimed happened. It didn't, any more than prohibition of possession of previously-legal cars.

lost in the weeds, and leading others >

to the junk yard of cars and farm vehicles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Battlecheese said:
On 8/10/2019 at 11:38 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

1. My reasonable proposal doesn’t relay on a “claim” of a BCG being passed. The app would record the transaction and the buyer and seller’s details.  That’s the whole point of a BCG, it can’t account for intent. If the drug dealer has no criminal history, he would have been able to buy that shiny gun in a gun store and not rely on the AMERICAN in the parking lot. 

Does the AMERICAN goes to jail if a gun serial number they are recorded as buying shows up at a crime scene without a sale transaction? Are they still legally responsible for the weapon?

Most of our "mass" shootings seem to be byproducts of our stupid drug war and they often take the form of drive-by's using stolen cars.

Should the rightful owners of those cars be held accountable for what a criminal did with the cars?

Share this post


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

Most of our "mass" shootings seem to be byproducts of our stupid drug war and they often take the form of drive-by's using stolen cars.

Should the rightful owners of those cars be held accountable for what a criminal did with the cars?

surely this is crackers as an argumwnt to justify too many guns in Merca

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Most of our "mass" shootings seem to be byproducts of our stupid drug war and they often take the form of drive-by's using stolen cars.

Should the rightful owners of those cars be held accountable for what a criminal did with the cars?

bullshit, sounds more like gang activity turf wars to me, dogballs. pathetic attempt at deflection, btw.

national mental health crisis + easy access to guns = 'mass shooting', that's not my definition, that's society's, and rightfully so. no relation to fkg drugs and drive-bys, innit.

sit your persistent ass down already, the facts of the matter put you at a virtually universal disadvantage. what's fkg absurd, is you persist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

Most of our "mass" shootings seem to be byproducts of our stupid drug war and they often take the form of drive-by's using stolen cars.

Maybe you should try reading the news some day..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, dylan winter said:
50 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

Most of our "mass" shootings seem to be byproducts of our stupid drug war and they often take the form of drive-by's using stolen cars.

Should the rightful owners of those cars be held accountable for what a criminal did with the cars?

surely this is crackers as an argumwnt to justify too many guns in Merca

I'm just hopeful that we start treating guns like cars. If the rightful owner of stolen guns should be held responsible for what thieves did after stealing his guns, why shouldn't the rightful owner of a stolen car be responsible for what thieves did after stealing his car?

Share this post


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

I'm just hopeful that we start treating guns like cars. If the rightful owner of stolen guns should be held responsible for what thieves did after stealing his guns, why shouldn't the rightful owner of a stolen car be responsible for what thieves did after stealing his car?

surely this is a crackers argument

guns and cars are different things

 

here is a man skating on thin ice

6a00d8341d417153ef0120a7b269b2970b-800wi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dylan winter said:

surely this is a crackers argument

guns and cars are different things

 

here is a man skating on thin ice

6a00d8341d417153ef0120a7b269b2970b-800wi

That IS a man on thin ice, unlike Tom, who's somewhere underneath with no idea in which direction the hole might be..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

So Tom, how do we stop people shooting other people?

The last time we dramatically reduced prohibition-related violence, it was by UNDOING SOMETHING. It could work again.

But that would involve admitting that government regulations have been a mistake and also admitting that the violence happens largely in places with strict gun control and among demographics with low gun ownership. This is all very inconvenient for those who want to use gun control to punish people who don't vote TeamD, so facts are ignored and the "mass" shootings are not closely examined by anyone but me. No T's and P's for the vast majority of them, including the two I posted this morning.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2019 at 7:28 PM, Ease the sheet. said:

How do you stop people?

A better background check needs to be implemented,Mental health screenings and a federal   

Share this post


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

I'm just hopeful that we start treating guns like cars. If the rightful owner of stolen guns should be held responsible for what thieves did after stealing his guns, why shouldn't the rightful owner of a stolen car be responsible for what thieves did after stealing his car?

Because cars are exactly like guns?

- DSK

Share this post


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

Because cars are exactly like guns?

- DSK

No, because prohibiting possession isn't exactly like allowing possession. In fact, they're opposites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:
38 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Because cars are exactly like guns?

