Las Vegas Shooting

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Kittamaru, Oct 2, 2017.

  1. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    the issue isn't abortion or the assumption about a persons politics

    you like to paint people with a picture of REPUB or some similar political outlook just because they're 2nd supporters or because they don't worship the ground you stand upon and state your beliefs are always correct - you're absolutely wrong about that one as in my state most people are DEM's, but are strong 2nd supporters. more importantly, people can be in the middle ground politically and both liberal and conservative depending on the issue (something you've ignored).

    perhaps your logic is flawed?

    or perhaps your hate against the gun is so strong .... ??

    considering your historical (and hysterical) displays in the past teaching people how to kill others and use racial prejudice to try and get away with it despite the federal laws that state (explicitly) that it is illegal, then i state it's the latter moreso that drives your flawed logic.

    you're problem is with the legal system and enforcement
    and the core issue is the violence, not the weapon

    we have existing laws that are effective but are not enforced (as demonstrated here: )

    making more laws makes no sense until the existing laws are enforced
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. timojin Valued Senior Member

    So, what is the future if not restricted . We are escalation in the mass shooting , what is your answer ?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    given how often you post flat out lies and fantasies especially on this topic why should we take anything you say at face value. the biggest problem with stopping gun violence is the culture of irresponsibility we have in our gun owners. and about enforcing laws people like you prevent them from being enforced properly.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    I am curious...

    You are frothing at the mouth at Bells... and then go and quote Tiassa, claiming he is "teaching people how to kill and get away with it" (which is utterly untrue and a disgusting bit of dishonesty on your part).

    The post you linked to:
    Where, pray tell, is he teaching people how to kill and get away with it?

    Once again, you linked to that same post by Tiassa... what there has anything to do with not enforcing existing laws?

    Also, you are somehow coming to the conclusion (if you are justifying your stance based on the thread as a whole) that "punching a Nazi", someone that is literally advocating the extermination of entire subsets of humanity, is somehow comparable to a random person having the right to own enough weaponry to mow down a concert hall...

    I just can't even understand the "logic" you are using here...

    EDIT - Oh, also, I await your response to support your assertion that Bells was somehow teaching people how to kill and get away with it...
  8. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    linked and proven in that thread there are existing laws that prevent racially motivated homicide (18 U.S.C § 249). this is not a state law; it is federal, and as such supersedes state law.

    however, these laws are not enforced. therein lies the problem... in point of fact, bells, t and ice all ignored that simple fact and defended the belief that it's legal to kill blacks in the US.

    it is not legal, it is just not enforced.

    as to the latter: promoting the belief that it's legal to kill blacks while then demonstrating how it's done in the US teaches it to those who are motivated to find a way to get away with homicide due to racial stupidity. defending this belief while demonstrating emotional skewed logic supporting your beliefs reinforces this situation as being viable. more to the point, absolutely misrepresenting the issue with a known so-called lawyer while pulling out the mod card to defend your echo chamber also reinforces this is being "fact".

    so you have mods not only advocating for an illegal act, but then using demonstration after demonstration to reinforce how to do it while spreading the mindset that it's ok so long as you have an echo chamber and irrational people around you to help you violate federal law.

    it's still illegal.

    and again, repeated ad nauseum because logic isn't possible when you're emotional... it's just not enforced.

    making it a media circus and promoting an echo chamber doesn't help. surely if the media (and irrational mods) stopped making the idiot maniacs nationalposter-idiots in the news for already unstable irrational people to idolize there would be a means to attack the actual issue: violence

    not frothing. it is a fact. and it's not dishonest.

    read the thread

    now read 18 U.S.C § 249 ( )

    when you tell people it's legal to shoot blacks in the US

    then you show how it has been done

    then you refuse to note that this act is illegal as explicitly stated in federal law

    all while never being able to demonstrate where:
    1- the judicial statement explicitly states exoneration of homicide due to racial beliefs
    2- the evidence explicitly proves it was a racially motivated homicide
    3- there was adjudication wherein the evidence supported racially motivated homicide

    then you use your echo chamber and mod power to push your agenda and reiterate the same BS story while refusing to actually provide the requested evidence

