Shooting Survivors’ Feelings Don’t Legitimize Their Ideas About Politics

[trouble13]

There might be other solutions, but they're either not going to happen or won't IMO do any good. I've detailed why I think hardening schools is stupid. What you are pointedly NOT doing is actually explaining why you think my concerns aren't valid.

For the most part I don't disagree with your criticism of the alternate ideas. Many of the things suggested would be expensive just like enforcing new gun laws would also come with additional costs. I'm not arguing costs, I'm arguing how much liberty should be sacrafice and who should make the sacrafice for the safety of the children. What I think is invalid about your position is the idea that banning guns is going to reduce the amount of people being murdered.

Or we can take mental health. Maybe I'll be proved wrong and the GOP will introduce legislation to make access to mental health services more available, and appropriate the $10s or $100s of billions necessary to make that a reality. When they do, wake me up from my peaceful sleep. It will last years.

Mental health is much to broad of a term to debate. If we are going to deny people any of their rights based on their mental being we need to have very specifically defined boundaries. Without them it's just a feel good phrase being thrown around.

And the bottom lines is this country is awash in guns, and pretty much everyone not formally declared unfit in a court proceeding can buy them - all they need is the money, and a criminal record will barely slow them down. So why do I think a country flooded with deadly weapons, and full of deranged, violent people who are a few $hundred from access to those weapons, will inevitably produce a predictably depressing number of mass shootings? Seems obvious to me.

Maybe that's your bottom line but, it's not the bottom line for me or for many others. The bottom line is that if you banned all guns and even confiscated the ones we have, it would stop mass murders from taking place. Killers find ways to kill. The weapon they choose isn't the problem. If you want to stop the killing you need to eliminate whatever makes them have the desire to kill.




Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[dirtpoorchris]

Your links don't support the assertion that CNN lied.

And of course Trump and NRA toadies believe more guns is the answer to gun violence. Same as it ever was. Be afraid, buy more guns!

Bad guys with guns are the problem so let's make it a trivial process for any bad guy to buy a gun, which means more bad guys have guns. And because more bad guys have guns, the only solution to the problem is more good guys with guns, who should be allowed to carry them anywhere, which makes it easier for bad guys with guns to be armed, therefore more good guys with guns need to be armed at all times in all places! At some point we'll reach nirvana and we'll all carry guns at all times and gun violence will then cease to be a problem because....something. In the meantime, the gun industry is booming!

Ah according to the kids testimony it would seem CNN has lied. The kid specifically told them that he wanted to talk about recruiting militairy veterans to protects the schools and CNN told him that they would only be doing scripted questions. So the kid denied to interview. Then CNN blamed the kids dad for their refusal to let the kid give his specific 1 sentence speech on "allowing war veterans into the school". Just because you cant deduce that CNN lied doesn't mean they didn't.


Trump wants to get teachers THAT ARE APT AT IT the ability to TRAIN and gain a concealed weapons. And you are crying that Trump wants to get teachers TRAINED? This is professional stuff you know? Did you even read the article? I agree with him that arming less than 1% of the teachers would deter cowards.

In the article it also states that Trump wants to raise the age limit of buying guys to 21 but you probably dont care and didnt even read it.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

Funny that in Florida the NRA is working with teachers to get concealed carry training classes and MANY people instantly signed up. And you are then going to go on and accuse those same teachers of being insane for wanting to be armed.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

Utah and Texas are already doing it, they don't disallow concealed carry.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/teachers-carry-guns-classrooms-arguments-115000802.html

It just really hit home that these teachers, all they could do was pile those kids in a corner and stand in front of them and hope for the best," said Hansen, who carries a concealed handgun as she teaches special education students.

"I'm not here to tell all teachers that they have to carry a gun," she said. "For me personally, I felt that it was more of a solution than just hiding in a corner and waiting."

Utah is among at least eight states that allow, or don't specifically prohibit, concealed weapons in K-12 schools, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

In Austin, Texas, teacher Tara Bordeaux can't easily see herself taking on that role, preferring to leave it to trained law enforcement officers.

"Would I get the same training and would I have the same type of instinct of when and how to use it?" asked Bordeaux, her state's 2018 teacher of the year. "I don't have any instincts in me to be an officer of the law. My instincts are to be a teacher."

Claude, Texas, Superintendent Brock Cartwright won't reveal how many or who among his teachers is armed, but the district's message to potential intruders blares in capital letters in three signs: "Please be aware that the staff at Claude ISD is armed and may use whatever force necessary to protect our students."