- DSK

No, because prohibiting possession isn't exactly like allowing possession. In fact, they're opposites.

You suggested that cars should be treated exactly like guns.

Are they exactly like guns?

Should we treat coffee cups exactly like outboard motors?

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You suggested that cars should be treated exactly like guns.

Are they exactly like guns?

Should we treat coffee cups exactly like outboard motors?

- DSK

Why do you keep adding "exactly" to what I said? I can show you how to use the quote function to indicate what I really said if you need that assistance.

On 8/7/2019 at 6:05 PM, Repastinate Tom said:
On 8/7/2019 at 5:59 PM, Left Shift said:

Either that or apply the same EXACT registration, licensing, training, taxes, insurance requirements and operational regulations and policing to guns and ammunition that we do to cars and gasoline.  I don't see any of those regulations "infringing" on the ownership of cars.

So you think "the people" means "the militia" huh? That's never been the case, but OK.

We've never closed a car registry and prohibited possession of previously-legal cars or you would have seen infringement on car ownership.

OK, so I might have edited that just a bit, but I was responding to Left Shift's suggestion that guns are exactly like cars. You didn't see a problem when he said it, did you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

Why do you keep adding "exactly" to what I said? ...

I have never added words to a quote of yours, or anybody elses.

Maybe you and JZK and AGITC and Dog some of the other rabid righties can convene a meeting of the "Darn Steam Flyer Made A Fool Of Me Using My Own Words" Club.

 

55 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

...  ...

OK, so I might have edited that just a bit, but....    ...

But if you didn't choose such illogical, difficult-to-defend positions, you could probably be more honest.

- DSK

Share this post


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

Why do you keep adding "exactly" to what I said? I can show you how to use the quote function to indicate what I really said if you need that assistance.

OK, so I might have edited that just a bit, but I was responding to Left Shift's suggestion that guns are exactly like cars. You didn't see a problem when he said it, did you?

And I didn’t say guns are exactly like cars.  I said they should be treated the same way legally, as the both have the obvious potential to cause harm to the general public when carelessly or intentionally mis-used.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I hope they were empty and had a trigger lock.

????

How would you be able to shoot road signs and high tension insulators if they were locked & unloaded?

Share this post


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

And I didn’t say guns are exactly like cars.  I said they should be treated the same way legally, as the both have the obvious potential to cause harm to the general public when carelessly or intentionally mis-used.  

Well, I can at least agree with you that it would be nice if we treated guns and cars the same. By which I mean, allowing possession of them instead of banning possession of previously-legal ones.

 

3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

You suggested that cars should be treated exactly like guns.

No I did not. I've focused on treating them similarly in one regard: the whole allowing possession instead of launching another idiotic prohibition program aspect.

Share this post


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

Sir John Knight was the sheriff, DeadEye.

Odd that you can't pull out any documentation of this. Really odd that a "sheriff" would be hit with the requirement of posting a good behavior bond.

It is even stranger yet that this "sheriff"'s counsel would argue in court that it was a personal affair.

When will you explain your random accusation of "disliking landed protestants"?

Share this post


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

 I said they should be treated the same way legally,

So the manufacturer of the car should be held responsible if it is misused?

That argument is put forth nearly every day in here if you replace "car" with "firearm".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

So the manufacturer of the car should be held responsible if it is misused?

That argument is put forth nearly every day in here if you replace "car" with "firearm".

If the misuse is a predictable result of a design defect - yes, car manufacturers can be held responsible. And often are.

It's such a simple, stupid, playbook of shared cliche you gun dolts deploy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

If the misuse is a predictable result of a design defect - yes, car manufacturers can be held responsible. And often are.

Except we are not talking about product safety, since firearm makers are not immune to lawsuits due to one blowing up in somebodies hand.

As you know - and are doing your normal misdirect about - we are talking things like running a truck into a crowd. Should Ford be held responsible for someone taking one of their trucks and driving it into a crowd?

1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It's such a simple, stupid, playbook of shared cliche you gun dolts deploy. 

It sure is easier for you to make up a strawman and then use it to attack anyone who dares disagree with your made up shit.

How is that list of cars that are illegal to possess coming along? Or is your alterego working on that?