    ... that is teaching people
    (and a few other things as well)

    i don't expect everyone to believe my way, but facts are facts.
    not once was there any evidence refuting my statement, and the entire argument is based upon people's beliefs and perceptions about what happened while ignoring the facts (like the fact that refusal to actually enforce the law is not the same thing as being illegal. that is called a miscarriage of justice. it in no way makes anything legal)
  9. birch Valued Senior Member

  10. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Again - point out where Bells was teaching someone how to murder and get away with it - you made this claim, and what you have vomited out here does not support it. Hell, you didn't even quote or link to the person you are accusing.

    At this point, you are simply frothing at the mouth - and honestly, given your history of blatant falsehoods, I don't really see any reason to entertain you in this thread. You have one final chance - either show where Bells was "teaching people how to kill others and use racial prejudice to try and get away with it", or you will be moderated not only for dishonesty, but for attributing things to members that they never said. An actual quote of what she said that was "teaching people how to kill others and use racial prejudice to try and get away with it" would suffice.

    In case it wasn't clear enough - the statement by Tiassa that you are getting all whipped into a frenzy over was stating, quite accurately, that in the United States, there are plenty of people who will murder someone who is black in cold blood. Nowhere in that statement you linked did he claim it was "legal", teach someone how to 'get away with it', or anything of that sort.

    It seems it is your irrational emotional state that has lead you to make those claims...
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2017
  11. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Zombie-Eyed Cultists with Guns are Neither Reliable People Nor Safe to be Anywhere Around

    Can you explain your presumption of innocence regarding the firearms industry lobby? If you follow their advice, there is only one solution: Everybody buys lots of their industry's products, maintaining civility as a prospect of perpetual barrel détente. So why do you ignore what they actually are and do? I mean, seriously, when it comes to figuring out just how much harm the NRA has caused with its generations of lies and hatred, we will also have to figure out the significance of Collaborators such as yourself, who show such blatant disrespect for living societal necessities like Truth and Life.

    So when someone of your character gets up and makes an argument of such low character, it's more sadness than surprise. Look, you're just dangerous, is all. And that's how you want to be. So, you know, if we let that say what it will, I admit my society would be much better off if people of such low character either got a clue or went away.

    The media is pretty blodthirsty. But the NRA even more so, and you'll oppose the one while supporting the other. I think you're hyping this aspect in hopes of encouraging the next crazy to target media people.

    I furthermore think you're encouraging violence in society in hopes of fulfilling your own lusting, violent fantasies, because, you know, after the inevitable shooting chaos begins, then you need to defend yourself against the danger that has nothing to do with you or anyone else who labored so hard to bring it about. This is what we mean when we say "gun nuts". There are also a lot of you out there who like to pretend you're sane and not dangerous, largely for the purpose of encouraging a society held together by the constant threat of firearm violence.

    And quite frankly, I have no respect whatsoever for that manner of incivility or antisocial lust. Nor am I particularly thrilled at the prospect of sharing the world with so many cheap lackeys just itching to carry their polluted, toxic water.

    The simple fact is, however, you are a human being with whom I share the world and owe some basic human respect. I only wish you were smart and capable enough to comprehend what that means, and I wish that so you would show your fellow human beings at least some respect.

    The thought of someone as ignorant and irresponsible as the NRA and its lackeys depict gun owners is actually kind of terrifying. One of the reasons we don't trust you is that we have, in fact, listened to what the firearm cult and its zombie-eyed minions have to say, and after a while it becomes evident that they're not saying much.

    At best, you're all a bunch of terrorists. After all, part of the way you get your way is by threatening mass violence. No, really: As people labor to make society safer, gun cultists feel threatened and screech in protest because what we really, really need is more lethal danger.

