RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs

RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

joether -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (11/29/2015 2:22:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD That was some 18 years ago, regarding his wife....1997, would you like to still blame her? BTW she is his EX wife I did not say she was to blame. I stated a fact, or are you unaware that conviction of domestic violence disqualifies you for firearm ownership in this country? "In 1997, Dear's wife accused him of domestic assault, although no charges were pressed, according to records provided by the Colleton County, South Carolina Sheriff's Office." SOURCE Apparently, BamaD, this gun nut was "A Honest and Law Abiding Gun Owner"..... Devil's Advocate: How many individuals, fueled on lies from conservative media, with easy access to firearms, and are thinking on copy cat actions right now? Since conservatives just days and weeks before have been fearing Muslims 'infiltrating' into the country via Syrian refugees, whom would create domestic terrorism. Seems terrorism came to us. Not by some foreigner escaping hell, but some right wing, conservative, pro-gun, anti-Obama, anti-Abortion, wing nut. Your side has....NO.....justifiable argument here. Remember when I stated "Lets talk good gun control while we are all cool headed."? That it would be better than immediately after some moment in which a lunatic conservative whom was like Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols (both conservative, gun nuts, anti-government) did something evil? That mass shootings are becoming all to common;every few weeks? Remember me saying this stuff? It was a pretty real warning that you and other conservatives blew off. You insulted, attacked, and ignored reality. Now, this country will start talking serious gun control. Now, your 'side' has a substantially lower level of credibility. Your 'side' wants to keep things easy enough for law breakers, criminals and terrorists to obtain arms to be used against the good civilians of the nation. I and others warned you. We knew what was coming down the pipeline. I for one wanted to head things off before they became ugly. Now, things are ugly! You got no one here to blame but yourself and fellow conservatives. More moderates just joined the side of the "regulated 'em/ban 'em". You want to keep talking shit? You want to behave in a belligerent, aggressive, and rageful manner? That just recruits more to the "regulate 'em/ban 'em" side. Doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result is a sign of insanity. You want people believing you and other gun owners are insane? To unstable to be credible with a firearm? Maybe it is time to stop the bullshit, and try a tactic that might make you more friends then enemies. You and other gun owners are going to feel the wrath of this nation's citizens. Much like Muslims did in this nation in the days, weeks, months, and yes, years after 9/11. Your going to feel and experience what those US Citizens endured. Is it your fault? In a way, yes. You do not police your own. You allowed (by your inaction) those individuals and organizations to become ever more extreme in their politics and views. I posted the thread that showed the crap the right wing media was shoveling out was a pile of total lies. I even showed the three hour video those groups cut/pasted to make hacked films that painted PP as evil doers. You nor any of the other conservatives on here watched it. If you did, you would know the executives talked quite deeply on the ethics of the process being discussed. What level of 'knowledge' did this shooter have on the ethics of bio matter research? I would guess "clueless". Here is where you might start first: seriously and honestly apologizing to the rest of the nation.

joether -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (11/29/2015 2:47:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD armed with an assault weapon Even if it was an AK, which has not been verified, it wasn't an assault weapon, it did not have full auto capability. stop pretending that you know anything for positive. he shot 12 people three died.I mentioned the ak because i told Kirata, I had seen the comment, in my second post. im not suggesting it was a saturday night special, or a fuking uzi...those maimed people didnt think they were safe because it was a long gun. i havent said his motive is PP, nor do I want to listen to every excuse under the sun why it has NOTHING to do with PP If he had used a full auto weapon we would know it. I know that if he obtained the weapon legally it was not full auto, and if he didn't retsricting the rest of us is nonsense. Yeah, because one can not fire a full auto AK, one shot at a time, right? Dude, there are YouTube videos on it. Go search for them! Second, it is not hard to convert a semi-auto firing AK into a full auto firing AK. Takes five minutes and a machinist shop (barring that, a few tools easily purchased from Home Depot or SEARS). Yes, the chance of a jamming or misfiring is elevated. It would be lower if the proper part was switched within the firearm sequence (which is illegal to have in AK's in the USA unless under certain circumstances). That you try to past this bullshit off is sad. It just shows your being dishonest. The AK is one of the most common firearms in the world. It has well over three hundred variations. Its rugged, easy to manufacture, and the ammo is not tough to come by in the United States. Should Americans be restricted from this rifle? Hey, you had a chance for that conversation several times. You pissed away opportunity. Now, Americans will decide whether to ban or restrict it without input from gun folks. Why should we trust you when you don't trust us?