 

Share this post


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

I'm just hopeful that we start treating guns like cars. If the rightful owner of stolen guns should be held responsible for what thieves did after stealing his guns, why shouldn't the rightful owner of a stolen car be responsible for what thieves did after stealing his car?

This is why people report their cars when they get stolen. Otherwise they may be sent speeding or parking fines accumulated by the unauthorised driver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Except we are not talking about product safety, since firearm makers are not immune to lawsuits due to one blowing up in somebodies hand.

Do you know you are misdirecting or are you so deluded in Team Gunnut you don't see the strings being pulled? Now I realize this is all performative. YOu don't actually give a fuck - you are just peacocking for the other gunnuts - which is why you only engage in "safe" targets. You troll me, jocal, all the other people Team Gunnut has agreed are bad. real debate scares you and you runoft to go stroke a lapua, or like your leader morontom, bump a thread about gary johnson.

so DIAGF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AWWWW, What a shame the NRA is imploding.

Fourth board member resigns from NRA in a sign of further upheaval

Julie Golob, a professional sport shooter and a strong public advocate for gun rights, announced Monday she was resigning from the National Rifle Association board before the end of her three-year term.

She is the fourth member in the past two weeks to leave the board of the NRA in a sign of further upheaval within the nation’s most powerful gun rights group.

... snip ...

Since North’s departure, the organization has been roiled by allegations of self-dealing, including a report last week that LaPierre sought to have the nonprofit organization buy him a luxury mansion in 2018 after a mass shooting at a Florida high school.

Pressure has also mounted on the organization in the wake of last week’s shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso. As a chorus again demands background checks and other restrictions on firearms sales, gun-control advocates say Golob’s departure adds to the sense that the NRA is vulnerable.

Read more: https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/fourth-board-member-resigns-from-nra-in-a-sign-of-further-upheaval/2019/08/12/888672e6-bd3a-11e9-9b73-fd3c65ef8f9c_story.html?outputType=amp

 

Share this post


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

Her letter to the NRA is quite empty.

https://www.juliegolob.com/dear-nra-members

Flipping through her website and Twitter feed she is very much the gun nut but not very politically partisan about it.

It's only significant as the 4th resignation in two weeks. It may signal big trouble for Wayne LaPierre, or at least one can hope.

Share this post


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

The last time we dramatically reduced prohibition-related violence, it was by UNDOING SOMETHING. It could work again.

But that would involve admitting that government regulations have been a mistake and also admitting that the violence happens largely in places with strict gun control and among demographics with low gun ownership. This is all very inconvenient for those who want to use gun control to punish people who don't vote TeamD, so facts are ignored and the "mass" shootings are not closely examined by anyone but me. No T's and P's for the vast majority of them, including the two I posted this morning.

Bit of a non answer....

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2019 at 10:01 AM, Steam Flyer said:

I have never added words to a quote of yours, or anybody elses.

Maybe you and JZK and AGITC and Dog some of the other rabid righties can convene a meeting of the "Darn Steam Flyer Made A Fool Of Me Using My Own Words" Club.

 

But if you didn't choose such illogical, difficult-to-defend positions, you could probably be more honest.

- DSK

That's funny!!!  

Imagining that your projection, conflation and intentional tangents in any way equate to you "making a fool of someone" is a perfect indication of your irrational arrogance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
On 8/12/2019 at 10:01 AM, Steam Flyer said:

...        ...

Maybe you and JZK and AGITC and Dog some of the other rabid righties can convene a meeting of the "Darn Steam Flyer Made A Fool Of Me Using My Own Words" Club.

...    ...

That's funny!!!  

Imagining that your projection, conflation and intentional tangents in any way equate to you "making a fool of someone" is a perfect indication of your irrational arrogance. 

Well shucks, if I'm that good at it, I should run for President!!

Thanks for quoting me accurately, BTW

- DSK

Share this post


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

That's funny!!!  

Imagining that your projection, conflation and intentional tangents in any way equate to you "making a fool of someone" is a perfect indication of your irrational arrogance. 

It would be touching if someone, anyone, on team gunnut would just once acknowledge that they are only convincing their fellow members of team gunnut.

That'd fuck with the whole "really we're moderates except for Tom" thing though, wouldn't it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It would be touching if someone, anyone, on team gunnut would just once acknowledge that they are only convincing their fellow members of team gunnut.