    And that's pretty much all y'all are worth, these days. We've heard these bits from your cult so many times the high priests ought to just issue the Razor and Tie compilation, even if a razor isn't a gun.
  13. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Cultist, my lily white ass. Tiassa, I am sane and dangerous. Why to do you think we evolved this way?

    How can we survive as a species without "dangerous" people? Not even in Seattle or Vancouver...
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  14. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Why do you claim to be dangerous if you are sane?

    What reason does a rational, logical person have to be dangerous to others? Or are you conflating "dangerous" with "able to protect yourself" (which I would wager is incorrect - most peoples instinctive reaction when gunfire breaks out is, historically, to either run and hide, or hit the deck)
  15. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    The constitution of the United States of America.
    Did you ever read it?
    You can get a free pocket copy from Hillsdale College. (will post address if requested)

    Do you know who the federalists were?
    Do you understand the difference between a prefatory clause and an operative clause?

    Have you any interest in reading and understanding the supreme court's decisions?

    (wild guess du jour)
    We'll experience a couple weeks of anti-constitutionalists ranting their rants, and some politicians and celebrities garnering camera time by voicing their outrage and pseudocompassion.
    Then, like a fart in the wind the thing will slowly dissipate.

    and, I can hardly wait.
    Meanwhile, if you would have an informed and honest conversation/correspondence on the subject, let us start from a dispassionate and informed position.
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2017
  16. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    I am curious... who, exactly, is proposing we abolish all guns? What is being said that would be contradictory to the right to bear arms?

    You right-wing knuckleheads do this every goddamn time there is a shooting... and as a result, absolutely fuck all gets done about the issue, because y'all are too busy screaming "ERMAGURD MAH GUNS!" ... nobody is coming for your goddamn guns, so shut up about it for petes sake.

    Stop trying to make a political issue where there isn't one, and maybe, just maybe, we can save some lives.

    Unless, of course, you don't care that people are being murdered by the handful...
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    See, the thing is that you want to be dangerous. And the simple way to do that is recite the cult lines by rote, just like you have, and then get all pissy and pretend to feel threatened and try to reassert your danger whenever someone disagrees with you, just like you have.

    When the only reason anyone has to trust you is that you're pointing a gun at them and they have no other choice, you're doing it wrong.

    And no, you're not trustworthy.

    That's the problem with being dangerous.

    The constant non sequiturs and failures to make any real sense at all as a means of desperately pushing away the issues you don't want to deal with—that is to say, exceptionally stupid straw men—basically makes the competency argument.

    All you can do is lash out angrily and nonsensically. Seriously, the one thing I can trust is that you're far too dangerous to be around in any context if you have a gun; when someone can't be trusted at the stake of our lives, and indeed because that is how he wants to be viewed, well, okay. Noted.

    Or are you only capable of speaking clearly with your gun?

    No, really, you're not even capable of answering a basic question about your rights. No, instead, you need to thump your chest about being dangerous.

    And when you do that, I admit I expect you probably aren't competent to be allowed anywhere near a gun.

    In the end, that's the problem. The NRA wants a gun in your hands because it means money for their industry. And there are millions of gleeful minions just itching for a chance to be dangerous for them. Because the more people who are both dangerously unreliable and armed with legally purchased firearms, the stronger the argument that the rest of us need buy in, strap on, and be ready to put a bullet through you if you so much as look at someone else wrong.

    And, yes, that's extraordinarily dangerous.

    Cultists are as cultists do. And on queue, you show up with self-indicting irrelevance.

    Yeah, we get it: You're dangerous.

    Now, you need to get it: That you are and want to be dangerous is why you are not trustworthy; the only thing we can trust is the danger you wish to pose.