thompsonx -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (11/29/2015 4:06:13 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD FR The dead officer was with the University of Colorado Springs police Dept, why was that dept. involved in this. I often wonder why some morons refuse to make themselves aware of the facts before they stuff both feet in their mouth. University Chancellor Pam Shockley Zalabak said Swasey, the slain officer, was responding in support of city police to the active shooter situation when he was killed. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/report-active-shooter-near-planned-parenthood-colorado-springs-n470431

thompsonx -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (11/29/2015 4:17:08 AM)
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Actually, for as much as you have said this, it still isn't so... A man with a gun goes into a pp clinic and starts blazing away and you don't believe it was targeted? What the phoque do you think he was doing???? trying to hustle a free cup of coffee and a cookie? "But the sources stressed that Dear said many things to law enforcement and the extent to which the "baby parts" remark played into any decision to target the Planned Parenthood office was not yet clear. He also mentioned President Barack Obama in statements." Since he was at the pp clinic and not the white house why do you bring this up? Do you approve of people who murder abortionist? Also, in regards to the rifle used: "Sources said there would have been nothing apparent in Dear's background — including a felony conviction or previous mental health issue — that would have disqualified him from buying an AK-47 style, high-powered rifle used in the shootings." So...AK-47 style, NOT an AK-47. This article was posted tonight my NBC News. What is your point? Does the caliber,design or manufacturer of the gun make any sort of difference? Why do you seek to focus on minutia? Will you be contributing to his defense fund? NEWS NOV 28 2015, 10:08 PM ET Planned Parenthood Shooting Suspect Made Comment About 'No More Baby Parts': Sources by PETE WILLIAMS and ANDREW BLANKSTEIN

BamaD -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (11/29/2015 5:14:18 AM)
this gun nut How do you know he was a "gun nut"? Because he used a gun? Does that mean that the guy in LA who killed his father and wounded his mother because the didn't order fast food for him was a knife nut since he used a knife? It has not only not been established what kind of gun he used, but it hasn't been established how he obtained it. Further, If you had read through the thread before attacking me you would know that I was critical of the information handling in the system. Also every conservative has called for making the background checks work, currently they don't.

BamaD -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (11/29/2015 5:20:33 AM)
Your 'side' wants to keep things easy enough for law breakers, criminals and terrorists to obtain arms to be used against the good civilians of the nation. This is patently wrong. We keep coming up with sugestions but you won't talk about anything that doesn't punish legitimate owners. And I am not the one using terms like liar, gun nut, low infomation voters. If that is what you call reasonable and calm discussion I can sink to your level but it doesn't get us anywhere and is much of the reason we can't take you seriously.

BamaD -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (11/29/2015 5:23:15 AM)
You and other gun owners are going to feel the wrath of this nation's citizens. This whole paragraph is just a gunaphobic wet dream. (see I can debate on your level).