That'd fuck with the whole "really we're moderates except for Tom" thing though, wouldn't it?

Bless your heart - I don't intend to convince you of anything.  I do intend to do everything I can to prevent poor legislation from being enacted, and to proffer suggestions for changes that actually apply to the situation being addressed.  Convincing people like you of anything isn't worthy of my effort. 

Share this post


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

Convincing people like you of anything isn't worthy of my effort. 

Wonder if that's connected to the utter vacuity of your position on this issue? The utter intransigence of your opinions?

Couldn't be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2019 at 12:00 AM, batkinmok said:

I like going out with my buds and do some long range target practice, and I like hunting deer. But nobody needs more than three rounds in the gun for hunting.

The bow hunters I worked with have said guns aren't sporting.  The gun hunters said if it's a single load rifle, it's sporting enough.  High capacity magazine weapons are for pussies.

Share this post


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

Bless your heart - I don't intend to convince you of anything.  I do intend to do everything I can to prevent poor legislation from being enacted, and to proffer suggestions for changes that actually apply to the situation being addressed.  Convincing people like you of anything isn't worthy of my effort. 

Be sure to look around the world for examples of effective gun laws confirmed by lower firearm death rates and lower mass murder rates than the US.

There's a pattern in those examples if you're prepared to apply proper rigour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to remind y'all, gunz are for cowards . . 

as are bazookas, M-50's, Abrams tanks, and nukes 

and don't get me started on the littoral navy 

they are all about hate and fear 

Vets For Peace - we saw your bat-shit crazy wars, and they are nutso. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Be sure to look around the world for examples of effective gun laws confirmed by lower firearm death rates and lower mass murder rates than the US.

There's a pattern in those examples if you're prepared to apply proper rigour.

By law studys that find that guns might be the problem can't get federal funding. Team gunnut will bullshit about this, but this is the practical nature of it. Like with climate change they don't want to know shit that contradicts their policy inclinations.

Don't tell them about Japan. Which has plenty of poor people, but next to no drug use and little out of couplehood childraising. That'll completely fuck their shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Just to remind y'all, gunz are for cowards . . 

as are bazookas, M-50's, Abrams tanks, and nukes 

and don't get me started on the littoral navy 

they are all about hate and fear 

Vets For Peace - we saw your bat-shit crazy wars, and they are nutso. 

And look to Canada for rates of gun ownership related to type of gun owned related to gun deaths per capita.

 

Share this post


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

And look to Canada for rates of gun ownership related to type of gun owned related to gun deaths per capita.

Respectfully, check out Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" on Canada and gunz - he agrees with you a good deal. 

Unlike almost everyone else on PSA, I do not claim to have all the answers. 

Share this post


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

Respectfully, check out Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" on Canada and gunz - he agrees with you a good deal. 

Unlike almost everyone else on PSA, I do not claim to have all the answers. 

Exactly. I was agreeing with you and adding that we need to look a little beyond howitzers to assault weapons because these are the guns mowing down our fellow innocent Americans.

You're doing great and I appreciate your posts. The reenactment piece was excellent! Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lasal said:

Exactly. I was agreeing with you and adding that we need to look a little beyond howitzers to assault weapons because these are the guns mowing down our fellow innocent Americans.

You're doing great and I appreciate your posts. The reenactment piece was excellent! Thanks.

I can't handle the effusive !!  But thanks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

By law studys that find that guns might be the problem can't get federal funding. Team gunnut will bullshit about this, but this is the practical nature of it. Like with climate change they don't want to know shit that contradicts their policy inclinations.

Don't tell them about Japan. Which has plenty of poor people, but next to no drug use and little out of couplehood childraising. That'll completely fuck their shit.

A person of at least average intelligence would be able to find appropriate studies. It's not like other countries haven't walked this path before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

A person of at least average intelligence would be able to find appropriate studies. It's not like other countries haven't walked this path before.

We in the US are very very special. Exceptional in fact! Other studies don't apply.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Bless your heart - I don't intend to convince you of anything.  I do intend to do everything I can to prevent poor legislation from being enacted, and to proffer suggestions for changes that actually apply to the situation being addressed.  Convincing people like you of anything isn't worthy of my effort. 