 

[JasperL]

No. You just don’t understand the argument you are making. Some troops DO carry pump shotguns. It just isn’t the primary weapon because it isn’t made for a certain role. So let’s move on.

Give me a break. I understand the argument just fine. If you want to shoot up a school/concert/post office and kill as many people as possible, and you're given a choice of weapons, you're going to pick an AR-style weapon because it just is FAR more lethal for that purpose. It's designed to kill in close quarters, light, short barrel, low recoil to keep you on target, quick reloading. That pump shotgun requires you to access the bottom of the weapon and individually orient and load big, cumbersome shotgun shells one at a time, maximum 5. I've done it many thousands of times. With an AR-15, you can eject a mag, insert another with 30 rounds without taking the gun from your shoulder, and in 2-3 seconds, or the amount of time it takes to load ONE shotgun shell in that pump, you're good to go for another 30 shots.

Not really. But let’s say you DO fire off 5 rounds...if you use buckshot...that’s 45 lead pellets MINNIMUM...in the air that will be lethal until stopped for at least 100 yards (I personally know of one person killed at 100 yards by a single pellet from buckshot that missed a target and hit her). They also make shotguns with 8 round tubes as well. There are also magazine fed adapters.

I assume you're talking about 9 pellets per shell times 5, and a single 00 pellet will only be lethal at 100 yards if the person is very unlucky, and it's certainly far less lethal than a .223 or something, which will carry something like 8-10 times the killing power of a 00 buck pellet at that range, at least. Anyone shooting a deer at 100 yards with buckshot is a person who has no business hunting, for example.

A shotgun is also is no more cumbersome than a rifle. With an 8 inch tube you can get an 18 inch barrel. Hardly cumbersome. The Washington navy yard shooter used an 870 and killed 12 people. So your argument doesn’t fly.

Yeah, OK, and he ran out of shotgun ammo and finished the shooting spree with a handgun he got off a dead guy. Bottom line is we both KNOW that if you want to go on a shooting spree, an "assault" weapon is a better choice. You going to lug around 3 big boxes of 12 ga. shells or 3 mags of 30 each.

And ANY gun is lethal. I have a little .22 LR that will kill people, semi-auto, not sure exactly what the capacity is - I just load until it's full. It will kill a human, but at about 100 ft.pd at the muzzle versus 1,500 or so for a .223, which will I choose if I want to kill a bunch of folks?

The fact that NOBODY stopped Him before all this is crazy. Nobody arrested Newtown when he failed. Our mental health screening is the problem. Not our gun laws. Remember that Newtown shooter failed his background check. Nobody did anything.

What should they have done? He shot and killed his mother using the guns she owned, presumably for personal protection, then used one of her guns to kill the children and teachers.

 

[blackjack50]

Give me a break. I understand the argument just fine. If you want to shoot up a school/concert/post office and kill as many people as possible, and you're given a choice of weapons, you're going to pick an AR-style weapon because it just is FAR more lethal for that purpose. It's designed to kill in close quarters, light, short barrel, low recoil to keep you on target, quick reloading. That pump shotgun requires you to access the bottom of the weapon and individually orient and load big, cumbersome shotgun shells one at a time, maximum 5. I've done it many thousands of times. With an AR-15, you can eject a mag, insert another with 30 rounds without taking the gun from your shoulder, and in 2-3 seconds, or the amount of time it takes to load ONE shotgun shell in that pump, you're good to go for another 30 shots.



I assume you're talking about 9 pellets per shell times 5, and a single 00 pellet will only be lethal at 100 yards if the person is very unlucky, and it's certainly far less lethal than a .223 or something, which will carry something like 8-10 times the killing power of a 00 buck pellet at that range, at least. Anyone shooting a deer at 100 yards with buckshot is a person who has no business hunting, for example.



Yeah, OK, and he ran out of shotgun ammo and finished the shooting spree with a handgun he got off a dead guy. Bottom line is we both KNOW that if you want to go on a shooting spree, an "assault" weapon is a better choice. You going to lug around 3 big boxes of 12 ga. shells or 3 mags of 30 each.

And ANY gun is lethal. I have a little .22 LR that will kill people, semi-auto, not sure exactly what the capacity is - I just load until it's full. It will kill a human, but at about 100 ft.pd at the muzzle versus 1,500 or so for a .223, which will I choose if I want to kill a bunch of folks?



What should they have done? He shot and killed his mother using the guns she owned, presumably for personal protection, then used one of her guns to kill the children and teachers.