    Think of it this way: We can trust your psychopathology more than we can trust "you".
  18. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    so the echo chamber spreads eh?

    ok. here are some specifics:

    note that the examples are about lack of prosecution or miscarriages of justice. also note the specific quote of
    followed by examples per the echo chamber feedback system whre the master teaches the idiots how to get away with it
    let me make something very clear:
    you can say someone "believes" this to be legal.
    you can say people will "perceive" it to be legal.
    you can state that misinterpretation of the law makes people "think" it is legal (this is what bells did with "stand your ground" laws).

    but the one thing that you absolutely cannot do us state that it "is" legal because there is an explicit law stating it is not legal
    because this: 18 U.S.C § 249 ( )

    it aint rocket surgery - it's all about being literate

    so it's not "vomiting" unsupported conjecture. it's proven, it's explicit and stated in bells own words.
    it's proven wrong by 18 U.S.C § 249 ( )

    thus i am factually correct

    and DONE

    i gave you the links

    i also gave you the links where he states, per my exact point, the following

    specific advocacy defending the legality of shooting blacks along with demonstrations of how to get away with it per my statement here:

    therefore not a lie
    not vomit
    it's factually accurate

    though i suspect that will have no bearing on your moderation anyway, just like facts didn't have any bearing on the other thread

    echo chambers are like that
  19. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Happily, gunners don't have their own echo chambers.
  20. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    See, the thing is that you entirely missed my point, probably purposefully.

    Maybe if you get it in small bites you can manage.
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  21. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    I dunno, you and yours seem to spread like a virus...

    Oh, okay, I see the problem - you're just being stupid, and you have an axe to grind, so you are using a national tragedy as a platform for your soapbox. I had my worries before, but you have cemented it - you are a terrible human being, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

    I'll break it down for you:

    Bells stated a fact:
    This is not "teaching someone to kill another" - this is what is known as an example of something that happened.

    She goes on to say:
    Nowhere in that is she advocating, or teaching, someone to "murder someone else" - rather, she pointed out what should be the quite obvious flaw in the US Penal System, including the backing evidence for said flaws.

    Her statement here is that we, as a country, have given a pass to white folk killing black folk "in the name of self defense".

    Your point is... what, exactly?

    Except historic precedent would say you are wrong. As Bells said -

    In the cases she cited, it wasn't defined as "murder". It was defined as "self defense". Thus, it isn't legal to murder a black person... but apparently our courts have few qualms about killing a black person, so long as you don't call it murder.

    The irony of this is that being literate seems to be something you have a problem with...

    I can see where, in your emotional maelstrom of anger, you would think so. You are wrong, but I see why you would think so.

    You did - and they do not support your claim at all.

    Again, you have failed to show where she is advocating for any of this... per her own words:
    She is not saying that it is legal per what is written as law - she said, quite plainly, that the law is being interpreted in such a way as to favor white folk over black folk. The fact that you refused to see this then, and are now using a mass murder (by an old white guy no less) as a platform to proclaim your love of guns, is just abhorrent and broadcasts a racist mindset that I am sure makes perfect sense in your mind, but in the rational world is seen as the simple bigotry it is.

    Unfortunately for you, it wasn't accurate then, and it isn't accurate now.

    Actually, it does have bearing - it lends credibility to the idea that you aren't being intentionally malicious in your slander, but that you simple are too ignorant to know the difference.

    For the record - if you have issues with how moderation is handled, bitching about it in public forum is a breach of forum rules. Perhaps you should read them some time, as they tell you how to handle such issues quite succinctly.

    You would know, I guess... you seem to live in one.
  22. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Perhaps for those of us not indoctrinated by the NRA, you could attempt to explain it... because as someone who has trained with firearms myself, I certainly missed the point of your statement. I never once considered myself to be "dangerous" with them - rather, I took great pains NOT to be a danger to people. Firearm safety is no joke.

    I would respond with "Maybe if you offer it at all, we can manage"... but so far, all you have offered is snark and sarcasm.

    It's almost like you folks don't care that people are being cut down in cold blood, so long as you get your toys...
  23. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that the right to bear arms is not absolute. Probably many NRA members think the laws are more strict and better enforced than they actually are.

Share This Page