BamaD -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (11/29/2015 5:26:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD armed with an assault weapon Even if it was an AK, which has not been verified, it wasn't an assault weapon, it did not have full auto capability. stop pretending that you know anything for positive. he shot 12 people three died.I mentioned the ak because i told Kirata, I had seen the comment, in my second post. im not suggesting it was a saturday night special, or a fuking uzi...those maimed people didnt think they were safe because it was a long gun. i havent said his motive is PP, nor do I want to listen to every excuse under the sun why it has NOTHING to do with PP If he had used a full auto weapon we would know it. I know that if he obtained the weapon legally it was not full auto, and if he didn't retsricting the rest of us is nonsense. Yeah, because one can not fire a full auto AK, one shot at a time, right? Dude, there are YouTube videos on it. Go search for them! Second, it is not hard to convert a semi-auto firing AK into a full auto firing AK. Takes five minutes and a machinist shop (barring that, a few tools easily purchased from Home Depot or SEARS). Yes, the chance of a jamming or misfiring is elevated. It would be lower if the proper part was switched within the firearm sequence (which is illegal to have in AK's in the USA unless under certain circumstances). That you try to past this bullshit off is sad. It just shows your being dishonest. The AK is one of the most common firearms in the world. It has well over three hundred variations. Its rugged, easy to manufacture, and the ammo is not tough to come by in the United States. Should Americans be restricted from this rifle? Hey, you had a chance for that conversation several times. You pissed away opportunity. Now, Americans will decide whether to ban or restrict it without input from gun folks. Why should we trust you when you don't trust us? A He couldn't have gotten a full auto AK B If he converted it that is already against the law C We don't trust you because nothing is ever enough. D You don't want to trust us because then you couldn't ignore everything we say and talk down to us. E We want to stop crime and protect rights, you want, your protestations aside, to stop guns. F Stop posting DNC taking points and think fo yourself.

Kana -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (11/29/2015 5:45:33 AM)
quote: Your 'side I'm not gonna jump into this debate other than to comment on this... Your side? WTF is that? I'm an American. So are the majority of the people in this discussion. Which means we all on the same side. We just have some differing interpretations thereof. Fuck. Thinking anything less is like having a war in a leaking rowboat. We all in this shit together and if we rock too hard, the ship of state flips and we all drown. I fucking hate the "Your Side" mentality, held and fostered by adherents to both parties. Once one starts seeing things in manichaneanistic fashion, us/them, me/you, conversation and dialogue dwindles, the opposition becomes "the other," an alien thing to be diminished and feared, not one of us and thus not having similar or worthy feelings/thoughts and instead a cause for casual flippant dismissal. "Your side" is the most dangerous concept in politics. Fuck folks, get goddamn real. No party is 100% right, nor are they 100% wrong. Blind allegiance and propaganda based bad mouthing is the first step towards fascism. We live in a country founded by zealous wingnuts (Sam Adams anyone) that is based on compromise government. Compromise means talks, discussion, accepting and understanding that all sides have valid opinions, that they have an equal right to their words and perspectives, and that maybe, just maybe, they might even have a point or two worth listening to. Truth: The "yoursiders" are the most divisive force in politics. They are also the shallowest as they are the political equivalent of racists, but instead of hating/dismissing based on skin, they do so based on political beliefs. It's contemptuous, dismissive, demeaning and demonstrates shallow, pathetic thinking. And, just like racism, it says not a damn thing about the person tarred with the label, but tells us everything about the simpleminded idiots that do the labeling. Just saying. Oh yeah, and rushing to judgement without having the facts demonstrates equal stupidity. Why not wait a second before engaging in emotional kneejerk response? You can now return to your regularly scheduled argument...

BamaD -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (11/29/2015 6:50:21 AM)
FR We know little about this case and the media avoids telling us many things. Does anyone else find it strange that they haven't told us where the dead where killed? This morning I found a very pro abortion site where the director of the clinic said none of the staff were injured. Before the police stomed the building they already knew how many were dead. This tells me that the victims were killed outside the clinic. While he may well have said something about no more dead babies the people who knew him said that A he had no real religious or political beliefs. B he was "crazy" but some didn't see him as dangerous (clearly those were wrong) C he hated everything and was clearly paranoid D he had several scrapes with the law but no one pressed the issue