Did you agree with jbsf's suggestions up-thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

By law studys that find that guns might be the problem can't get federal funding. Team gunnut will bullshit about this, but this is the practical nature of it. Like with climate change they don't want to know shit that contradicts their policy inclinations.

Don't tell them about Japan. Which has plenty of poor people, but next to no drug use and little out of couplehood childraising. That'll completely fuck their shit.

Good mention of Japan - how do their suicide rates compare?  Do you think that their firearms laws are the primary causal factor, or might their culture contribute just a smidge? 

Share this post


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

I don't know if I read those - post #? 

64. But it's been discussed repeatedly through this whole thread. You're within an ace of having a sealioning complaint made about you.

Share this post


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

64. But it's been discussed repeatedly through this whole thread. You're within an ace of having a sealioning complaint made about you.

I'll take a look - as to the complaint? Have at it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2019 at 8:46 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

On the surface, they are not.  But the devil is, as always, in the details.  The problem is when the people chant "DO SOMETHING" and the politicians try to do something, that something is usually stupid, unworkable, punishes mostly the innocent and does very little to actually address the real problem at hand.  

If you want to see a decrease in the number dead from "gun violence", I would do these specific things:

  1. Universal BGCs using instant online app access to the criminal DB and better sharing of info across national, state, local LE agencies.  I've spoken about this before in previous threads.
  2. Red Flag laws with appropriate appeals and restitution processes
  3. Address our poor access to mental health care in the US
  4. Address the ability of people to spread hate and violence on social media
  5. End the war on drugs.

Do those 5 things and you will the rates of gun homicides, suicide and mass shootings go WAY down very quickly.  

OK - thanks for the pointer to the post, Sheets.  I'm not sure about #4, there's a lot to unravel in that discussion before we got to a common understanding of what that would mean, and thus be able to agree/disagree/suggest changes. 

These are the same things I've talked about for a very long time, so yes, I do think that these would help immediately.   I've shared how I think the Red Flag laws should be implemented and policed, and IMHO, if any of these are acted upon, that should be the 1st to be implemented. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2019 at 8:21 AM, SloopJonB said:

????

How would you be able to shoot road signs and high tension insulators if they were locked & unloaded?

You left out shooting them, fully automatic,  standing position, from the open bed of a pickup truck doing > 130kph.  In the dark.  In a snowstorm. On a State Highway. Drinking Jagermeister.  These are the niceties of American style sport shooting that must be observed in any knowledgeable discussion of the second amendment.

Although one could argue that in Kentucky, in the next few years, this will be considered part of militia training exercises, so everything goes full circle.

It’s all good....

:)

Edit.  I’m just happy that there are no road signs between the state highway on our property’s side for a mile on, each way. The guys on the other side of the highway have not been so lucky, but their houses were built mostly in the early seventies, so the siding is thick enough to stop projectiles that went through the signs, bounced off, or missed them completely.  As far as I know, no windows have been shot out,  but that seems more like the miracle of a loving God.

Share this post


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

Good mention of Japan - how do their suicide rates compare?  Do you think that their firearms laws are the primary causal factor, or might their culture contribute just a smidge? 

Stop pretending you give a damn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 8:18 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

  I do intend to do everything I can to prevent poor legislation from being enacted,

I doubt it, but I try to respect you. If you want what you say ^^^ you would green light GVP research, on Political Anarchy. Now.

Quote

...and to proffer suggestions for changes that actually apply to the situation being addressed. 

READY, FREDDIE?

What Jeff and Tom call the CDC 2013 report, aka Priorities for Research, is the outline for causal study. (The very approach you wanted before it arrived.) It offered a thirty month goalset.

It was a direct result of Sandy Hook, but was stillborn because of Republical elk. They were heeding Larry Pratt at that time, but that was six years ago. (It was a different chapter, a period when you put me on ignore three or four times.)

 

Quote

Convincing people like you of anything isn't worthy of my effort. 

Oh but it is. We are figuring this out together.

Share this post


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

About the situation?  Of course I do. About you or your opinions? yeah, not much. 

It's pretty clear is not just me, or my opinions - it's everyone who's not an ammosexual. That's the way you gunnuts roll. You attempt to delegitimize the opinions of everyone but your fellow ammosexuals who, unsurprisingly, have no interest in actually changing anything.