What they SHOULD have done was arrested him ON THE SPOT for trying to purchase a firearm even though purchasing one was ILLEGAL. Period. Mom would be alive. He would be in jail. Newtown would not have happened. But what happened?

As for shotguns...I guess you just aren’t good with them. I am. I’ve shot them my entire life and can get more rounds on target faster with one. They make speed loaders. They make shell holders that hold 25 rounds and are about the same size as a mag of an ar. Just fat. I use it duck and goose hunting. And everything you used to describe an ar (short and light) all applies to a short little Mossie you can go buy for a fraction of the price.

And. As demonstrated on other occasions...people don’t just reach for an AR. They have used handguns and shotguns too. So. What is your plan for mass shooters who use handguns? Since your ban magically makes mass shooters never kill anyone ever again with an AR...are you saying that they won’t use handguns and shotguns? Or are people killed with those just not a big deal? Do you see why focusing on the gun is a ****ing joke now?

 

[dirtpoorchris]

No. You just don’t understand the argument you are making. Some troops DO carry pump shotguns. It just isn’t the primary weapon because it isn’t made for a certain role. So let’s move on.



Not really. But let’s say you DO fire off 5 rounds...if you use buckshot...that’s 45 lead pellets MINNIMUM...in the air that will be lethal until stopped for at least 100 yards (I personally know of one person killed at 100 yards by a single pellet from buckshot that missed a target and hit her). They also make shotguns with 8 round tubes as well. There are also magazine fed adapters.

A shotgun is also is no more cumbersome than a rifle. With an 8 inch tube you can get an 18 inch barrel. Hardly cumbersome. The Washington navy yard shooter used an 870 and killed 12 people. So your argument doesn’t fly.



The fact that NOBODY stopped Him before all this is crazy. Nobody arrested Newtown when he failed. Our mental health screening is the problem. Not our gun laws. Remember that Newtown shooter failed his background check. Nobody did anything.

Whats terrifying is you have gangmembers making little assassination "zip" guns from Home Depot for 10 dollars. These people creep up on you with a little 6 inch long pipe and a slammer in the back and assassinate people point blank with 1 shotgun shell.

 

[blackjack50]

Whats terrifying is you have gangmembers making little assassination "zip" guns from Home Depot for 10 dollars. These people creep up on you with a little 6 inch long pipe and a slammer in the back and assassinate people point blank with 1 shotgun shell.

Yep. Divers used to make them for sharks and people use them for gator hunting too. A stick and pipe and the right type of primer. Not that hard to make lethal stuff.

 

[JasperL]

Ah according to the kids testimony it would seem CNN has lied. The kid specifically told them that he wanted to talk about recruiting militairy veterans to protects the schools and CNN told him that they would only be doing scripted questions. So the kid denied to interview. Then CNN blamed the kids dad for their refusal to let the kid give his specific 1 sentence speech on "allowing war veterans into the school". Just because you cant deduce that CNN lied doesn't mean they didn't.

I'm just pointing our your link doesn't support the assertion YOU made.

Trump wants to get teachers THAT ARE APT AT IT the ability to TRAIN and gain a concealed weapons. And you are crying that Trump wants to get teachers TRAINED? This is professional stuff you know? Did you even read the article? I agree with him that arming less than 1% of the teachers would deter cowards.

I have no idea what "trained" means. I know in my city you can get a concealed carry permit and really all you have to demonstrate is you can fire a gun safely, sit through a couple of classes, and can pass a simple written test. That's not "trained" - that's demonstrating that you have a vague idea how a firearm works, and can fire it in the general direction of a fixed target in perfectly controlled conditions.

FWIW, I did read the article and Trump said 20%, not 1%. And it's not that I'm opposed to arming some teachers. If local communities think that's a good idea, that's fine with me. If it was in my city and that was on the table, the specifics, the conditions, the training required, and more matter a great deal. As a general observation, teachers are teachers, not armed guards trained for SWAT duty, and I don't think we should pretend otherwise.

In the article it also states that Trump wants to raise the age limit of buying guys to 21 but you probably dont care and didnt even read it.

I did read it and support that provision. Seems like a low bar, but if I was a betting man I'd take the bet even that won't happen.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

I'm just pointing our your link doesn't support the assertion YOU made.



I have no idea what "trained" means. I know in my city you can get a concealed carry permit and really all you have to demonstrate is you can fire a gun safely, sit through a couple of classes, and can pass a simple written test. That's not "trained" - that's demonstrating that you have a vague idea how a firearm works, and can fire it in the general direction of a fixed target in perfectly controlled conditions.

