A Gun control solution - perhaps

Tiassa said:
Is that specifically Australophobic, or just a distracting pretense?
Click to expand...
It's part of the obligations of honor - you wouldn't understand.
Tiassa said:
Meanwhile, as long as you're on the subject of yourself, I suppose I am curious just what exposure you think you have under tougher gun laws.
Click to expand...
I'm the one on the subject of myself?
Distraction and pretense still your topic, apparently.
Tiassa said:
And it's true I'll give you credit for variation on theme, but you didn't really clsoe the circle in those late paragraphs, so it's left reading like a version of not being racist because you have [_____] friends worked in there.
Click to expand...
Christ you people are - what's the non-slander vocabulary? - vile. Passive voice and all.
"It" doesn't read itself, and you guys aren't even pretending to read anything for sense any more.
Tiassa said:
When the answer is to simply parse the gaffe—which then opens a context for people to "think a sec"—in order to assuage what you consider their misinterpretation, that is somehow the one thing you did not do
Click to expand...
It's the main thing I did. For years now.

For pages and paragraphs and endless repetitions of See Spot Run, There's Spot Running See, Spot Runs Sometimes As Seen Here, Running Spot Visible, the main job of my posting here has been parsing willful refusals to simply engage in honest discussion, willful pretensions of stupidity and forgetfulness and aberrant misreading, willful repetitions of slander and lies and misrepresentations.

What you are weasel enough to call "gaffes", because accountability would be the first step to an actual obligation of honor - and no way is that an attractive prospect for any of you guys.
billvon said:
If so, then such a law will cause responsible gun owners no pain.
Click to expand...
Yes, it will. Also non-owners. And reasonable people will see that immediately.
Pretending doesn't work, dealing with people as if they were idiots doesn't work for liberals, and nobody trusts those who apparently can't see the obvious. If you appear to have no idea how government threatens individuals, many reasonable people will not trust you to govern - regardless of your claimed causes and agenda.
Setting up a power-fight, removing reason from the arena, sets up a fight liberals can't win - both sides are losses, for liberal governance.
sculptor said:
If you can lug it about with you, you can do so legally
Click to expand...
But not regardless.
Free speech likewise: covers all the words. There is still fraud, and libel, and abuse, and public endangerment.

If the gun folks don't cooperate in making the incoming laws, they will be made and enforced without informed cooperation.
They will be made, and enforced - this insane situation is not going to last.
 
iceaura said:
If the gun folks don't cooperate in making the incoming laws, they will be made and enforced without informed cooperation.
They will be made, and enforced - this insane situation is not going to last.
Click to expand...
yeah... a couple more school shootings using legally acquired weapons and they will be volunteering their guns for chop sticks.
 
pjdude1219 said:
yeah because the gun crowd is known for its concern for its victims
Click to expand...

and
The anti gun mobs see the victims as opportunities to push their agenda.

..................................................
Like cockroaches, they crawl out of the woodwork to feast upon the flesh of the victims.
Seemingly, always have and always will.

............................................
Perhaps, a better agenda would be to push for a universal mental health care system, and an equable wage system.
 
spidergoat said:
The evil agenda of preventing more victims.
Click to expand...
evil?
You "speak" of evil?
Where was your compassion when Obama was killing hundreds of thousands by bombing 8 countries and supporting "rebel" terrorists who lop off the heads of children?

...........................
Perhaps those hundreds of thousands just didn't matter because they could not be used to push the agenda?
..........................
Perhaps pretending to compassion when you have none is getting close to the ultimate evil?
 
Last edited:
sculptor said:
Where was your compassion when Obama was killing hundreds of thousands by bombing 8 countries and supporting "rebel" terrorists who lop off the heads of children?
Click to expand...
With the victims of Erdogan, Putin, the Taliban, Al Quida, and ISIS.
 
spidergoat said:
Or maybe it's just an honest view of international affairs.
Click to expand...
we have a phrase
"The pot calling the kettle black."
alternately
O yet a nobler task awaits thy hand;
For what can war but endless war still breed?
 
Last edited:
sculptor said:
evil?
You "speak" of evil?
Where was your compassion when Obama was killing hundreds of thousands by bombing 8 countries and supporting "rebel" terrorists who lop off the heads of children?

...........................
Perhaps those hundreds of thousands just didn't matter because they could not be used to push the agenda?
..........................
Perhaps pretending to compassion when you have none is getting close to the ultimate evil?
Click to expand...
Isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to use their deaths in your attempt to shut down this discussion for the sake of your firearms?

In other words, whining about other people's agendas, by essentially doing the exact same thing to try to shut the discussion down by changing the subject, is just showing your own agenda and it's kind of pathetic.

A few things to note. You've pulled numbers out of where? Do you have some supporting evidence for how many people died from the drone strikes? And the US has a history of supporting "rebel" groups in conflicts to avoid boots on the ground and the support for those rebel groups were also given the thumbs up by the hawks on the right.

And if you want to split hairs, perhaps you should be questioning the guy you openly supported and defended on this site:

Airwars researchers estimate that at least 2,300 civilians likely died from Coalition strikes overseen by the Obama White House—roughly 80 each month in Iraq and Syria. As of July 13, more than 2,200 additional civilians appear to have been killed by Coalition raids since Trump was inaugurated—upwards of 360 per month, or 12 or more civilians killed for every single day of his administration.

[....]

Airwars estimates that the minimum approximate number of civilian deaths from Coalition attacks will have doubled under Trump’s leadership within his first six months in office. Britain, France, Australia, and Belgium all remain active within the campaign, though unlike the U.S. they each deny civilian casualties.

In one well-publicized incident in Mosul, the U.S. admits it was responsible for killing more than 100 civilians in a single strike during March. But hundreds more have died from Coalition attacks in the chaos of fighting there.​

You know, for the sake of argument.

Now, back to the topic:

Since 1968, when these figures were first collected, there have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths on US territory. Since the founding of the United States, there have been 1,396,733 war deaths. That figure includes American lives lost in the revolutionary war, the Mexican war, the civil war (Union and Confederate, estimate), the Spanish-American war, the first world war, the second world war, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Gulf war, the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war, as well as other conflicts, including in Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Haiti.​

Yeah, let's speak of "evil", sculptor.
 
Bells said:
Isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to use their deaths in your attempt to shut down this discussion for the sake of your firearms?

In other words, whining about other people's agendas, by essentially doing the exact same thing to try to shut the discussion down by changing the subject, is just showing your own agenda and it's kind of pathetic.

A few things to note. You've pulled numbers out of where? ... .
Click to expand...
470,000 in Syria alone
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/a-staggering-new-death-toll-for-syrias-war-470000/
....................................
https://www.votetulsi.com/node/25114
..................
End the madness:
https://gabbard.house.gov/news/StopArmingTerrorists
 
sculptor said:
and
The anti gun mobs see the victims as opportunities to push their agenda.

..................................................
Like cockroaches, they crawl out of the woodwork to feast upon the flesh of the victims.
Seemingly, always have and always will.

............................................
Perhaps, a better agenda would be to push for a universal mental health care system, and an equable wage system.
Click to expand...
um no thats just your sides propaganda. we are trying to prevent more victims unlike you who sees them a reasonable cost of your beliefs
 
Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously vacated a Massachusetts conviction of a woman who carried a stun gun for self-defense.

"the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".

.................
our words here are meaningless

long version:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS No. 14–10078. Decided March 21, 2016 PER CURIAM. The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015). The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582. The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and 2 CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS Per Curiam unusual weapons’”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason. Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625. For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.
 
Last edited:
Mod Note

sculptor said:
470,000 in Syria alone
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/a-staggering-new-death-toll-for-syrias-war-470000/
....................................
https://www.votetulsi.com/node/25114
..................
End the madness:
https://gabbard.house.gov/news/StopArmingTerrorists
Click to expand...
You claimed Obama was bombing people, then link a war that has people being bombed by Assad and Putin...

Stop trying to change the subject. There are several threads on the Syrian war, take your off topic rambling there.
 
Bells said:
Mod Note


You claimed Obama was bombing people, then link a war that has people being bombed by Assad and Putin...

Stop trying to change the subject. There are several threads on the Syrian war, take your off topic rambling there.
Click to expand...

Obama was the CIC at the time. He gave the orders as was his prerogative. We engaged via surrogates. We supplied and trained terrorists. No one doubts that we engaged.
It seemed appropriate considering the foregoing/..it had to do with compassion vs feigned compassion.......?

bias
I am anti war---(I f--king hate it)-----ain't nothing special---most combat veterans I know are anti-war. Picture an 18 year old boy/man clutching at what used to be his stomach and crying out "I'll be good mommy"------------and, maybe you'll understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top