CreativeDominant -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (11/29/2015 8:19:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Actually, for as much as you have said this, it still isn't so... A man with a gun goes into a pp clinic and starts blazing away and you don't believe it was targeted? What the phoque do you think he was doing???? trying to hustle a free cup of coffee and a cookie? "But the sources stressed that Dear said many things to law enforcement and the extent to which the "baby parts" remark played into any decision to target the Planned Parenthood office was not yet clear. He also mentioned President Barack Obama in statements." Since he was at the pp clinic and not the white house why do you bring this up? Do you approve of people who murder abortionist? Also, in regards to the rifle used: "Sources said there would have been nothing apparent in Dear's background — including a felony conviction or previous mental health issue — that would have disqualified him from buying an AK-47 style, high-powered rifle used in the shootings." So...AK-47 style, NOT an AK-47. This article was posted tonight my NBC News. What is your point? Does the caliber,design or manufacturer of the gun make any sort of difference? Why do you seek to focus on minutia? Will you be contributing to his defense fund? NEWS NOV 28 2015, 10:08 PM ET Planned Parenthood Shooting Suspect Made Comment About 'No More Baby Parts': Sources by PETE WILLIAMS and ANDREW BLANKSTEIN My point is that for all your pompous, cocksure posting about it: No definitive motive has yet been given so your opinion as to his 'deliberate targeting' of PP is just that...an opinion. And everybody's got one. Your statement that the police confirmed that the weapon was an AK-47 is flat out wrong. For all the talk of how his weapon could be converted to operate like an AK-47, it...like his motive...has not been declared by the police. My pointing out all of this to you makes me IN NO FUCKING WAY supportive of anyone's murder. Your deflection to such a horrendous accusation makes me wonder how someone on a previous thread could label you as anything like polite. Maybe to someone who agrees with your posts...

Lucylastic -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (11/29/2015 10:12:30 AM)
Kathleen Turner wrote this for huffington post on the 24th of november. Republicans' Playbook on Women Gets Even Scarier Posted: 11/24/2015 4:28 pm EST Updated: 11/24/2015 4:59 pm EST Last week, Ted Cruz promoted the endorsement of Troy Newman, an anti-choice leader who has gone so far as to say that a perfectly biblical society would execute its abortion providers. Let that sink in for a moment. Ted Cruz is so thrilled that someone who wants abortion providers to be killed is supporting him that he actually sent out a press release to celebrate the endorsement. Is that what this Republican primary has come to? Presidential candidates applauding -- not denouncing -- these radically extreme positions? Regardless of one's view on abortion rights, I would hope we can all agree that abortion providers do not deserve to be put to death for their entirely legal work. For a presidential candidate to not immediately distance himself from an endorsement from someone like Newman -- and instead to actively promote it -- is horrifying. Sadly, though, it's indicative of just how extreme this year's Republican presidential primary has become. All of the GOP candidates have been fighting over who can be the most anti-choice, who can most restrict a woman's ability to make her own decisions. As a lifelong activist for civil liberties and a woman's right to choose, it horrifies me that the Republicans hoping to be the next leader of the United States still attack women's rights in an attempt to get a bump in the polls from their far-right base. Women made up 53 percent of the electorate in 2012. And not only are abortion rights the law of the land, but they're supported by 78 percent of all Americans -- which includes plenty of men and women from both parties -- who believe that abortion should be legal in at least some cases. That just doesn't seem to register with the Republican presidential candidates. In the first Republican debate, Marco Rubio felt the need to clarify to the moderator that he's so anti-choice that he opposes not just most abortions, but all abortions; he's against rape and incest exceptions in abortion bans. Jeb Bush brags that he's the "most pro-life governor in modern times." When he was governor of Florida, he went so far as to try to stop a mentally disabled 22-year-old rape survivor from having an abortion. Under John Kasich's watch, the number of abortion clinics in Ohio has halved, making it increasingly difficult for women to access abortion regardless of the fact that the Supreme Court has recognized it as a constitutional right. Republicans aren't only attacking abortion rights -- they're attacking women's health in general. They all support defunding Planned Parenthood, which provides birth control, cancer screenings, and other critical services to millions of people ever year. They're all outspoken critics of the Affordable Care Act, even though it enables women to access free, life-saving preventative care. The Republican candidates all oppose important economic priorities -- like raising the minimum wage or effective paid leave policies -- that would especially help women and families. Women across the country, in particular low-income women, can't afford a president who will hack away at reproductive choices, economic mobility, and healthcare access to curry favor with the radical fringe who now are calling all the shots in the Republican party. In our country, no one should tolerate calls to put someone to death because of his or her legal profession. It would seem that in this Republican primary, "pro-life" means only what will garner the most votes. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-turner/republicans-playbook-on-w_b_8641604.html ALso Rachel Maddow brought up Ted Cruz and Troy on the 24th in her show, with video, on the background of Troy Newman, radical anti-abortion activist embraced by Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, and notes that this is the second recent radical association by Cruz. If you have the balls to read and watch and NOT see that their violent rhetoric and lies have come home to roost.