FWIW, I did read the article and Trump said 20%, not 1%. And it's not that I'm opposed to arming some teachers. If local communities think that's a good idea, that's fine with me. If it was in my city and that was on the table, the specifics, the conditions, the training required, and more matter a great deal. As a general observation, teachers are teachers, not armed guards trained for SWAT duty, and I don't think we should pretend otherwise.



I did read it and support that provision. Seems like a low bar, but if I was a betting man I'd take the bet even that won't happen.

All it says is that CNN blamed the dad. When we know it was the kid himself that declined the interview/speech because they were only accepting scripted positions. You are filling all the rest in by yourself.

 

[ultmd]

Please quote my "alt-right ideology".

I'd hate to see you as a liar.

Well, unfortunately, you leave little choice when it comes to granting you that same favor. Pick a topic, explain your position, and we can exchange thoughts and questions. When we're finished, your arguments will speak for themselves and I'll just have to point them out. Better yet, there's a lot of research being conducted on you and your ilk these days. Here's a great, comprehensive academic profile based on direct interviews with hundreds of self-described alt-righties. Read it and note how closely aligned your arguments on this board are with those of professed alt-right types.
A Psychological Profile of the Alt-Right

You lie and build stawmen, I support background checks among other things. but you lied from the get go so forgive me if I don't spend much effort with the likes of you.

I don't care how you spend your time, nor what you do. What you seem to dislike is that I tell the truth, and you can't handled it. Apparently you've grown accustomed to having your way with people on this board, but the truth is that you really can't defend yourself when your ideas are confronted.

COntinuation of your strawman. the fact is in the USC the same restrictions that can be applied to speech can be applied to the 2nd. this is why the SCOTUS avoids a real 2nd case because it wouldn't go the way you hoplophobes think.

:lamo You're dissembling now. You don't have the chops to rebut with substance, so you rebut with tangential personal attacks. What an empty-suit you've proven to be. I just posted for you the ACTUAL CASE LAW.......in a USSC decision written by ANTONIN SCALIA............which PROVES, in no uncertain terms.........that there is the 2nd Amendment enshrines ZERO "absolute" rights to firearms......not today, not 50 years ago, and not EVER in the HISTORY of this country. I even quoted for you the relevant remarks from Scalia (because I knew that, like most conservatives, you don't read or study much). So again, as SCALIA HIMSELF stated...."...the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose....nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms..."

That's it. Game over for you and your kind. The 2nd Amendment LIE that you and your ilk promote.........has long-since been debunked. And it was debunked, once and for all, by one of your own, USSC Justice Antonin Scalia. You cannot rebut it, so you try to change the subject.

because it wouldn't go the way you hoplophobes think

Wrong again. I'm a gun-owner. I'm just not a 2A radical, alt-rightie like you. People like you are the problem, I'm part of the solution.

It has nothing to do with bravado, but your cowardice. you want other men with guns to take guns away from law abiding citizens, you wouldn't do the dirty work yourself, you would expect others to, that much is clear. You are not anti-gun you are pro-government-with-guns. you are pretty much a fascist like most hoplophobes.

LOL, alt-righties like you trying to label people like me "fascists".......is a lot like being called "ugly" by a frog. You must have learned that from your Dear Leader, who has made a habit of calling real news "fake news".......and calling fake news "real news". With you and your kind, it's always about gaslighting. That's an effective tactic for weak-minded "low-information" alt-right types. But, as you can see, not so much for the rest of us.

 

[JasperL]

What they SHOULD have done was arrested him ON THE SPOT for trying to purchase a firearm even though purchasing one was ILLEGAL. Period. Mom would be alive. He would be in jail. Newtown would not have happened. But what happened?

First of all, I'm not aware of any law Lanza violated by trying to buy a gun. Everything I've read is he was mentally ill, but wasn't adjudicated as such in a way that would prevent him from buying all the guns he wanted, and so could legally buy firearms. He didn't complete the purchase because he didn't want to wait the 14 days, but broke no laws and therefore couldn't have been arrested and jailed.

And we almost never prosecute people who fail background checks. According to this article, about 70,000 people are turned down per year for failing that check, and we prosecuted 71 of them. I guess we could aggressively enforce that law and arrest people on the spot and jail them, but I don't think in practice that will work because lots of false 'positives' on those background checks...

And. As demonstrated on other occasions...people don’t just reach for an AR. They have used handguns and shotguns too. So. What is your plan for mass shooters who use handguns? Since your ban magically makes mass shooters never kill anyone ever again with an AR...are you saying that they won’t use handguns and shotguns? Or are people killed with those just not a big deal? Do you see why focusing on the gun is a ****ing joke now?

I've said on other posts that a Glock is just about as effective as an AR, and haven't proposed weapons bans, etc. I was responding to the idea that a shotgun is as lethal as an AR, which isn't true.

 

[ultmd]

Cat fight? tell me which of your stupid sentences above do you not consider a "Cat fight" you are typical of your ilk around here, you throw shade, start static, attack, and run your mouth at posters, then when they throw it back you have a little meltdown crying and whining about "cat fights" or people "flinging poo". You should look within, be the change you seek. that's your issue.

:roll: WOW. So let's review. You asked for a source of the FACTS I presented in a previous post. I posted that source for you. Your response was to (as usual) deflect and dissemble AWAY from the subject (because you know you LOST the point, and don't have the stones to just admit it)........and instead........wait for it.......attack me personally again. In summary..........you just responded to criticism of your arguments as being "cat fight"-ish..........with more catfightish nonsense. How manly of you, "Rev".

What's moronic is your attitude and tantrum you are throwing over the strawman you built. I never said mental health was the only problem. I'd appreciate it if you showed some integrity.

Sorry, but anti-intellectual alt-righties who lie and dissemble don't get to question my integrity. I've posted the FACTS about the current state of law related to the 2A of the U.S. Constitution...........to which you were rendered mute. You could not respond to the FACTS as presented to you. Then I posted for you the FACTS about public support for gun control in this country..........to which you were rendered mute. Again, you could not respond to the FACTS presented to you. To date, you have presented NOTHING except for you personal feelings, which are not even worth debating.

But you know the facts. That's why you'll continue to focus on me, instead. Like a whipped dog, you're showing your belly.

 

[JasperL]

As for shotguns...I guess you just aren’t good with them. I am. I’ve shot them my entire life and can get more rounds on target faster with one. They make speed loaders. They make shell holders that hold 25 rounds and are about the same size as a mag of an ar. Just fat. I use it duck and goose hunting. And everything you used to describe an ar (short and light) all applies to a short little Mossie you can go buy for a fraction of the price.

You use 25 round magazines to hunt ducks? LOL.... That's funny. They'd be completely unnecessary in that role, and highly illegal. If I'm not mistaken, they can take and keep your gun if it isn't plugged to 3 shell max. [Yes, I know you can hunt some geese in some cases with a shotgun that holds more than 3 rounds, but not ducks in this country].

As to how good I am with a shotgun, we might have fun at a sporting clays match! I'm no expert, but decent enough for someone who doesn't take that sport up seriously. I don't own any fancy gear, mostly shoot an 1100 that I bought about 40 years ago, and 3 rounds seems enough for almost all hunting situations.

 

[JasperL]

All it says is that CNN blamed the dad. When we know it was the kid himself that declined the interview/speech because they were only accepting scripted positions. You are filling all the rest in by yourself.

We don't know that, and you're article doesn't say that. And it's beside the point anyway. :roll:

 

[JasperL]

You do know that you just proved the point I have been making, Thanks.

From what I can tell, your point is to make schools into mini-prisons. I've addressed that in several posts. If you want to debate that topic, fine. My view is the idea is impractical and doomed to fail. Bottom line is of course we CAN make our schools little fortresses and make it harder for shooters to gain entry, but with 1,000 or more students, kids, coming and going from multiple entrances and exits in any large building, not practical.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Well, unfortunately, you leave little choice when it comes to granting you that same favor. Pick a topic, explain your position, and we can exchange thoughts and questions. When we're finished, your arguments will speak for themselves and I'll just have to point them out. Better yet, there's a lot of research being conducted on you and your ilk these days. Here's a great, comprehensive academic profile based on direct interviews with hundreds of self-described alt-righties. Read it and note how closely aligned your arguments on this board are with those of professed alt-right types.
A Psychological Profile of the Alt-Right

So you admit, that you were lying about me and have no evidence that I am "alt-right".


please quote my alt right arguments or stop lying.

I don't care how you spend your time, nor what you do. What you seem to dislike is that I tell the truth, and you can't handled it. Apparently you've grown accustomed to having your way with people on this board, but the truth is that you really can't defend yourself when your ideas are confronted.

Your post is delusional.

lamo You're dissembling now. You don't have the chops to rebut with substance, so you rebut with tangential personal attacks. What an empty-suit you've proven to be. I just posted for you the ACTUAL CASE LAW.......in a USSC decision written by ANTONIN SCALIA............which PROVES, in no uncertain terms.........that there is the 2nd Amendment enshrines ZERO "absolute" rights to firearms......not today, not 50 years ago, and not EVER in the HISTORY of this country. I even quoted for you the relevant remarks from Scalia (because I knew that, like most conservatives, you don't read or study much). So again, as SCALIA HIMSELF stated...."...the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose....nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms..."

You hurl personal attacks then whine about them? really dude?

That's it. Game over for you and your kind. The 2nd Amendment LIE that you and your ilk promote.........has long-since been debunked. And it was debunked, once and for all, by one of your own, USSC Justice Antonin Scalia. You cannot rebut it, so you try to change the subject.

oh simply because you say so? you are arguing a point I never made. stop with the lying.

Wrong again. I'm a gun-owner. I'm just not a 2A radical, alt-rightie like you. People like you are the problem, I'm part of the solution.

Right you own a small 22 but want to ban all sorts of weapons such as those recognized as protected by the heller decision, in otherwords, you are a gun owner but a fascist as well.

LOL, alt-righties like you trying to label people like me "fascists".......is a lot like being called "ugly" by a frog. You must have learned that from your Dear Leader, who has made a habit of calling real news "fake news".......and calling fake news "real news". With you and your kind, it's always about gaslighting. That's an effective tactic for weak-minded "low-information" alt-right types. But, as you can see, not so much for the rest of us.

YOu are a fascist. you want to send other peoples sons to take away my guns. I have no idea actually what you are ranting about now actually.


You should hurl another insuilt then whine about personal attacks again.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

:roll: WOW. So let's review. You asked for a source of the FACTS I presented in a previous post. I posted that source for you. Your response was to (as usual) deflect and dissemble AWAY from the subject (because you know you LOST the point, and don't have the stones to just admit it)........and instead........wait for it.......attack me personally again. In summary..........you just responded to criticism of your arguments as being "cat fight"-ish..........with more catfightish nonsense. How manly of you, "Rev".



Sorry, but anti-intellectual alt-righties who lie and dissemble don't get to question my integrity. I've posted the FACTS about the current state of law related to the 2A of the U.S. Constitution...........to which you were rendered mute. You could not respond to the FACTS as presented to you. Then I posted for you the FACTS about public support for gun control in this country..........to which you were rendered mute. Again, you could not respond to the FACTS presented to you. To date, you have presented NOTHING except for you personal feelings, which are not even worth debating.

But you know the facts. That's why you'll continue to focus on me, instead. Like a whipped dog, you're showing your belly.

you started the personal attacks now you are whining when I point out your hypocrisy. You lied about me and not admit you dont care about your integrity. I think we are done here. run along now. just come yourself when you vote to support gun confiscation, don't send someone elses son.

 

[ultmd]

So you admit, that you were lying about me and have no evidence that I am "alt-right".

LOL, it's really cute, they way you give your feelings away by accusing others of what you've been doing. In this case, you've been castrated by the facts, and now you're lashing out to save your ego. :lamo You're alt-right, and it's obvious. You dislike having your truth thrown in your face. I get it, but that's not my problem.

please quote my alt right arguments or stop lying.

Silly alt-rightie.......your 2A views are alt-right. Your views on race and immigration are alt-right. You.......are alt-right. Stop whining and whimpering every time someone delivers the truth to you. I thought you and your kind were the proponent for doing away with political correctness. What happened? Did the rules change once your ox got gored?:lamo

Your post is delusional.

:roll:Another empty personal attack from someone who can't defend his own views. All I said was that you can't defend your own views. If that bothers you, prove me wrong. So far, you're only response to this a$$ kicking is name-calling. This is a political debate forum..........DEFEND your views if you can.....or be prepared to take more of these.

You hurl personal attacks then whine about them? really dude?

LOL..... I'm all-but-begging you to DEFEND YOUR VIEWS. You can't do it, can you?

You said that "the Constitution disagrees with (me)". I proved you wrong by posting the case law along with direct quotes from Antonin Scalia. You're response? Emotional name-calling. Not one word about the FACTS presented to you.

You questioned the validity of data showing that (among other things) 97% of the public supports federal background checks, and 67% support banning assault weapons. I posted the poling data for you. You're response? Emotional name-calling. Not one word about the FACTS presented to you.

oh simply because you say so? you are arguing a point I never made. stop with the lying.

Let's examine this and see whose the liar, here. Shall we?

You declared that the Constitution "disagrees with (me)" over the issue of the "absolute right" to firearms being guaranteed by the 2A, remember? I proved you wrong. So you know I'm not lying. If you could rebut the FACTS that I posted, you would. But you can't. I won't go so far as to call you a liar....but it's difficult to come to any other conclusion. Clearly, you're not a very honest person when it comes to political debate, that's for sure.

Right you own a small 22 but want to ban all sorts of weapons such as those recognized as protected by the heller decision, in otherwords, you are a gun owner but a fascist as well.

:roll: More of the same from you......invectives used to avoid the discussion at hand. You can't defend your own views, and it's not my job to make it easy you. Sorry.

YOu are a fascist. you want to send other peoples sons to take away my guns. I have no idea actually what you are ranting about now actually.

:roll: More personal attacks from a weak-minded person. Notice how every single response in is a personal attack without ANY attempt to defend your own stated points of view. You are all-but defenseless, aren't you?

You should hurl another insuilt then whine about personal attacks again.

LOL....tell you what, "Rev"......find even ONE thing I've said about you that you don't like, and prove it is not accurate.....and I'll retract it. The difference between you and I is that you are a name-caller. I'm a truth-caller. Big difference. You lie deflect and dissemble....and I post facts and tell you truth about yourself and how you respond when someone challenges your arguments on this board. Don't fool yourself.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

LOL, it's really cute, they way you give your feelings away by accusing others of what you've been doing. In this case, you've been castrated by the facts, and now you're lashing out to save your ego. :lamo You're alt-right, and it's obvious. You dislike having your truth thrown in your face. I get it, but that's not my problem.




Silly alt-rightie.......your 2A views are alt-right. Your views on race and immigration are alt-right. You.......are alt-right. Stop whining and whimpering every time someone delivers the truth to you. I thought you and your kind were the proponent for doing away with political correctness. What happened? Did the rules change once your ox got gored?:lamo




:roll:Another empty personal attack from someone who can't defend his own views. All I said was that you can't defend your own views. If that bothers you, prove me wrong. So far, you're only response to this a$$ kicking is name-calling. This is a political debate forum..........DEFEND your views if you can.....or be prepared to take more of these.



LOL..... I'm all-but-begging you to DEFEND YOUR VIEWS. You can't do it, can you?

You said that "the Constitution disagrees with (me)". I proved you wrong by posting the case law along with direct quotes from Antonin Scalia. You're response? Emotional name-calling. Not one word about the FACTS presented to you.

You questioned the validity of data showing that (among other things) 97% of the public supports federal background checks, and 67% support banning assault weapons. I posted the poling data for you. You're response? Emotional name-calling. Not one word about the FACTS presented to you.




Let's examine this and see whose the liar, here. Shall we?

You declared that the Constitution "disagrees with (me)" over the issue of the "absolute right" to firearms being guaranteed by the 2A, remember? I proved you wrong. So you know I'm not lying. If you could rebut the FACTS that I posted, you would. But you can't. I won't go so far as to call you a liar....but it's difficult to come to any other conclusion. Clearly, you're not a very honest person when it comes to political debate, that's for sure.




:roll: More of the same from you......invectives used to avoid the discussion at hand. You can't defend your own views, and it's not my job to make it easy you. Sorry.



:roll: More personal attacks from a weak-minded person. Notice how every single response in is a personal attack without ANY attempt to defend your own stated points of view. You are all-but defenseless, aren't you?



LOL....tell you what, "Rev"......find even ONE thing I've said about you that is not accurate, and I'll retract it. The difference between you and I is that you are a name-caller. I'm a truth-caller. Big difference. You lie deflect and dissemble....and I post facts and tell you truth about yourself and how you respond when someone challenges your arguments on this board. Don't fool yourself.

LEts start with my views on race are "alt-right". given the fact I am less of a racist than you, you would have to quote me posting something racist.



Let's start there.


I'll wait.

 

[ultmd]

LEts start with my views on race are "alt-right". given the fact I am less of a racist than you, you would have to quote me posting something racist.



Let's start there.


I'll wait.

No wait required. But let's be clear. You don't set the terms. I do. Find something I've said about you that you don't like..........show me how it's wrong........and I'll retract it.

With that said....you think it's a "fact" that you are "less racist" than me, huh?

First, your problem here is a recurring one. Like so many right wingers these days, you don't seem to understand (or, more likely, just don't care) about the distinction between a "fact" and your own, strongly-held, emotion-based, personal opinions.

You do know that a "fact" is, by definition, something that is objectively provable.........don't you?

So.........NO........that's not going to work for you.

Next, it's clear that you (like so many right wingers these days) don't even understand what racism is.

So again.......NO...........that's not going to work for you, either.

Try again. Look through the thread and find ANYTHING that I've said about you that you don't like.........show me how it's wrong..........and I'll retract it.

Finally, I'm MUCH more interested in reading your DEFENSE of your comments about the Constitution and public support for gun control. You've spent the day avoiding that for some reason. I think I know why.......but I'd like for you to admit it yourself.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

No wait required. But let's be clear. You don't set the terms. I do. Find something I've said about you that you don't like..........show me how it's wrong........and I'll retract it.

With that said....you think it's a "fact" that you are "less racist" than me, huh?

First, your problem here is a recurring one. Like so many right wingers these days, you don't seem to understand (or, more likely, just don't care) about the distinction between a "fact" and your own, strongly-held, emotion-based, personal opinions.

You do know that a "fact" is, by definition, something that is objectively provable.........don't you?

So.........NO........that's not going to work for you.

Next, it's clear that you (like so many right wingers these days) don't even understand what racism is.

So again.......NO...........that's not going to work for you, either.

Try again. Look through the thread and find ANYTHING that I've said about you that you don't like.........show me how it's wrong..........and I'll retract it.

Finally, I'm MUCH more interested in reading your DEFENSE of your comments about the Constitution and public support for gun control. You've spent the day avoiding that for some reason. I think I know why.......but I'd like for you to admit it yourself.

I'll ask you one more timeL


quote me posting something racist.


You made the claim, now either put up or go pound sand.


last chance.

 

[Casper]

From what I can tell, your point is to make schools into mini-prisons. I've addressed that in several posts. If you want to debate that topic, fine. My view is the idea is impractical and doomed to fail. Bottom line is of course we CAN make our schools little fortresses and make it harder for shooters to gain entry, but with 1,000 or more students, kids, coming and going from multiple entrances and exits in any largne building, not practical.

You just insist on proving my point, over and over, I think everyone already grasps that you do not want to make the school children safe, not the agenda.........

 

[JasperL]

You just insist on proving my point, over and over, I think everyone already grasps that you do not want to make the school children safe, not the agenda.........

If you're not going to debate your point, just assert that you've made it, I guess I'll leave it here. I have no idea what you're arguing and "I WIN THE DEBATE!!!" isn't actually an argument.

The idea that I don't want to make the children "safe" is BS, of course. Also, too, attributing bad motives to someone you're debating instead of addressing their points is pretty lazy and hackish.

 

[blackjack50]

You use 25 round magazines to hunt ducks? LOL.... That's funny. They'd be completely unnecessary in that role, and highly illegal. If I'm not mistaken, they can take and keep your gun if it isn't plugged to 3 shell max. [Yes, I know you can hunt some geese in some cases with a shotgun that holds more than 3 rounds, but not ducks in this country].

:roll:

Shell holder. I didn’t say magazine. Did you not read that? I guess not. I’m talking a neoprene shell holder. You can find them all over the place. And they are really convenient. When I hunt out west I like to have BBs or 2s on one side. and 4s on the others All steel because it is illegal to use lead. I can also ID ALL ducks I hunt on the wing in lowlight or by sound too. I’ve been duck hunting since I was 4. Well. I’ve been going. Been participating since I was 7.

Now. Why would they make shell holders that hold that much? Maybe because the number is 25 a box. And some people have bad days. I’ve had a few. Was a hot year and I wasn’t using a jacket. Just short sleeves. Threw me off real bad. And I remember by uncle laughing every time I missed because I got frustrated. And I never sky bust.

And geese you most certainly can use that many. Massive flocks. 15 a day. Then there are the seasons where you can unplug. Use electronic calls. PBuddy. You are talking to one of the first people to kill Canadian geese on their opening official season in the state of Florida. I have helped in reporting law breakers. I know the laws. You obviously know that one. You just didn’t bother to read what I wrote.

As to how good I am with a shotgun, we might have fun at a sporting clays match! I'm no expert, but decent enough for someone who doesn't take that sport up seriously. I don't own any fancy gear, mostly shoot an 1100 that I bought about 40 years ago, and 3 rounds seems enough for almost all hunting situations.

I agree. That’s why I’m not advocating changing hunting regulations on migratory birds. And I use an 870 for sporting clays. And for skeet. And trap. And hunting. I don’t believe in switching guns between the sports. But only because I don’t compete. I probably could. I won an 870 with an 870 in a competition when I was 16. Skeet too. But I’d have to tune myself up and that costs an assload of money now. Too many rich college professors and lawyers and **** here make it get pricey.