Y'all are so far up your own assholes you just don't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It's pretty clear is not just me, or my opinions - it's everyone who's not an ammosexual. That's the way you gunnuts roll. You attempt to delegitimize the opinions of everyone but your fellow ammosexuals who, unsurprisingly, have no interest in actually changing anything.

Y'all are so far up your own assholes you just don't see it.

Of course dear.   You can't support that opinion, but, you're still welcome to enjoy it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Of course dear.   You can't support that opinion, but, you're still welcome to enjoy it. 

AGITC with the usual condescending sarcasm when forced to confront uncomfortable truth about his positions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
On 8/13/2019 at 8:18 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

  I do intend to do everything I can to prevent poor legislation from being enacted,

Hello? Are you now in favor of federal funding for proper gun violence research? Or not?

Let's look at the causes of gun violence, now, dispassionately and scientifically. Whad'ya say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or is it coincidence that Trump is starting to back gun control now that Russian mobsters are being welcomed into the US, specifically Kentucky?  

NRA etc. better keep an eye on Kentucky politicians and gun control- Moscow Mitch is a leading edge indicator, no?  Unless the NRA is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Russian state.

It’s tempting to think that gun owners are being triangulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

AGITC with the usual condescending sarcasm when forced to confront uncomfortable truth about his positions. 

So that's what you'd call your false interpretation of my position?  Have fun with that.  OR - you could quote something I've said that actually supports what you claim.  

Share this post


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

Just to remind y'all, gunz are for cowards . .

Exactly.  Emasculate ownership.  "Guns are for pussies."  "Real men don't need guns."

Better than waiting for Congress to take action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Jules said:

Exactly.  Emasculate ownership.  "Guns are for pussies."  "Real men don't need guns."

If the shoe fits, dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It's pretty clear is not just me, or my opinions - it's everyone who's not an ammosexual. That's the way you gunnuts roll. You attempt to delegitimize the opinions of everyone but your fellow ammosexuals who, unsurprisingly, have no interest in actually changing anything.

Y'all are so far up your own assholes you just don't see it.

Pot, meet kettle. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2019 at 10:00 PM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Do you know you are misdirecting or are you so deluded in Team Gunnut you don't see the strings being pulled? Now I realize this is all performative. YOu don't actually give a fuck - you are just peacocking for the other gunnuts - which is why you only engage in "safe" targets. You troll me, jocal, all the other people Team Gunnut has agreed are bad. real debate scares you and you runoft to go stroke a lapua, or like your leader morontom, bump a thread about gary johnson.

so DIAGF.

R'iblet gets sanctimonious and still doesn't answer any questions, film at 11.

Will you ever call out your fellow echo chamber members for bumping old threads? Yeah, I didn't think so. Resurrecting threads is only bad if Tom does it.

What passes for "honest debate" with the echo chamber:

"2A only applies to muskets"

"Why can't I own a nuclear weapon"

"You just like dead children"

"You just have a small dick, that is why you own guns"

etc, etc..

Share this post


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

 

 

Vets for poontang.

 

mindess botherism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bpm57 said:

"You just have a small dick, that is why you own guns"

Have you seen the primate video which just went viral? It looked like a merry camp of rebels, in the jungle, with a pet chimp.

Virility was attained and felt by the last frames.

Share this post


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

Have you seen the primate video which just went viral?

"just"? that video has been around for 8 years, it was "planet of the apes" marketing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

"just"?

Some folks are just not current.

Share this post


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

Unlike almost everyone else on PSA, I do not claim to have all the answers. 

Well then get your shit together!

Share this post


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

OK - thanks for the pointer to the post, Sheets.  I'm not sure about #4, there's a lot to unravel in that discussion before we got to a common understanding of what that would mean, and thus be able to agree/disagree/suggest changes. 

These are the same things I've talked about for a very long time, so yes, I do think that these would help immediately.   I've shared how I think the Red Flag laws should be implemented and policed, and IMHO, if any of these are acted upon, that should be the 1st to be implemented. 

Well. It seems that Step 1 is not very controversial. Though it does make me wonder why there is so much whining about REGISTRIES at other times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bpm57 said:

"just"? that video has been around for 8 years, it was "planet of the apes" marketing.

 

This video went viral recently.