lovmuffin -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (11/29/2015 10:32:44 AM)
Did you post in the wrong thread or do we just have a nonsequitur here ?

Lucylastic -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (11/29/2015 11:13:00 AM)
no....not the wrong thread. how do you figure a non sequitur ?

lovmuffin -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (11/29/2015 1:32:22 PM)
The thread is about a shooting and you're going on about the politics of abortion. OK so maybe the topic is somewhat related but we still don't definitively have that as his motive. Even a total ban on abortion would turn into a clusterfuck in much the same way a ban on guns or certain classes of firearms would. I don't see it as a big worry for the pro choice side.

joether -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (11/29/2015 1:46:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD this gun nut How do you know he was a "gun nut"? Because he used a gun? Does that mean that the guy in LA who killed his father and wounded his mother because the didn't order fast food for him was a knife nut since he used a knife? Oh Jesus Christ......REALLY? Ok.... 1. He has a gun 2. He's willing to kill people for his religious/political beliefs 3. He doesn't bother with facts and evidence, since those would show he was full of shit 4. The Ends Justify The Means Basically, a person whom can not handle facts and evidence like a mature adult. Whom has many 'what if' and conspiracy tales across the spectrum that are extremely liberal on the facts (one has to REALLY stretch the truth and fact to link concepts together). He had in his mind that he was justified in his actions. How many sensible gun owners rush a Planned Parenthood building with full intent on killing people to justify their political ideology? How many gun owners will get blamed by the nation for this gun nut being allowed easy access to firearms? quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It has not only not been established what kind of gun he used, but it hasn't been established how he obtained it. Further, If you had read through the thread before attacking me you would know that I was critical of the information handling in the system. Also every conservative has called for making the background checks work, currently they don't. BULLSHIT! Conservatives are against any level of reasonable gun control. Every gun bill that has come up in Congress has been shot down by the Republican/Tea Party. Kind of hard to argue that conservatives are in favor of reasonable measures with a track record like that! In fact....ALL...the GOP/TP candidates would like even less restrictions on firearms. That is because all of them are submissive to the NRA! What sort of ethics do conservatives have whom vote for individuals whom obey an organization that wants to help gun industry make more profits over the deaths of multitudes of US Citizens? None.... This gun was a gun nut. plain and simple. You can not argue this one away. This guy has "typical conservative, 'christian', gun nut, Obama hater, liberal hater, Democratic hating, paranoid schizophrenic" written all over him. How much you want to bed this moron also believed Jade Helm 15 was a secret plot by the DoD and the White House to take over Texas and take all the guns/bibles away from US Citizens in that state?

joether -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (11/29/2015 2:28:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Your 'side' wants to keep things easy enough for law breakers, criminals and terrorists to obtain arms to be used against the good civilians of the nation. This is patently wrong. We keep coming up with sugestions but you won't talk about anything that doesn't punish legitimate owners. If that was even remotely true, you would be agreeing with me that there has to be tighter enforcement with firearms. It is...way to easy....for people with criminal intentions to obtain firearms and put the populace at risk. I suggested we have a mandatory background check. Pooling all the state databases with the federal systems. Including mental/emotional health problems. Along with credible people that say the person should not be trusted with a gun (like a former ex wife fleeing with children away from the 'anger management issue' husband). You shot that one down. Along with other conservatives. I suggested raising the cost of firearms by five times their current sale value. So a $900 pistol would cost $4,500. This still allowed 'Honest and Law Abiding Citizens" to obtain arms, but would make it much tougher on criminals to obtain firearms via the black market. Who carries around $5,000 in unmarked bills these days? Since less people are purchasing firearms as often, there are less firearms 'falling through the cracks' into criminal hands. Those guns that do, will be easier to track down to the unscrupulous person selling them to the black market. Heck, I even showed that this process would increase your networth by quite a bit. You and others have been against this. I suggested yearly physicals with mental/emotional health checks every so often. Its was we do for the ACTUAL "...well regulated militia...." called 'the local police department'. Shot down by conservatives on this here board! I suggested that firearm owners be forced to obtain insurance for each firearm. Because if your arm is stolen and it hurts/kills someone; I'll drag your ass to Massachusetts for the civil court. Take a guess what your chances will be in a Massachusetts court of law because you gun was not secured when it was stolen. Having insurance would shield you financially from most fines and damages. I'm sure those insurance companies would place a few demands of their own. Just like we do with automobiles! Conservatives are fully against this concept. If you want protections of the 2nd amendment; then your joining that '..well regulated militia...'. You'll abide by the rules. There will be a chain of command. Your group will obey orders from the local civilian government on up to the President of the United States of America. I'm sure we could convince Congress of footing the bill that allowed physical training of militia members. Start slimming down America.... Conservatives have been against this 18th century concept. They would rather 'thugs with guns' than 'be accountable' for their actions. Heck, I even suggested performing experiments in a laboratory setting. Using science to figure out new tactics, materials, and processes that might mitigate attacks. Test all those 'gun nut myths' to see if they can stand up to scientific scrutiny or not. How many conservatives are 'on board' with the idea? That's right....none! Should I keep going? Or is there enough evidence all ready that conservatives are full of shit on 'good gun control measures'.? Conservatives in our political system want....LESS....firearm laws. That makes it....EASIER....for law breakers, criminals and terrorists to get guns. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And I am not the one using terms like liar, gun nut, low infomation voters. That's because you do not have a solid argument on your side of the debate. This 'Dear' character was a solid conservative/libertarian. He didn't like Planned Parenthood enough to kill people within it! With a firearm that was easy to obtain even though his 'track record' says "don't give this guy a gun". Even if someone can prove he is insane, that doesn't help your argument at any level. If anything, it adds to the viewpoint that conservatives are paranoid schizophrenics in dire need of medication and therapy. Only a "Low Information Voter" would arrive at the viewpoint that those videos in conservative media were 'truthful' and 'factual' in their readings. Since more studied, learned, and educated people would dig deeper and find one important fact: All nine of those 'hack job' videos came from a three hour video. The first 'video' shown had three factual errors within the first minute! But you would only know that if you watched the full three hour video. Within that three hour video it becomes apparent that the Planned Parenthood executives were explaining the levels (yes, plural of the word 'level') of ethics that go into the whole process being explained. They even have the documents to back up their words (as shown in recent Congressional hearings). quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD If that is what you call reasonable and calm discussion I can sink to your level but it doesn't get us anywhere and is much of the reason we can't take you seriously. I dont care if you dont take me seriously. I have time and human psychology on my side of the argument. Given enough time, more and more Americans will switch from 'your side' to 'my side'. More Americans will desire more restrictions and bans. They'll vote in less Republicans/Tea Party, and more Democrats. All because mass shootings are now a common thing in America. Every 2-5 weeks, we have a new mass shooting. Between that time, US Citizens are killed by firearms here and there across the nation. How many conservatives have been apologizing to the families whom have lost love ones due to keeping firearm laws from reducing the potential damages? Not a single one. You can't be honest or decent. That's why you lose even more people. You hold the silly notion that if if someone has a firearm, they are automatically 'on your side'. Reality check: there are many firearm owners that would like much tougher controls put in place. They are tired of Americans thinking they are the lunatic fringe when it comes to firearm and gun control in America. If they have to side with Americans to put tougher gun controls in place just to regain some credibility and trust; they will do it. When you dont take me seriously, you lose ground even further and faster. It helps me and others in convincing Americans when you do not take me seriously. Because I'm giving reasonable ideas to combat the problems we face as society without revoking the 2nd amendment. You do not have any ideas. An less in credibility since you distrust your fellow Americans but demand unconditional trust from everyone. You want trust? Your going to give trust. In equal amounts! Dont want to give trust? Then you dont need guns. Its REALLY that simple of a concept. You want to keep pissing away opportunity, is your problem. After the ACA was put into law, I figured conservatives would have learned from that harsh mistake. I was wrong to believe conservatives were intelligent and wise enough to learn from the mistake. When the Democrats were fixing to push though the ACA, the GOP/TP should have given a counter proposal: An immigration bill with a wall along the southern states. Stating, they'll give ground on the ACA, but both bills are voted on at the same time, with members of both parties supporting in large numbers on each. You would have had that wall and better/tougher immigration six years ago..... .....but you pissed opportunity away. Why do that on firearms? I suggest a 'middle of the road' concept. Hell, I even suggest creating an amendment to specifically states a personal freedom/liberty to self defense (allowing the 2nd to handle law enforcement). Got nowhere quickly with conservatives. You want to play your silly and stupid 'Zero Sum' football game? You'll lose eventually. I have time and human psychology on my side.

joether -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (11/29/2015 2:29:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You and other gun owners are going to feel the wrath of this nation's citizens. This whole paragraph is just a gunaphobic wet dream. (see I can debate on your level). You took a sentence well out of context..... No, you failed on several levels.

joether -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (11/29/2015 3:01:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD armed with an assault weapon Even if it was an AK, which has not been verified, it wasn't an assault weapon, it did not have full auto capability. stop pretending that you know anything for positive. he shot 12 people three died.I mentioned the ak because i told Kirata, I had seen the comment, in my second post. im not suggesting it was a saturday night special, or a fuking uzi...those maimed people didnt think they were safe because it was a long gun. i havent said his motive is PP, nor do I want to listen to every excuse under the sun why it has NOTHING to do with PP If he had used a full auto weapon we would know it. I know that if he obtained the weapon legally it was not full auto, and if he didn't retsricting the rest of us is nonsense. Yeah, because one can not fire a full auto AK, one shot at a time, right? Dude, there are YouTube videos on it. Go search for them! Second, it is not hard to convert a semi-auto firing AK into a full auto firing AK. Takes five minutes and a machinist shop (barring that, a few tools easily purchased from Home Depot or SEARS). Yes, the chance of a jamming or misfiring is elevated. It would be lower if the proper part was switched within the firearm sequence (which is illegal to have in AK's in the USA unless under certain circumstances). That you try to past this bullshit off is sad. It just shows your being dishonest. The AK is one of the most common firearms in the world. It has well over three hundred variations. Its rugged, easy to manufacture, and the ammo is not tough to come by in the United States. Should Americans be restricted from this rifle? Hey, you had a chance for that conversation several times. You pissed away opportunity. Now, Americans will decide whether to ban or restrict it without input from gun folks. Why should we trust you when you don't trust us? A He couldn't have gotten a full auto AK B If he converted it that is already against the law C We don't trust you because nothing is ever enough. D You don't want to trust us because then you couldn't ignore everything we say and talk down to us. E We want to stop crime and protect rights, you want, your protestations aside, to stop guns. F Stop posting DNC taking points and think fo yourself. A ) I could get a full auto AK. And I live in Massachusetts! B ) Well, as you have noted, criminals do not follow laws. So why do we allow them the access to firearms so easily? C ) Funny, liberals would say that of conservatives on the federal budget and taxes. But then, neither your nor mine here is an argument. Just mindless bullshit.... D ) I'm not the one whom distrusted you in the first place. Folks like you distrust your fellow Americans. Why should they trust you when you do not trust them? * E ) Seems your 'methods' do nothing to stop nor mitigate the problems we are facing. Maybe we should look at alternatives.... F ) Actually, I haven't really gone to the DNC site in like forever! I read the Drudge Report, Stormfront, and FOX 'news' about twelve times as much as I do the DNC material. Yes, I agree with them on certain areas. I disagree with them on other areas. They want to really ban firearms. I would not like us to go down that path. So I try to figure out an alternative that might make most people happy. *: I have friends whom are conservative in their politics and have firearms. I trust them with the firearms. Why? This is key: because I know them. I dont know many Americans with guns. How do I trust them? That is why we have a government (ok, one of many reasons). It allows a third party to state 'this person has followed the rules to obtain a firearm'. And....'this person is currently maintaining a lawful respect of the rules in place in our society'. This allows me to place trust in those Americans whom I have never met and/or don't know well enough. But when conservatives do not trust the government, how do I trust them with firearms? Yes, the founding fathers warned us never to trust the government for a number of good and rational reasons. There is 'distrust' and then there is 'paranoid schizophrenia'. The first can be healthy; the second is not healthy. The government has to always drive to show they are open, honest, and responsible with the power they have towards/around/over all of us. Take Jade Helm 15 that took place over the summer. The President, the DoD, The US Army, and many local, state, and federal officials told all of us Americans exactly what the operation was going to try to accomplish. It even sent a high ranking military officer to a small town in Texas whom fielded questions from 'reasonable' to 'completely insane'. Not once did the man's information prove untrue. Most Americans accepted that this was not something to worry about. Then there was the paranoid schizophrenic types. They thought this was an invasion by the Muslim Obama, to invoke Sharia Law while removing the US Constitution, placing people into FEMA camps, while removing the guns and bibles and allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to become US Citizens. An how much of that delusional tirade....ACTUALLY...took place? None of it! It appears the government and US Military, not to mention hundreds if not thousands of local, state, and federal officials were being 100% honest with regards to the whole operation. That conservatives do not know when to show trust and when not to show trust, shows a distinct lack of maturity. Why should we allow distrusting, paranoid schizophrenic individuals whom are immature easy access to firearms? Particularly in light of the recent Planned Parenthood shooting? So what you got to do, is give your fellow Americans reasons to trust you. You have to rebuild that trust. An that is something your.....deathly.....afraid of doing. Your more scared of building trust with your fellow Americans than all the years you have been fearful of Muslim terrorists doing something bad in the nation for the last twenty years....COMBINED! Because if you keep with your current bullshit on distrusting us; your going to have tighter restrictions on firearms. You dont want that, right? So start developing ways we can trust you. If your not careful, you might start trusting us as well by accident.

BamaD -> RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs (11/29/2015 3:24:59 PM)
He's willing to kill people for his religious/political beliefs According to those who know him he has no real religious or political beliefs. Your deffinition still makes the other guy a knife nut. You use gun nut to disparage anyone who has a gun thus depriving it of it's sting.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125