Did you learn anything obvious about the primate's behavior?

Share this post


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

mindess botherism

Whoa! Joe! What you know? You are the Dean of mindless botherism. Look up irony. 

 

Share this post


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

Well. It seems that Step 1 is not very controversial. Though it does make me wonder why there is so much whining about REGISTRIES at other times. 

The concern over registries stems from the often voiced perspective that "once we know who has the guns, we know where to go to take them".   So - a registry that is implemented would have to come with concrete protections against using that registry for confiscatory or preemptive punitive assessments before I'd be willing to support it.   Include those protections?  It becomes a "meh", and it could be a useful incentive to discourage irresponsible firearms custody. 

Share this post


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

Well. It seems that Step 1 is not very controversial. Though it does make me wonder why there is so much whining about REGISTRIES at other times. 

The concern over registries stems from the often voiced perspective that "once we know who has the guns, we know where to go to take them".   So - a registry that is implemented would have to come with concrete protections against using that registry for confiscatory or preemptive punitive assessments before I'd be willing to support it.   Include those protections?  It becomes a "meh", and it could be a useful incentive to discourage irresponsible firearms custody. 

Closed registries like the one Billy Backstay whined about provide for confiscation upon the death of the current owner and preclude future ownership. That's the confiscation approach in the Florida gungrabby plan too.

Closed registries like those in New Jersey and California provide for confiscation during the life of the owner. They're a bit more eager to get on with the confiscation part.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This video went viral recently.

Did you learn anything obvious about the primate's behavior?

Doesn't matter who you are - if you have a gun, your government must respect fear you.

Share this post


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

The concern over registries stems from the often voiced perspective that "once we know who has the guns, we know where to go to take them".   So - a registry that is implemented would have to come with concrete protections against using that registry for confiscatory or preemptive punitive assessments before I'd be willing to support it.   Include those protections?  It becomes a "meh", and it could be a useful incentive to discourage irresponsible firearms custody. 

These protections you want are simply not possible. Governments can always change their mind.

They do not exist, even with no registry. The traditional approach is to simply send the brute squad from door to door searching. And any politician who goes for this option is pretty confident that most of the population supports the action.

You can be part of the solution, or you can wait for the solution to be inflicted upon you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Closed registries like the one Billy Backstay whined about provide for confiscation upon the death of the current owner and preclude future ownership. That's the confiscation approach in the Florida gungrabby plan too.

Closed registries like those in New Jersey and California provide for confiscation during the life of the owner. They're a bit more eager to get on with the confiscation part.

It is only because of the objections of your elk that proper compensation is not offered.

 

Share this post


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

These protections you want are simply not possible. Governments can always change their mind.

They do not exist, even with no registry. The traditional approach is to simply send the brute squad from door to door searching. And any politician who goes for this option is pretty confident that most of the population supports the action.

 You can be part of the solution, or you can wait for the solution to be inflicted upon you.

You're right - which is why I advocate for changes that I think will be efficacious, while adamantly opposing those that I think are onerous and punitive while being relatively ineffective. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It is only because of the objections of your elk that proper compensation is not offered.

 

No, it's because grabbers have consistently viewed gun ownership as a nuisance and abating a nuisance requires no compensation.

I posted another example of this recently.

No gun nutz support that view and blaming it on us instead of the people who enforce it is nonsense.

Share this post


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

You're right - which is why I advocate for changes that I think will be efficacious, while adamantly opposing those that I think are onerous and punitive while being relatively ineffective. 

Time crawls forward, as you make these claims. You have been ol' Mr. Efficacious.and  Mr. Proffer as long as I've encountered you.

What is your present position on the federal ban on gun violence research?

You have put me on ignore several times for asking this same, central question. You need to answer directly.

Share this post


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

Whoa! Joe! What you know? You are the Dean of mindless botherism. Look up irony. 

 

You were taking cheap shots. They seemed kinda pointless, and you seemed to be kinda lost.

 

Tell you what. I have a voice, and a sociological direction in mind.  Hmmm,  I stand firmly on vetted research, and vetted history, which holds its own.

Frankly, Blue Crab, this body of info, and the fact that I scrounged to find the real deal, ought to mean something to your (haughty, supposedly educated) ass.

See you around, fella.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites