0
   

The Communist Origin of the Modern Conservative Movement VI

 
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 03:13 pm
@Zardoz,
Quote:
It might not have anything to do with gun control but it has everything to do with the NRA and mass murderers.

It has nothing to do with any of those things. Timothy McVeigh was a wacko and does not in any way represent the NRA or it's members. This just goes to show your intellectual dishonesty and laziness.

Quote:
It shows the right’s mind set if the government does something they don’t agree with, it gives them license to massacre the general public for retaliation and you think these people should have tanks and heavy artillery.

More intellectual dishonesty and laziness.

Quote:
At one time the most common reason given to own a gun was hunting, now one of the more common reasons given by those on the right to justify owning a gun is to violently overthrow the government.

Someone's personal reason for owning a gun has nothing to do with the Constitutional reason for owning a gun.

Quote:
Timothy McVeigh doesn’t seem so radical when the rest of the rights think they need a gun to violently overthrow the government.

Sorry you don't like the reason for the 2nd Amendment, but it's a Right we have had for since the founding of this nation.

Quote:
Timothy McVeigh was just trying to overthrow a government “he did not like.”

He wasn't trying to over throw the govt, he was a terrorist, nothing more nothing less. You will find very few people who support what he did.

Quote:
Who is stirring hate in America today? The racist bigot Trump.

The Left-wing actually. Trump is not a racist or a bigot.

Quote:
Trump is taking these crazies and aiming them like a gun and pulling the trigger.

Except we have had more attacks by the left wing than we have with the right wing. 5 different ICE facilities have been attacked this year, those were right wing protesters and supporters. They echoed AOC's false claims about the ICE facilities being Nazi death camps.

Quote:
Who on the left has condemned and single out a particular race of people as “gang members,” prostitutes,” “drug dealers,” and calling them an infestation and agreeing with his crowds at his rallies that they should be killed?

Once again, the left, they speak in these terms about white people all the time.

Infestation? Where was this term used? Got the link for the speech? Trump has made no such claim that people should be killed, you are lying again.

Quote:
You are putting guns in the hands of children is a cold hard fact because it has already happened.

No one is putting guns in the hands of children, except parents who teach their children gun safety and then take them to the range. You have zero "cold hard facts".

Quote:
Gun nut in school leaves a gun in an unlocked locker and a ninth grader finds and is wandering around school with a loaded weapon.

Your lies are so bad, you can't even get the basic facts of a story correct, the events you described, never took place, you are wrong again.

Quote:
Don’t tell me it won’t happen because it already has, along with holes blown through the walls and ceilings of class rooms.

Still waiting on the facts from this case, we already know you lied about the facts of the last claim, that makes this claim less believable.

Quote:
Over “30 accidents” already some with children injured. There is absolutely no such thing as a safe gun.

Once again, you post no links to back up your claims, yet you keep repeating the claims with zero proof. If this was indeed a fact, it would be very easy to post at least 1 story to back you up.

Quote:
Don’t you understand it has already happened and that is a fact.

Yet you provide zero proof of this "fact".

Quote:
If people can forget and leave their babies in the back of a parked car do you think they would do any better with a gun.

Weak analogy.

Quote:
Think about some of your teachers would you really want them to have a gun?

I went to private military academy for high school, we actually had guns on campus for the rifle team, not one single shooting at the school. Would I trust the teachers? I'd trust some of the teachers but not all of them. That's what training and background checks are for.

Quote:
Like the cop said he would run screaming from the school if teachers were allowed to carry guns. He works there every day and that is his expert opinion.

You would only accept the word of a single person if they agreed with you. Any other studies on such claims, or just the one cop?

Quote:
It has not been a case or two it has been thirty “accidents” with guns in school and there will be many more with students killed and injured by gun nuts.

Please provide any evidence that 30 of these accidents have taken place?

Quote:
We already know that there have been thirty incidences of guns being accidently discharged in schools and at three students have already been injured.

You keep repeating this claim, but as usual, you don't provide the proof to back up your claim. It makes one believe you are making it all up, just like a good propagandist.

Quote:
What this world coming to when first graders keep beating up their teachers. You think all first-grade teachers should have guns to shoot those pesky first graders who refuse to mind.

More projection on your part. We have a very good understanding of why you shouldn't have a gun, projection.

Quote:
That is why people kill people, they were angry. A teacher involved in a fight with a teenager is just like Zimmerman. So, you are advocating killing school children now. I guess that is a way to get read of the problem students.

You keep making things up to fit your own projection.

Quote:
The facts are out there all you have to do is run a search.

No, you make **** up and then expect me to waste my time doing "research". Stop being lazy and just provide the proof. You don't have to make the link, just put the url in your post.

Quote:
Gun manufactures knew full well that assault weapons were designed with one purpose in mind, the outright massacres of human beings and like any drug pusher, they pushed them on the public. Guns are designed to kill people, they kill their wives, husbands, children and even themselves.

First off, the least used gun in the US in murders is the AR platform, only 297 people were killed in one year with those types of weapons.

Second, civilians can't purchase assault weapons, they have a selective fire switch that allows the weapon to fire in either burst mode or full auto. You won't find a civilian weapon in the AR platform that does this, they are only semi-auto rifles. Also keep in

Quote:
The definition of a mass shooting is very simple it is any shooting that kills or injures four or more people. It does not come with a list of exemptions, for crimes, murder suicides, or cloudy days. If there were any exemptions, they would be listed in the definition of mass shootings.

They were listed, that's why I posted them, it's you has failed to provide any backup to your claims. my definition came from the FBI:
Quote:
A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearm violence. There is no widely accepted definition of the term mass shooting. The United States' FBI defines a "mass murder" as "four or more murdered during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders." Based on this, it is generally agreed that a mass shooting is whenever four or more people are shot (injured or killed), not including the shooter(s).

My example is more specific, your's is limiting for the sake of propaganda, like considering a bank robbery a mass shooting.

Quote:
Polls are used to determine many different things and are usually accurate.

They are opinion based, from the way the questions are asked to the answers people give, it in no way highlights any truths.

Quote:
Most gun owners love to brag about their guns that is why they are so frequently robbed.

Do you have any proof that this actually happens? Have they tied any actual gun thefts to people bragging about their guns? More claims with zero proof, much like a majority of what you post. Most gun owners brag to other gun owners, not people on the street. The idiots who publish lists of gun owers/permit holders are more apt to get someone robbed for the guns.
https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html
This is how you put people in danger from crooks:
Quote:
An interactive map showing the names and addresses of all handgun permit holders in New York's Westchester and Rockland counties has infuriated many readers since it was posted Saturday on a newspaper's website.


Quote:
The extremists are no longer rare in the Republican party they have become main stream under Trump who even says the Neo-Nazis and KKK members are “fine people” they help put Trump over the top in the last election and he knows it.

You like the lying left, like to push fake news about what actually takes place.f Trump never said neo-nazi's or KKK were good people. He was talking about the people who were fooled by those people. He actually said there was good people on both sides of the aisle, left and right.

Quote:
We have managed the borders for hundreds of years before Trump came along and they will be managed long after he is gone.

Wrong, our border has been a mess for decades and illegal immigration was out of control. We have over 20 million illegal immigrants here in the US, that is not something that is "under control".

Quote:
Trump has been responsible for bringing more illegal aliens into America than anyone else.

That is just a straight up lie. It's the left-wing of the political spectrum that has brought more illegals into the country. Trump is actually cracking down on illegal immigration and prevented fake asylum seekers from gaining access to our nation. It's our nation and we should be controlling our borders, not illegal immigrants and their wants.

Quote:
Martin was living there at the time and had been for a week. He was staying at his uncle house.

Wrong wrong wrong. He had no family that lived in that neighborhood, it was his dad's girlfriends house, no relation to Martin. Oh,I find it funny, that they still use the picture of 12 year old Martin instead of the one of him at 17 and over 6 feet tall.

Quote:
The only reason Martin is dead is because Zimmerman did not do what the Police department told him to do.

Wrong again. Martin is dead because he thought he could beat someone up and attacked Zimmerman without a reason. Following someone isn't reason to beat them up. Martin was the aggressor and paid the price for being the aggressor.

Quote:
They told him to stop following Zimmerman. When Zimmerman refuse to follow the police department’s orders he was responsible for what happened.

There were no police orders, it was the recommendation of the dispatcher, who isn't a LEO with enforcement powers.

Quote:
If you were being followed at night by a stranger would you not feel threatened.

No, I wouldn't feel threatened, I don't jump at shadows. I also wouldn't confront someone I don't know who hadn't said anything to me.

Quote:
Zimmerman had assumed, he had police powers, and believed he could enforce the law.

That just isn't the case. He never claimed to have any such powers, and wasn't trying to enforce the law. He was following someone he didn't recognize as living in the neighborhood, there had been an uptick in the break-in's in that neighborhood, that's why he was being followed.

Quote:
Actual witnesses say that it was only an argument and there are no marks on Martin that would show that an attack took place.

You are lying again, there was no claims of an argument. Of course there were no marks on his fists, he was slamming his head into the ground, that doesn't require the use of fists, just your hands grasping someone's head.

Zimmerman was taken to the hospital where there is footage of him with a bloody nose and bleeding from the back of his head, where it was slammed into the ground.

Quote:
Everything from the position of the body, to the lack of injuries to Martin, to witness statements say that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

You are lying again. Here is the evidence from the forensic's person:

Quote:
The medical and scientific evidence shows that Trayvon Martin was leaning over George Zimmerman when the neighborhood watch volunteer fired the fatal shot into the unarmed teenager’s chest, a forensic pathologist testified Tuesday.

Dr. Vincent Di Maio, an expert testifying for the defense, gave a version of events that was consistent with the defense’s theory of the deadly confrontation between Zimmerman, 29, and Martin, 17, on Feb. 26, 2012, in Sanford, Fla.
Di Maio said that he had examined the autopsy, toxicology and photographic evidence and concluded that the evidence was consistent with Zimmerman’s statements to authorities that Martin was straddling him and that Zimmerman fired his gun with his right hand. The path of the bullet ran from Martin’s left side through part of his heart and into a portion of the right lung, Di Maio testified.


Quote:
That still makes Zimmerman bigger than Martin.

In weight, not in height. Zimmerman was at least 4 inches shorter than Martin but out weighted him by 27 pounds. Their size had little to do with the events that took place. Unless Martin thought he would be able to beat up someone shorter than him.

Quote:
If there had been a fist fight there should have been some marks on Martin. Zimmerman is running on adrenaline and should have done a lot of damage to Martin.

You don't have the faintest clue as to what you are talking about. You need to reread the forensic's report and testimony, it was linked above.

Quote:
If Zimmerman had stopped following Martin when the police department told him to it would not have mattered if Martin was seven feet tall.

You are confusing a police dispatcher, who has zero law enforcement powers, with the actual police dept. If you had worked with the police as you claimed to have, then you would know this.

Quote:
Travon was not the bully Zimmerman was following him after the police department told him not to.

Yes, Trayvon was the bully, he could have kept on walking, instead of turned to confront Zimmerman and started beating him. Once again, check the forensic report.

Quote:
Martin had no marks on his hands other than a small cut if he had done that much damage too Zimmerman, Martin knuckles would have shown damage.

Once again, you need to read the testimony from the Forensic expert who testified at the trial, he will clear things up for you.

Quote:
The fight took place because Zimmerman did not stop following Martin as instructed by the police department.

Following someone isn't a good enough reason to attack them. Had he not been killed, he would have been arrested for assault and battery.

Quote:
Zimmerman is a bully and will continue to instigate fights and if you check his prior record you will find he instigate fights all through school.

He hasn't instigated any fights. In fact someone has been put in jail for shooting at him. Dude is doing 20 years. It looks like people want to start fights with him.
Quote:
Shooting by Matthew Apperson
On September 9, 2014, Zimmerman was named by police in a road rage incident in which another driver, later named by police as Matthew Apperson, claimed that Zimmerman followed and threatened him.[61][62] Zimmerman later claimed in testimony that Apperson approached him over a rear tire leaking air, which Zimmerman was already aware of. He had explained this to Apperson before Apperson asked if Zimmerman knew he was "wrong for killing that little black boy". Zimmerman lost Apperson after the two stopped at a gas station and Zimmerman drove off.[63]

On May 11, 2015, Apperson shot at Zimmerman while the two were driving in separate cars on a street in Lake Mary. Zimmerman was grazed by glass and metal shards when the bullet broke through his passenger-side window and was stopped by the metal window frame, causing minor facial injuries from flying glass and debris. Zimmerman flagged down a police officer and was taken to the hospital.[64][65][66] Apperson maintained that Zimmerman was the aggressor and that Apperson acted in self-defense.[67][68] Zimmerman also had a gun with him at the time of the incident, but Zimmerman's attorney said that "George absolutely denies having shown it, waved, displayed, pointed it." A Lake Mary police spokesperson stated that "the investigation has proven that George Zimmerman was not the shooter."[67]

On May 15, 2015, Apperson was jailed in Sanford, Florida with a bond of $35,000.[69] While free on bond, Apperson was accused, convicted and jailed for disorderly conduct, which revoked his bond.[70] Lake Mary PD "learned that Apperson has exhibited unusual behaviors in which he had recently been admitted to a mental institution. It appears that Apperson has a fixation on Zimmerman and has displayed some signs of paranoia, anxiety, and bipolar disorder."[71]

On September 22, 2015, a judge ruled Apperson would stand trial for second-degree attempted murder along with one count of aggravated assault and one count of shooting into an occupied vehicle.[63][70][72] Apperson was convicted of attempted murder and aggravated assault with a firearm on September 16, 2016.[73] On October 17, 2016, Apperson was sentenced to 20 years in prison on the charge of attempted 2nd-degree murder. He was also given a 15-year concurrent sentence for aggravated assault stemming from the same incident.[74][75]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Zimmerman

Quote:
There was a stand your ground case on this evening where a man thought he heard his neighbor make a threat against him. He got his gun and went next door and fired thirty-one shots into the neighbors. After he shot them several times, he knelt over them and put bullets in their heads. His lawyer was making the point that as long as he felt threatened, under the stand your ground law, he is entitled to go to their house and kill them. They may have not said a thing but as long as he “felt” threatened he is entitled to kill them. The case is yet to go to trial. The stand you’re your ground law is based on what the aggressor “feels.”

I know this story. It's already been to trial and the guy is in jail for life. I can tell from your telling of the story, you don't understand this one either and don't have the facts correct. You and the crazy guy who did the shooting are the only one's who think such a shooting would be "stand your ground". You are loosing touch with reality.










Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 03:47 pm
@Zardoz,
Quote:
The stand your ground cases are far more common than you may realize because they don’t all get a lot of publicity.

If the media isn't giving them any attention, then I would say a majority of those shootings are justified.

Quote:
Why put the effort in to commit the perfect crime when you can murder anyone right out in public and use the stand your ground law to get out of it.

You are projecting again.

Quote:
The hit man can try to get away with murder and take a chance of being caught or he can simply pick a fight with him and after the husband get the best of him pull out his gun and blow him away in a crowed room. It is justifiable homicide. As more people realize how useful the stand your ground law is, legalized murder will become common. Got a girl-friend with a husband, he is sure to fight with little prodding and you get to spend his life insurance with his grieving widow. A fist fight use to be just a fist fight but now it is a one-sided gun fight.

You are projecting again, good thing you don't own a gun.

Quote:
That is exactly how that law works. Zimmerman was the aggressor and the police had told him to stop following Martin and that is exactly how that worked.

The police didn't tell him anything, you are still confusing a 911 dispatcher with an actual LEO.

Quote:
I quoted verbatim from the article on the 2018 election it concerned the Democrats not the Republicans. If you are a runner and set a personal record (PR) for a half marathon it may not be a PR for another runner.


Quote:
I quoted verbatim from the article on the 2018 election it concerned the Democrats not the Republicans. If you are a runner and set a personal record (PR) for a half marathon it may not be a PR for another runner.

You have quoted nothing and have provided no links to what you claim.

Quote:
Where do you see anything about republican in “the biggest gains for democrats in a generation?”

I've seen nothing but your personal opinion, no links to anything.

Quote:
It was posted on Trump web site that he would eliminate any income taxes for those making under $50,000 when he got elected that was taken down and replaced with billion tax cuts for landlords like Trump and chump change for those making under $50,000.

Do you have any facts to back up this claim, or is it more personal opinion?

Quote:
People have downloaded the Trump tax cut from his website and it is referenced in several books.
Trump absolutely loves a good lie it is how he got ahead.

Then it should be very easy to provide a link or something else to prove this? It should be available somewhere correct?

Quote:
The actual studies show the less educated you are the more likely you are a Trump voter.

Then you should be able to provide a link to said studies?

Quote:
The book is now out written by Fusion GPS telling you the Republicans paid for over 50% of that report. They were interviewed on television. Washington Free Beacon is owned by a deep pocket Republican donor. Now you and the rest of the Republicans can read the whole truth from the horse’s mouth who took the Republicans checks. All these Republicans have businesses front so they can take the contributions off of their taxes.

Sorry, I'm not going to believe anything that comes from the mouth of DNC operatives. I wonder if they mention that one of their employee's was married to one of the FBI agents involved in the Russia hoax? Bruce and Nelly Orr...





hightor
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 04:05 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
Russia hoax


Wikipedia:
Quote:
A hoax is a falsehood deliberately fabricated to masquerade as the truth. It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment, rumors, urban legends, pseudosciences, and April Fools' Day events that are passed along in good faith by believers or as jokes.


Are you saying that Russian meddling in the 2016 election didn't happen? That the story was concocted by the FBI? That Russians working through the Internet Research Agency weren't indicted by Mueller? I don't get why you refuse to believe that Russian operatives have targeted elections in several Western countries, including the USA, and have attempted to sow distrust and division in these democracies. An unfriendly foreign power run by an authoritarian attacks one of the most important democratic institutions of a free republic— free and fair elections — and you dismiss the whole thing as a "hoax"?
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 04:24 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
Are you saying that Russian meddling in the 2016 election didn't happen?

Of course it happened. The hoax was the "collusion" between Russia and Trump. The DNC wasted 3 years trying to get Trump removed from office, because he beat their candidate, instead of working on the 2020 election.
Zardoz
 
  4  
Reply Tue 3 Dec, 2019 12:17 am
@Baldimo,
It is the same claim that the manufacturer, Colt, makes for that assault weapon. I think you are confusing rate of fire, with actual bullets fired. The AR-15 fires at the rate of 900 rounds per minute. It may only fire 30 rounds at that speed before the clip has to be changed but it still fires at a 900 round a minute rate. If you have a car that will run 200 mph it won’t run 200 mph for a thousand miles because you will have to stop for fuel but that doesn’t mean it won’t run 200 mph. That is what makes the AR-15 the go to weapon for mass murder.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The fact that different parts of America were under control of different countries is reflected in the laws that were handed down from their original parent countries.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All that is necessary is that you look at a copy of the original Declaration of Independence not a modified copy where the wording was changed. My point stands even by your own argument the term in the Declaration of Independence was unalienable.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are the one claiming your rights came from some type of supernatural superhero and therefore the government can’t ever take away whatever you imagine them to be. My position remains the same the governments grants the rights and can take them away according to the constitution.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All rights have limits, none are absolute. There will always be conflicts where one man’s freedom harms someone else’s. There have been several recent court cases where the mentally ill and the criminals have tried to claim their gun rights have been infringed. They will eventually win or the second amendment will have to be changed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The government in the ends has to be arbiter when the rights of one individual violate the rights of others as was the case when the Thompson submachine guns made the streets of America unsafe. If the government cannot set limits on rights how come you can’t go to the corner gun store and buy a full-automatic assault weapon? Sure, looks like a limit to me.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If America is overrun by a foreign country you will have no rights and if you speak up you will be killed. The primary purpose of government is defense of the homeland if that fails everything goes with it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As always you wanted to start plucking the figures out of the gun death statistics to hide the actual deaths caused by guns.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When you site the murder of people murdered with guns you want to leave out 40% of the deaths.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That is a fact there are thousands of gun nuts who have their on line communities, trying to figure out the best way to kill the most people. These people communicate from all over the world. They see nothing wrong with murdering people than a deer hunter sees killing a deer. We don’t need every gun nut studying to get their master degree in massacres. A few thousand can do a tremendous amount of damage.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think if you put most gun owners in a situation that really angered them, they would reach for their gun. I have seen gun owner grab their guns for even for minor annoyances.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That is exactly what the supreme ruled when it said: “you are not entitled to any weapon whatsoever for any purpose whatsoever. That is extremely clear.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If the government wants to arrest you, do you think your gun will stop them? All these anti-government radicals armed to teeth fall. The government will always have more guns and more people.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rights are not supernatural they don’t materialize out of thin air. They need to be in writing to carry the force of law. I get it, like your superhero, they always were and always will be, the end all argument.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now you want to reverse course and say the bill rights is where our rights came from, they were not inalienable.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Assault weapons are responsible for close to 60 deaths at one time and 500 wounded no other weapon comes close to that.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That is the definition simply four or more killed or wounded. The mass shooting in New Orleans over the weekend showed one of the victims half way in the street and half way over the curb. Should he be counted or not? I think the measurement would give you about 5/8 of that victim in a public place. A mass shooting is a crime in itself. So, if it is a crime, we can’t count it, that is absurd.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The statistic given for mass murder count all shooting where four or more were shot or wounded. According to you the only mass shootings are ones done by random strangers with no motives. You want to hide reality bury the mass shootings under other categories to make it look like they didn’t take place.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It does not weaken our rights they are a written and enforceable contract.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Free speech applied to written speech from the very beginning of the country. Whether it is published in the paper or the internet it is the same. Whether it is sent through the mail or sent electronically the speech is the same.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is just the type of cases that are bought into court. In Criminal court the penalty can be a fine or jail time, or both. In civil court the damages are assessed to defendant but they are both government courts in the same court house.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They just talked to him. He has lived on talk radio for the last fifty years. He was strangely silent after his conversation with the secret service. Shortly after that he was arrest for shooting someone that looked into his garage. Last I heard he went to jail and I guess it is hard to call in to a radio show from jail. When I was a guest on the local talk radio show he called in 30 minutes before air time.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The reality is that there is a limit on the second amendment. Can you imagine what America would be like if the streets were full of full-automatic assault weapons and Thomson submachine guns? We would have roving gangs armed to teething taking over the inner cities. Bank robberies would triple. There would be no safe places in America. But gun manufactures would no longer be going bankrupt.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You would like to live during the revolutionary war period when you could have a state-of-the-art weapon.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The only problem I have is with assault weapons. The gun nuts can shoot each other and their families but the mass shootings need to stop.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When ever a bill is written experts are called and those experts came up with the definition.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Legal fights are extremely expensive to defend and that legal fight has been going on since after the shooting occurred in 2012.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The only reason the parents of the Sandy Hook parents might lose is the liability exception that the gun manufacturers bought with their blood money. Everybody else involved in a mass murder can be sued except the gun manufacturers. Once that is gone the gun manufactures will be sued out business if they continue to flood the streets with assault weapons.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The fact is it can be both a bank robbery and a mass shooting.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You believe that you can modify a regular 22 rifle into full-automatic.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The poll said that 70% of the American people believed Trump has done something wrong. They did not all believe he should be impeached but they believe he has done something wrong. Mine was a poll of all voters while your poll is of independent voters. When all voters are polled a majority support impeachment.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At least one elected Republican is already supporting impeachment and more will follow. Trump runs the Republican party like a godfather and politically assonates anyone who does not support. Trump’s impeachment will be bipartisan also.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Dec, 2019 04:35 am
@Baldimo,
Quote:
The DNC wasted 3 years trying to get Trump removed from office, because he beat their candidate, instead of working on the 2020 election.

No, the "DNC" didn't do anything. The Russia investigation was ordered by Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. The purpose wasn't "to remove Trump from office", it was to investigate allegations of links between the Russia and the Trump campaign and other matters which might arise, including possible obstruction of justice. The two year long investigation wasn't a "waste". Would you rather it had never happened and people were still wondering about suspected "collusion"? You should be glad that there was an investigation not trying to claim it was some sort of "hoax". The fact that Trump beat Clinton had no bearing on the investigation. And by the way, members of congress should really be thinking about doing the work of the government and the people, not working on the next election. That's what the national party committees are for. You know, like the DNC.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 3 Dec, 2019 04:14 pm
@Zardoz,
Quote:
Guns are tools and they are made for a purpose and that purpose is killing people.

True, but what you do with the weapon is what makes the difference. There are over 10 million AR type rifles in the US and last year there were only 297 murders with that weapon, which is less than 1% of gun murders in the US. The VAST majority of American gun owners are peaceful people who do not harm anyone and yet you talk about them like they are all murders.

Quote:
When weapons of war are designed, they are designed to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time. Killing is there intended purpose.

"Weapons of war", is such a weak statement, just about all guns were made to be weapons of war, including the guns the US used in the Revolutionary War. This is a throwaway statement that really has no meaning.

Quote:
Ninety-three percent of people have watched as the most important lesson their children learn in school now is how to hide from a mass murderer with an assault weapon. That is what is changing minds.

93% of people? Do you have any proof to back up this claim? What the MSM and left has been doing is spreading pointless fear, as the probality of such an event happening in their school is very very small. They are more likely to be killed by one of their friends who is either drunk or texting and driving. The odd's are not in your favor and neither are the stats.

Quote:
Since I didn’t do the studies is often hard to find a particular study.
“A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2,000 and 2,013”
Try that study.

That has got to be the weakest response this week, and a total cop out to provide any sort of sources for your claims.

Quote:
What lesson do you think you learned from 9/11?

I learned not to trust our govt any more than I have to. The Patriot Act and the NDAA are the prime examples of what we should have learned from 9-11.

Quote:
Whether you had assault weapons or you didn’t would not have made any difference.

Another pointless throw away line that has zero meaning to our discussion. You think you can come up with an event where having a weapon on you would do no good and pass that off as a reason to ban guns. Weak!

Quote:
The only thing that 9/11 didn’t teach us was to stay out of the middle east and forget about the Republican Project for a New American Century to make the middle east over in our image.

I've also learned that you have more sympathy towards terrorists than you have for your own country. Did your age keep you from going over seas and fighting for bin Laden?

Quote:
You are right any study that returns a result of between 500,000 and 2.5 million is laughable.

When leftists try and discredit a study, you can bet it was a good study.

Quote:
Criminals are not the smartest people but there is no point risking their lives breaking into houses for chump change.

You are giving crooks too much credit.

Quote:
If they broke into a house and start beating the guy up there was something personal going on. Did he not pay for his drugs? Did he rip them off? Didn’t pay for a gambling debt?

Did you ever notice that you seem to give the worst intentions to people defending themselves, this is at least the 2nd or 3rd time you have done so.

Quote:
The two men could have shot and killed him as soon as they got in the house. If someone was there to kill him, he would have been dead as soon as the door opened.

They weren't there to kill him and his family, they were there to rob him and his family. They took a shot at the wife and she shot back and killed the bad guy, why do you have such a problem with people defending themselves?

Quote:
You are not that naïve to believe they wanted his children’s milk money. Instead of complying the guy decides to fight with two men with guns.

He didn't fight them, did you bother to read the story? They broke in and grabbed his 11 year old daughter, then started beating him.

Quote:
The police will be looking for the same thing the robbers were looking for.

Like I said, you made this same claim against a kid who was defending his house, and the police didn't find anything but dead bad guys. They will find the same out with this case, it's been a month and nothing from the news. This is another case of projection.

Quote:
If the intruders were pistol whipping the guy his wife could have easily shot them with a pistol. She only shot one intruder she could have done that wit a pistol.

What's your point? They had an AR and used it, it was very effective at protecting them from getting killed. You forgot to mention that they shot at the wife first, she actually returned fire.

Quote:
You are trying to make this incident the reason for everyone needing an AR-15.

Not everyone, those who are allowed to legally own one. I have no problem with people owning these weapons. I actually support Liberty and Freedom and I realize that we can't fight the govt with pistols and flint lock rifles.

Quote:
That was another one of the incidents you posted where the idiot with the AR-15 was firing bullets through the wall.

I don't know what story you are talking about, you will have to provide some links to the story.

Quote:
The ruling that the bill of rights are not rights at all just restriction on the government. The person is not real it is his shadow that is real.

They are the Rights of the people and restrictions on the govt. It is both things, not just one. It shows your shortsightedness.

Quote:
What you fail to understand is the government grants those rights and can take them away.

No they can't be taken by the govt or granted. The govt doesn't get to decide what Rights we have and don't have, that is not the purpose of the govt and it flies in the face of all our founding documents. You leftists have this whole freedom things turned around and backwards.

Quote:
A felon or someone with mental problems has his right to keep and bear arms taken away.

They still have to be given due process, the govt can't just take something from you because they want to, that's not how our Constitution works or the Bill of Rights. A felon, it's in the name has committed a felony, and proven they can't be trusted with the same Rights as the rest of their fellow citizens, so they lose those rights, after they have been affored due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. You know another one of those Rights that can't be taken from us on a whim by the govt.

Quote:
What the government the government can take away.

The govt doesn't grant us our rights, we already have them, that's the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

Quote:
There is no such word as inalienable in the Declaration of Independence the word is unalienable.

You lose again.
https://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/unalienable.html
Quote:
The question is often asked, "Is the word in the Declaration of Independence unalienable or is it inalienable?"
The final version of the Declaration uses the word "unalienable." Some earlier drafts used the word "inalienable," which is the term our modern dictionaries prefer. The two words mean precisely the same thing.

According to The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style from Houghton Mifflin Company:

The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away.
Here is a listing of known versions of the Declaration, showing which word is used:
The Declaration on parchment, now in the Department of State unalienable

The Declaration as written out in the corrected Journal unalienable

The Declaration as printed by Dunlap under the order of Congress unalienable

The draft of the Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in The American Philosophical Society, in Philadelphia inalienable

The Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in the New York Public Library inalienable

The draft of the Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in the Massachusetts Historical Society, in Boston inalienable

The copy in the handwriting of John Adams of the "Rough draught" of the Declaration, now at the Massachusetts Historical Society. unalienable

So in reality, they used both words when drafting the document, they mean the same exact thing, there is no difference in their usage.

Quote:
A contract is a contract plain and simple and the Bill of Rights is a contract with the American people.

No it is not a contract, a contract can be negotiated and there is nothing to negotiate when it comes to our Rights. The Founding Fathers signed a promise, not a contract.

Quote:
There is no right to privacy if the census can ask such detailed questions but then all rights are limited.

You were the one who said we have a Right to privacy, I never made that claim. You also claimed that privacy was used as the "legal theory" for abortion to be made legal. So which is it, do we or don't we have a right to privacy?

Quote:
The point was Trump resents the really big crowd at the World Series chanting “lock him up.”

So what, should it matter to me that Trump got boo'd in the DC swamp? That city like most big cities is run by the DNC, so it means very little to me.

Quote:
You notice the emails were not found but that did not stop the Russians from trying.

Of course they weren't found, she deleted them, illegally before handing them over to the proper authorities who were responsible for checking them out.

Quote:
In thirty minutes after Trump had authorized the search the Russian had broken into the DNC server.

Wrong again. Trump made his comment in July, the email hack happened in March. You can't even get this simple information correct, it shows you don't watch the best news.

Quote:
The FBI discovered the Russians had broken into the DNC server and notified the DNC. The first time the FBI notified the DNC went to a low-level employee and the FBI had to follow up later.

The FBI never investigated the server, they received a report from a third party group. The DNC refused to give the FBI access to the servers. More lies by you and the left.

Quote:
That has everything to do with it. Romney does not pay the actual tax rate on the money he earns and then he tells lies about the people making less than he does.

Sure he does, he would be in trouble with the IRS if he didn't. You fail to recognize that there is a difference between investment income and earned income. He also didn't lie about anything, he was 100% correct in what he said. He said 47% don't pay federal income taxes, which is different than payroll taxes. It's you and the left who are lying by omission.

Quote:
In your gun nut fantasy world, everything is black and white.

That would be the world you live in. In your world no one has a right to defend themselves and if they do, they must have been drug dealers.

Quote:
It is the good guys and the bad guys but the real world is not that way.

There are pretty clear lines of behavior. If you are robbing someone, you are a bad guy, if you are trying to stop the bad guy, that makes you the good guy. Sitting in your house minding your own business and someone breaks into your house, you are the good guy, they are the bad guy. Clear lines can be drawn until you want to point to all gun owners as bad guys because you don't like guns.

Quote:
I am sure you watched the shows where the good friends get into a fight over a child stealing a birthday present and that feud escalates and ends up with a couple of people being shot to death.

I'm familure with the story, and from what I know, the people didn't steal a birthday present, the guy thought they did.

Quote:
When you have somebody, who is disturbance in your place of business you have every right to ask them to leave.

That wasn't what you said in the previous post. You said people have free speech rights in public and they can go into a restaurant and harass people, you said it was their duty. Now you are claiming that people can be thrown out of restaurants? Do you always talk out of both sides of your face?












0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Tue 3 Dec, 2019 11:00 pm
@Baldimo,
Don’t you find it funny that there was no such thing as a left-wing media until was a right-wing media? The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine by Reagan launched the right-wing press. Media was required to give equal time to both sides of a political issue. Even an ordinary man could demand time on television to rebut an editorial argument from the television station. The extreme right wing did not want equal time they wanted all of the time to erase any other opinion. This was when Fox News was founded by long-time political operatives. If you have a middle of the road media and you create an extreme right-wing media, what happens? The positions are relative, now middle of the road is to the left of the extreme right. The middle didn’t change only the media manned by far-right extremist created that illusion.

Since most of the guns purchased are private sales Obama figure was low. I have an uncle that sells more guns then most gun stores. There is utterly no way to know for sure the number of private sales. I sold my shot gun and the guy that bought it sold it soon after and no doubt that guy sold it, on and on. When you have no records of private sales you can only guess. We had an employee of the police department selling all sorts of confiscated guns until he was caught. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You should have been disappointed when the first Republican came out to back Trump’s impeachment. When the thumb comes out that is holding the dike back there will be a flood.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do you know why Trump was able to send troops in to kill the leader of ISIS? The Kurds had a spy in the ISIS leader compound without that spy and the Kurds that would have never happened. The Kurds made that hit possible and their reward is that Trump is going to have the Kurds listed as a terrorist organization so the Russian have a license to slaughter them. The Russian have now taken control of our military bases in northern Syria.
The troops never left Iraq we have continued to have troops in that country. Russia has now taken complete control of that area of Syria and there is no free press in Russia. The only thing come out of there will be propaganda films much like Fox News.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fox News and the right-wing news media treat the public like they are extremely gullible unfortunately they are right in about 50% of the cases. Tucker Carlson has publicly come out on the side of Russia invading the Ukraine.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Travon was staying with his uncle and had been there a week. Had Martin’s family had the money to get a good lawyer and sue for wrongful death they would have won because the police department had told Zimmerman not to follow Martin.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The police told Zimmerman not to follow Martin. Zimmerman was determined to start a confrontation. Zimmerman said plenty to Martin, witnesses reported a loud argument. If Martin was on a phone call then it was Zimmerman that attacked Martin. If that case had been in a northern state Zimmerman would be in jail today. Florida is the old south and if Zimmerman had lynched Martin, they would just say he just accidentally ran into the noose and that is about what took place.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The police instructed him not to follow Martin and that is exactly what he didn’t do.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Zimmerman did call the police but he completely ignored their orders.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The one witness said he heard a loud argument. That was the only witnesses in the account I read. I suspect that shooting took place just like the one with the Republican mayoral candidate holding someone at gun point. He decides to just kill him. People like Zimmerman and the Republican mayoral candidate think they have a license to kill and they do, a gun.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All of that aside, if Zimmerman had done as he was ordered by the Police Department there would not be any confrontation.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The stand your ground law is just an invitation to kill and there will be many people take up that invitation. The DA can only tell you that somebody was killed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You found the link and you know that number is correct.
Six gun manufacturers have already went bankrupt and more will follow. Hunting was responsible for a lot of gun sales at one time but the younger generations no longer get as much joy out of killing animals.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Dec, 2019 03:31 pm
@Zardoz,
Quote:
A Bernie supporter killing two people does not even compare to that life long NRA member and champion of rightwing politics Timothy McVeigh killing 184 innocent people including kids in a day care center.

2 people? The Dayton shooter killed 10 people and injured 27 people. As for comparing a modern day mass shooter to terrorist bomber, that is a weak move. Much like calling a bank robbery a mass shooting.

Quote:
Ninety three percent of people are tired of their children developing post traumatic stress disorder just from going to school and being under constant threat of a gun nut with an assault weapon is going to kill them.

You have some proof to back up this claim of course? Of course this hyping of the issue comes from the MSM and anti-gun groups, spreading fear. If they were being honest, they would report on the likely hood of this happening, it's very rare. Teaching the kids what to do in the event of a mass shooting is a good thing, it's no different than the drills we did as kids in the event of an attack by the USSR.

Quote:
That part of the Declaration of Independence is the justification from breaking away from England not from destroying what the founding fathers built.

You would be lying about the Declaration of Independence. I put forth the actual section and what it says, it's you who doesn't understand what it says, I'll post it again for clarity:
Quote:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

We do indeed have the right to rebel and the Declaration of Independence says it's actually our duty to overthrow the govt if they are no longer securing our Rights. It seems your study of the Founding Documents is lacking.

Quote:
The country will not be turned over to a small group of the radical right the majority will decide on any changes to the government like eliminating the second amendment.

You seem to be lacking in a majority to change the Constitution. That's why the govt doesn't grant us our Rights because they can't take them away. It takes a 2/3 majority in the Congress, and then a 3/4 of the states to agree to amend the Constitution, the govt doesn't have the power to take those rights away.

Quote:
Take the bible for instance it is written down so everyone should know its intent in theory but in practice each church thinks they know the bible’s intent and each church fractures and the people who believe they know the bible’s intent form a new church based on their interpretation of bible.

Thank you Martin Luther!

Quote:
The Christian faith has fractured like a dropped mirror.

Christian's have not been "one" faith in many many decades, maybe even centuries. As I mentioned above, Martin Luther had a big hand in dissolving the central power that was European Christianity. The Catholic Church isn't what it once was and child molestian scandals have also taken a hit on the Church. I don't really care about religion, I'm not a Christian and I don't use religion in my arguments or debates, I'm agnostic/deist.

Quote:
Government would be the same except the supreme court is set up as the arbitrator to determine the intent. The federalist papers and anti-federalist papers are not binding documents they are just the opinions of a few of the founding fathers and nothing more.

Correct, the federalist and anti-federalist are not binding documents, but that doesn't remove them as important documents to the founding of our country. To claim they are the opinions of a "few" of the founding fathers neglects to say that it was the opinions of the very people who wrote the DoI, Constitution and Bill of Rights. I would hardly consider James Madison and Alexander Hamilton a "few" of the founders.

Quote:
All these rightwing organization from the Neo-Nazis to the KKK have managed to go from fringe nut cases to mainstreaming their philosophy on Fox News.

Sorry to tell you, but those groups philosophies are still fringe, and they are still nut cases. Foxnews does not share the beliefs of those groups, and to suggest other wise is a straight up lie. Fox news has the largest viewer ship in the US and their opinions are not extreme either, they are mostly moderate, comparted to those on the left and other news organizations. Of course to you, anyone to the right of Marx is right-wing.

Quote:
If the constitution makes one thing clear, it we the people who will decide what rights we have.

Wait a minute, you said it was the govt who decided what Rights we had, not the people. There you go again, talking out of both sides of your mouth again.

Quote:
Trump lost the election and only an antiquated system put in place to apse slave holders let him steal the election.

Wrong again, Trump won the election according to the Constitution. No where in the Constitution does it mention the popular vote in relation to the Presidential election. The EC also has no bearing on the "slave holder" issue. Everything they did in the founding on this nation was to limit the power of the slave states, not give them more power. If the FF had given slaves the same count as white people in begining, the southern slave holding states would have had more power, not less. Remember representation in Congress is based on population per state, the slave states had a larger population than the north did and would have had more Representatives, which means a majority, which means they controlled the govt. Not counting slaves as "whole people" prevented the slaves states from dominating Congress. History is not your strong suit is it? Stop listening to the fake revisionist history, it's destroying our country.

Quote:
The system is fully designed suppress voter turnout and make votes worthless.

Wrong, that is not the fault of the Constitution, that is the fault of our 2 party system. In almost every major election, the 2 major parties squeeze out the 3rd party candidates. It doesn't help that the media, including Fox news, continue to push this failed 2 party system. I much better solution is for states to divide out their electoral votes based on where the majority of the votes come from. Example, CO has 9 electoral votes and could hand those votes out to anyone on the ballot based on where that electoral represents. I don't live around any of the major cities in CO, my area usually votes red, but Boulder County which is the next county over, usually votes blue. Those votes cancel out the votes from my county and the blue candidate get the EC votes for CO. Why should someone who votes red bother voting at all, the same example goes for a red state and blue voters, why should they vote, they know it won't matter.

Quote:
The principal the country was built was one man one vote and that is being violated.

No, it is not being violated. The EC was never designed for "one man one vote". We are a Representative Republic, not a federal democracy.

Quote:
Only one office in the land is not decided by majority vote. Then people wonder why voter turnout is so low. If your vote isn’t going to count why bother?

You should be blaming the 2 party system, not the Constitution or the Electoral College.

Quote:
Your definition of assault weapons is something made up on the fly the real definition is set out in the 1994 assault weapon ban.

No, that would be the definition used by the anti-gun left. An assault weapon will have a selective fire switch, in which case it wouldn't be a civilian manufactured semi-auto rifle.

Quote:
Gun manufacturers and experts in that field were involved in making the 1994 assault weapon ban.

There were no gun manufactures or experts involved in the drafting of that law. It was the anti-gun left who looked at a scary rifle and picked the parts they thought looked scary and added them to the list. Just like VA recently did. They can pass that law, but they are going to loose badly in the SCOTUS.

Quote:
It is easy to ignore the supreme court decision but it makes the law of the land. Some laws are passed by the legislature others are mandated by court decision.

The SCOTUS is forbidden from making laws. We have 3 separate co-equal branches of govt, that all have their own responsibilities, it's a system of checks and balances. No where in the Constitution does it give the SC the right to create laws. This is what leads to activism in the courts and bad decisions that get overturned in much later years.

Quote:
I have been threatened several times with a gun when I was a child.

It's probably because you were a little **** of a child that did what they wanted to and told adults to **** off. I never had guns pulled on my as a kid, I respected adults.

Quote:
If a gun nut has a gun, he is going to threaten people or far worse.

Some of them will, but not the majority. I've owned guns for years and never felt the need to threaten anyone with one. Well there was the guy who was trying to break into my garage one early morning. He was threatened and he ran off, no more break in problems in the area after that. As is the case with a majority of self-defense gun uses, no shots were fired.

Quote:
Those are not projections those were actual incidents, gun nuts shooting people during road rage incidents has become so common in California they should declare it a sport.

No, you are projecting. Do you have any proof that these things are happening in such record numbers in CA? Funny, CA has really restrictive gun laws, are you telling me they are working?

Quote:
I watch at least an hour of news stories each day in addition to what I read.

You should lay off MSNBC, it isn't doing you any favors.

Quote:
When I find a story on the computer that has good information, I log it as a favorite and refer back to it but on television I can record the show and keep for a few days but I can’t always give you a search parameter that will locate.

That's a load of ****. You can give me the station number... channel 2 in Chicago? How about channel 9 in Denver? I can find a story with that simple info that is available on your TV screen.

Quote:
The other FBI study shows the problem to be far worse. The FBI was being used to help schools pick out the rightwing gun nut types before they massacred the children.

How do you explain the shooters who aren't right-wing? You know, like the trans kid and his gay friend who shot up a CO school in the spring, killing another student, you mean those right-wing shooters? This is why we can't have a reasonable discussion about these things, you think only one group is doing it, and a majority of the time, the shooters don't have a political agenda, they are just dumb kids.

Quote:
In the definition of a mass shooting as being a shooting where four or more people are wounded or killed where do you see it restricted to a public place?

You must have ignored the link I shared to the FBI definition, either that or you ignored it on purpose and are playing dumb. I don't think you are playing though.

Quote:
We are only worried about the shooting not the backdrop.

If that were the case, you wouldn't highlight only public shootings, which is exactly what you do. Let's also not forget how you use children and their schools as additional backdrops to your anti-gun rhetoric.

Quote:
So, you believe if a mass shooting takes place in someone back yard it is not a mass shooting but if it takes place in the alley it is a mass shooting?

It depends on the reason for the shooting. If a family of four is having a bbq in their back yard and their crazy uncle shows up and kills them all, I wouldn't call that a mass shooting, even if they didn't know the person, I wouldn't call it a mass shooting. Do you consider all the gang shootings in Chicago to be mass shootings, or are those products of gang violence?

Quote:
Even your definition said “especially” when a human being kills another. What do you think they meant by the word “especially?” Suicide may be a subset of murders but murder is the act of killing a human being and if you kill yourself you have killed a human being.

Suicide is not murder and is not a subset of murders.

Quote:
I posted several of the stories along with the article listing 30 incidents by now no doubt another 20 have occurred. Where ever guns go deaths are sure to follow.

You have never posted any such thing. You claimed to have read a book about the info but never shared anything.

Quote:
It is extremely easy to find the top ten mass murders. Simply search for “top ten mass murders.“ The problem is that it calls up the top 18 or top 22 but you can just take the top ten off of the list.

Are the top ten mass murders the same list as the top 10 mass shootings? Post your facts and stop trying to lead people around by the nose.

Quote:
I have posted many sources but the best I can do with a book is list the title of the book.

No you haven't. I've been calling you out on this for at least a year. You NEVER post a source. You claim to have read it in a book or in an old article. You then claim that I won't be able to find it because the internet doesn't have everything. We have gone round and round on the subject of you not posting sources or backing any of your claims. It was so bad that Hightor tried to play white knight for you and said it was only your opinion and you didn't have to prove your opinion on your own thread. That was pretty weak as well.






0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Dec, 2019 07:15 pm
@Zardoz,
Quote:
Rifles are not the problem, assault weapons are the problem. Assault weapons killed 59 in the Las Vegas massacre, assault weapons killed 50 in the pulse night club massacre, 24 killed with an assault weapon in the El Paso massacre this year, 9 people killed by an assault weapon the next day’s Dayton massacre, 26 killed by an assault weapon in Southerland Springs, Texas in the massacre at the First Baptist Church. That list goes on forever, you get the idea.

No I don't get the idea, there is no such thing as a civilian assault weapon, assault weapons have selective fire switches.

Quote:
Tools are designed by people for a purpose and the reason assault weapons were designed was to massacre as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. I have never heard of a massacre where 59 people were killed with a hammer. But with assault weapons the massacres keep happening.

No assault weapons have been used in mass shootings. People have used civilian semi-auto rifles in mass shootings, and we should be on the look out for people who have screws loose. People have actually started paying attention and people have been arrested before they commit a heinous act. If we keep this up, we should be lowering the amount of mass shootings. Having people armed in public would also be a good move to stop such people.

Quote:
The FBI studied mass murders that occurred in schools.
One study is: A study of active shooter incidents in the United States where mass casualties occurred.”

The title of the study has nothing to do with school shootings, they are talking about mass shootings in general. Another fail on your part.

Quote:
I think the study that looks at 160 massacres lists all the massacres but the study of 41 massacres only concerns schools.

There was no study on school shootings, the "study" you are talking about was released by CNN, and I debunked a majority of those "school shootings". Of the 44 listed, only 6 of them were actual school shootings, the rest of the shooting took place after school hours and didn't involve students from the schools, they were also not mass shootings, a majority of them only involved 1-3 people. Another failure for you and the anti-gun left.

Quote:
We have a right to happiness but what makes a mass murderer happy is murdering people but his right has been restricted by law.

Yes, murder is illegal and has been for a very long time, it doesn't seem to stop anyone from killing people. If we stopped the mass shootings, which make up less than 1% of shooting deaths, we would still have over 10,000 murders per year.

Quote:
Just as free speech is limited, you can say Trump’s wife is a whore only if you can prove it.

That's not true, you as a private citizen can call his wife whatever you want. If the media publishes a story about it, they have to be able to prove it. We as private citizens can say what we want, there is no law against lying. If there was, every politician would be under arrest. Don't confuse civil courts which is where such a case would be held, with a criminal court. You do know the difference between the 2 don't you?

Quote:
Your second amendment right has been limited.

Not according to the last ruling in the SC.

Quote:
You can’t call your local school and tell them there is a bomb there. If you do you will go to jail. All rights have limits for good reason.

Strawman

Quote:
There is no such thing as a statistic that has a range of 500% the best it can claim is guestimate.

Except that is exactly what is claimed by the CDC. Take it up with them, not me, I didn't make the claim. The only reason you don't like the number is even at it's lowest number, it still blows away the number of people killed by guns in the US each year. It proves that people use their guns for self-defense, they don't fire a shot, the gun being present is enough to stop the crook in their steps. People are better with guns than your anti-gun ilk give them credit for. It's why I always tell you, your gun fever dreams are projection.

Quote:
A study would come with a reliable number with a possible error margin a few percentage points, not a 500% margin of error.

It's a range, it doesn't generally have a "margin of error". You can have massive ranges in many things. Do we know exactly how many women have abortions per year, or do they give us a range based on asking people the question?

Quote:
There are always reasons people do things.

Not always, the reason could be because they are assholes. We have lots of assholes in this world.

Quote:
If the men had wanted to rob them, they could have waited until they were gone. The intruders had targeted that guy for a reason.

You sure are giving the bad guys lots of room to move, but zero room for the innocent homeowners. Your bias against gun owners is clear, you have made it plenty of times.

Quote:
If they had intended to kill them, the woman would have never made it to get the AR-15. Maybe it was the AR-15 they came after. To believe the intruders picked that house at random and just wanted to beat someone up is naive.

It's naive and wrong to assume the homeowners were in the wrong for some reason. It doesn't matter why the people broke into their house, they had no right to be there and they died for their poor choices. Stop blaming the homeowner for the actions of the crooks.

Quote:
If you post a link, I always take time to look at it. That is alright as you get older you tend to think you did things that you didn’t.

Considering the responses you provide, it shows you don't check out the links.

Quote:
Quote:
You tend to see a fantasy world that you imagine,

That would be you who lives in a fantasy world. You seem to think gun owners are running around slaughtering people at will. The way you talk, you would think the murders per year was over 200,000 and we live in the most violent country in the world. In reality, the majority of murders take place in the big cities and not the burbs and not in the rural cities.

Quote:
I have dealt with criminals long enough to know that they do things for a reason.

You were a building inspector, don't make yourself out to be something your not. Your version of a criminal is someone putting a deck on their house without a permit. Or someone put an advertisement on the side of a building and you wrote them a ticket... you were not a cop and you did not arrest people, you had ZERO Law enforcement powers. Metermaids had more power then you did, they had a badge, not a laminated card.

Quote:
By the time the police showed up the intruders were no longer beating her husband, one had fled and one was dead. That type of crime occurs between players.

They were no longer beating the husband because the wife shot one of them and they took off. Had she not had the gun and shot at them, the police would have had a much different crime scene. Sorry, the facts are not in your favor.

Quote:
Most people would try to take control of the situation first after all she had the drop on them. If they refused to leave or raised their gun, she could have put 30 bullets in them in a matter of seconds.

Most people? She did exactly what she should have done. They had already shot at her once, why give them a chance to do it again. Thank you for proving you didn't read the whole story, or you would have seen that they shot at her first, she got the gun and shot back and hit one of them. She had no need to fire thirty rounds, that would only increase the chance of hitting one of her family members.

Quote:
Who keeps money at their house these days? Wait I know, drug dealers and criminals. Some businesses no longer accept cash. Why do drug dealers keep large sums of cash at home? Because if they bank it the cops will know they are dealing.

You have a very limited view of what happens in our modern economy. Some business's no longer taking cash doesn't mean every business, the majority of business's still take cash.

The cops don't know anything about people's bank usage, you are confusing the IRS, FBI or Secret Service with the local police. Federal crime vs a local crime, the only way the local police catch a drug dealer is in in the act.

Quote:
I read the links and none of them answer the question as to why the intruders picked that house out of thousands?

You can bet if it was what you think it was, there would be a mention from the police investigation... there has been none, the people are innocent of any crimes and you should stop trying to make them into crooks just because they had to defend themselves.

Quote:
WV is a gun nut state and there are far more gun nuts here than in the rest of the country.

I'll once again ask for some proof of this claim. I happen to know a lot of gun owners and none of them live in WV. I take that back, my ex-brother in law lives there and he's a federal agent, so he has guns.

Quote:
One gun nut was shooting his gun at 1:30 am the other night. My wife was up at 4 AM and another gun nut was firing his gun on my property. I have three acres with many deer on it. It is deer season and no doubt he was spot lighting deer.

Is it still deer season? Even if it is, isn't it trespassing to hunt on your land without permission? I highly doubt you'd give someone permission to have a gun on your property. You should have called the police.

Quote:
Instead looking it as it is, the people do have rights, you prefer to think of rights as only a se of restriction on the government. The founding fathers intended to grant rights not restrictions

No one granted our rights, we already had them. The only reason they were written down was so that the govt knew what they couldn't do. Hence people have Rights, govt has restrictions. Our Rights are inalienable/unalienable, both were used when drafting the DoI, and the words mean the same exact thing, so no one can take those from us. We can change the Constitution, but with what it takes to change it, it won't be happening anytime soon. 2/3 of both house's of Congress and 3/4 of the states. I suppose the anti-gun left could try for a Constitutional Convention, but they don't have the majority in enough states for that either. The FF made it difficult to change the Constitution for a reason, they didn't want mob rule to dictate the way things work.

Quote:
The founding Fathers knew one thing for certain you can’t play a game without rules and you can’t have a government without laws. That is why the founding fathers set up legislative branch to make laws.

Those laws have to be balanced against the Constitution, that is what limits them in what they can and can't do. There is also the executive branch which can veto those laws, and the Judaical Branch which makes sure those laws fit into the Constitution and don't overstep the restrictions that were placed on the govt. For instance, VA will pass their anti-gun laws, and the SC will slap them down for violating the people's rights as spelled out in the 2nd Amendment. That might allow some portion of the laws to remain, like magazine sizes, but they will surely slap down the rest of them, gun confiscation illegal according to the Constitution. That's why the full auto civilian guns are still available, the govt knew it would be illegal to take them.

Quote:
The census mandates the answers to all kinds of personal questions there can be no right to privacy.

If there is no right to privacy, then how can abortion be Constitutional? You claimed abortion was legal because of a right to privacy, now you claim there is no such thing. You are so inconsistent with your claims.

Quote:
That wasn’t the only event Trump was booed at. He was booed at a sporting event in New York that week also. You can bet Trump absolutely hated it, he cannot take criticism of any type

Haha, you said NY, another liberal bastion of tolerance. If this was to really mean something, it would have to be in a state or city that actually voted for him, getting that treatment from a place that didn't vote for you is no surprise. The left are especially hateful and unhappy people, this shouldn't surprise you.

Quote:
The popular vote reflects the will of the people, the electoral college the compromise with slave owners.

You have no care for the will of the people unless they agree with you. At one point majority opinion was against gay marriage, did that make the will of the people correct? You also continue to fail to understand that the EC had nothing to do with the slave owners and the 3/5 compromise. If you think it favored the slave owners, then you don't understand it at all.

Quote:
The problem with electoral colleges was that slaves did not count. This meant the southern states would not be fully represented. A compromise was reached where each slave would be counted as ½ a person for the purpose of electoral college giving the southern states more electoral votes. Today its only purpose is to scam the American people.

You have this so twisted and wrong it isn't even funny. You don't even have the percentages correct, it was 3/5, not 1/2. The slave states wanted the slaves to count as full people, the north said 3/5. This weakened the power of the southern states because the north didn't want to count slaves at all, they couldn't vote and were not free. They would have been forced to vote the way the slave master wanted them to and we couldn't have that happen.
Also there was no mention of slaves in the EC, the "count" you are thinking about had to do with representation in the House which is based on population. The EC grants 1 vote per state for each Representative they have plus each Senator, which every state has 2 Senators. This is why WY has 3 EC votes, one for their single Rep in the House and 1 for each Senator.

Quote:
Trump absolutely hates free speech and you tell it by what he does on twitter.

Do you really follow Trump on Twitter or are you only talking about what you hear in the news? I doubt you have a twitter account, you can't even figure out how to post a link or a quote on this site.
What exactly does he do on twitter that shows he hates the 1st Amendment and free speech?

Quote:
He would eliminate the second amendment if he could.

What makes you say that? I've heard no such claims in the media. I think you are confusing all of the DNC candidates with Trump, they would take the 2nd Amendment away, they have all pretty much said so.

Quote:
Both civil and criminal courts are government courts and some judges do both types of cases.

That has zero to do with what we were talking about. In civil cases, it's people going after people, in criminal cases it's the govt going after people. 2 separate things with 2 separate powers. So in your example of Trump suing people for saying things he doesn't like, that won't send them to jail, it will only cost them money.

Quote:
Yes, I understand but you don’t.

No I don't think you do, this reply proves that.

Quote:
Romney is paid on commission just as most sales man are but while they pay taxes on their income Romney pays only on the investment rate.

He was not paid on commission, that is not how it works in those type of companies. I work for a startup company in the enterprise server technology field, and I work in an industry that wouldn't exist without companies like Bain Capital or Vulcan Ventures or the hundreds of other capital investment firms. They invest in companies like the one I work for, I know exactly how these guys make their money, and it isn't a "sales" position. If my company doesn't make money, they don't make money, if they don't invest in us, we have to find one that will or we fold. This is why I laugh when people say capitalism is dead, I wouldn't have a job if it was.

Quote:
Romney invest nothing his clients invest their money Romney’s salary is based on what his clients’ investment returns. Romney risks nothing.

Bain Capital wasn't that type of investment company, they didn't do things on the stock market, they did things with companies that were either in trouble or were a start-up. They took their own money and maybe they had other investors and used that as capital to invest in different companies to either buy them and improve them, or buy them and then sell them off.

Quote:
Romney risks nothing.

Wrong again, read above to see how it works.

Quote:
That 47% is absolute and complete lie.

It's the complete truth.

Quote:
They are talking about the children who have no income and the seniors drawing social security that they already paid tax on that money.

No, they were talking about the 47% of people who file federal tax returns. How can they be talking about children, when children can't vote.

Quote:
This how you lie with figures. Figures don’t lie but liars do figure. I have worked 50 years and almost all of them were under $50,000 and I paid income tax even when I made less than $6,000 and most years, I wrote a big check in addition to what was taken out of my check. This is a lie the rich have told so many times the gullible believe it. How many times did you make below $50,000 and not pay an income tax?

That is 50k by todays' standards, not 50k by 1980 standards. Don't play games with the figures they were talking about in 2012. Most of your reference is to the 80's and 90's which does not apply to tax rates and incomes in the 2000's.
The tax records don't lie. People who are married with kids and make less than 50k a year get more back in federal taxes than they pay in pay-role taxes. If you get more back then you pay in... you don't pay federal taxes. I know a lot of people who were paying for big cost vacations each year because of their tax return check, the EIC then was about 1,500 per kid. There was no EIC when you had kids, as far as I know, that happened in the mid 90's when Clinton and Congress did that major tax code change.

Quote:
How many times did you make below $50,000 and not pay an income tax?

Every time, because of the EIC, Earned Income Credit, which was over $1,000 per child. I had 2 kids and one of them was deaf which doubled his EIC credit. When my ex-wife and I made under 50k, we got several, multi-thousand dollar tax return checks from the federal govt. It wasn't until we started making over the EIC limit that I stopped getting tax returns and started owing money. Each year was different some years I would get a return of maybe $100 and some years I would owe that much. Now a couple of those years were my ex-wife's fault, instead of claiming zero, she would claim exempt... we owned a couple of grand those years, it was ugly. For those who don't make a lot of money, the EIC makes a big difference, it also keeps them from actually paying federal taxes, they get all their payroll taxes back plus more they didn't pay in.


0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Thu 5 Dec, 2019 12:09 am
@Baldimo,
Anybody being followed at night is being threatened. Why would anyone be following you that wasn’t up to no good? They teach you to be aware of your surroundings and that would especially include anyone following you. Being followed on a dark night by criminal would have anyone’s adrenaline pumping. Why do you think the police department told Zimmerman not to follow Martin? The police department knew what would happen to that wife beater. Following someone is provoking them.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You don’t expect anyone to believe that. It was the front of Zimmerman’s face that was messed up that means Zimmerman was face down with Martin on top of him. If your head is being banged onto the concrete you are not going to be able to reach for a gun and shoot backwards. This story is from a known criminal that beat his wife and disobeyed the police order.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Florida is just a few decades away from lynching blacks, as required in the past in the south anytime a white man kills a black man it needs to investigated by the Feds. If Martin was found laying on his back he was not on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. You have a known criminal telling the tale. Do you not realize that it is easy to hold a pistol at any angle fire it? So, just the angle of the path of the bullet won’t tell you anything unless Zimmerman fired from two blocks away. The bullet can be deflected by striking a bone and have a completely different trajectory.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Martin had been staying there and no doubt that criminal Zimmerman knew it. Have you ever been followed? I have and even in the daytime it is unnerving. We had a group in town that decided that they would follow and film city employees to make them look bad. Since I have put several people in jail and cost others five figure contracts, I was always aware what was behind. One day I noticed a car following me. I go up streets and down allies reversing my direction frequently. Whatever turn I made the car followed. After about fifteen or twenty minutes of playing games I decided to end it. I took them up through an isolated part of the city and lost them. When they managed find their way off the hill, I was positioned on a side street and fell in behind them and I started following them. They continued to follow other city employees for a while but they never tried to follow me again. Had that been at night and on foot, it is hard to tell what would have happened.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Travon Martin and his father were visiting his father’s fiancée. It makes no difference whether it was a relative or a future relative. It would be bad if everyone that came for a visit was gunned down by a criminal gun nut. Not a girlfriend, his father’s fiancée. It was not who Trayvon was staying with it was Zimmerman not following the police’s orders that caused the problem.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trayvon may have been visiting his dad’ fiancée but he was living there unless he was dead at the time. He was living and he was there.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It really doesn’t make any difference if he was visiting Tiny Tim, he should not have been killed by a criminal gun nut who refused to follow the police orders.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The stand your ground law has absolutely nothing to do with protecting anyone it just makes it legal for criminals like Zimmerman to kill children.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And you can be killed by a tree limb falling out of a tree. So, if you are hit and fall and strike your head and die, then you are going get your gun and shoot the guy living dead style. That is rare I can only remember that happening once around here and that was over 50 years ago, lightening kills far more frequently. But the stand your ground law will kill thousands and it has not even tapped in to the potential death toll.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
How do you expect to get stats when stand your laws made murdering children legal? If it is not a crime to murder someone there are no stats for something that is not a crime.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Like Zimmerman who was bulling Treyvon by following him all the while knowing he had a loaded gun in his pocket with the safety off. There may be a tiny percentage of fights that end up with somebody dead but when you introduce gun into fight and the chances of being killed go way up. More deaths are not an improvement.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The 38 legislative seats were the biggest improvement since Watergate for the democrats and that is a fact. Sixty thee may be the biggest for the Republicans but 38 is the biggest for the democrats. The Republican gain of 63 seats was bought and paid for by the richest one percent because they wanted to eliminate the tax increase on them to fund healthcare. Since the Republicans tried and failed to repeal that tax Trump gave them huge tax breaks to make up for it. But you no longer hear much about repealing the Affordable Healthcare act the Republican cry when they took office in 2010.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Several gun laws have passed in the House but they are being blocked by McConnel in the Senate. One man can keep any bill from ever being voted on but his time is short. The female fighter pilot running against him is going to shoot him out of the seat just like they voted that Republican scumbag out of the governor’s mansion. Otherwise a democratic majority in the senate will remove McConnel and unblock the gun bill log jam.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All you have to is look at the democratic election gains in the House over the last 50 years. That was the record gain.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That is a fact, elections are won over issues. America has not elected a racist President since Regan. There has not been such an upsurge in hate groups since Nazi Germany during the 1930s.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You should have heard from the expert witnesses that if this is not an impeachable offence then nothing is. Trump’s lawyers have already claimed in court that Trump can kill someone in the middle of fifth Ave and they can’t do a damn thing about. In fact, Trump himself was the first to claim he can do that. If he gets away with this what is to stop him from murdering all his political enemies? That is the way it is done in South America. The hearing established an iron clad case that no one can dispute. Trump did it and then crowed about doing and did it again. Trump believes he is king and can do anything. He is going to find out he is not king. There were twelve witnesses that told the same story about Trump’s bribery attempt.




Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Dec, 2019 11:24 am
@Zardoz,
Quote:
It is the same claim that the manufacturer, Colt, makes for that assault weapon.

Then post the source for your claim.

Quote:
I think you are confusing rate of fire, with actual bullets fired. The AR-15 fires at the rate of 900 rounds per minute. It may only fire 30 rounds at that speed before the clip has to be changed but it still fires at a 900 round a minute rate.

No it won't, the very fact you have to change mags proves that it will NEVER fire at the rate you claim. I'm still waiting for a source for the claim, or are you working on the theory that if you say a lie enough, it will be the truth?

Quote:
If you have a car that will run 200 mph it won’t run 200 mph for a thousand miles because you will have to stop for fuel but that doesn’t mean it won’t run 200 mph. That is what makes the AR-15 the go to weapon for mass murder.

You are wrong again and you analogy is horrible. You can not compare mpg vs rpm, they are not even close to the same thing.

Quote:
The fact that different parts of America were under control of different countries is reflected in the laws that were handed down from their original parent countries.

How do you figure? It sounds like you are confusing culture with laws. You were the one who claimed we had no obligation to have laws from other countries at the founding, now you are saying there are different laws in different states because of the countries who once controlled those states? Again, talking out of both sides of your face.

Quote:
All that is necessary is that you look at a copy of the original Declaration of Independence not a modified copy where the wording was changed. My point stands even by your own argument the term in the Declaration of Independence was unalienable.

The 2 words mean the same exact thing! They are interchangeable in the English language. You have no point, give it a rest. Our Rights whether you use in or un are not able to be taken by anyone and you don't have the votes to overturn the 2nd Amendment or any Amendment for that matter.

Quote:
You are the one claiming your rights came from some type of supernatural superhero and therefore the government can’t ever take away whatever you imagine them to be. My position remains the same the governments grants the rights and can take them away according to the constitution.

The Constitution gives no such power to the federal govt. You do realize that you can't change the Constitution with a simple majority, it takes a super majority to make those changes. You don't have control of 2/3 of Congress and you don't have control of 3/4 of the states. Good luck changing the Constitution with a lack of a super majority. Your position is still wrong, and you can't provide the facts to make you correct.

Quote:
All rights have limits, none are absolute.

They also don't have the limits you seem to claim they do.

Quote:
There will always be conflicts where one man’s freedom harms someone else’s.

The Courts have a tendency to side with Liberty and Freedom.

Quote:
There have been several recent court cases where the mentally ill and the criminals have tried to claim their gun rights have been infringed. They will eventually win or the second amendment will have to be changed.

You do know what due process is, don't you? A majority of these "red flag" laws are going to be defeated because they lack protections for due process. The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere, you don't have the votes required to change it, good luck.

Quote:
The government in the ends has to be arbiter when the rights of one individual violate the rights of others as was the case when the Thompson submachine guns made the streets of America unsafe. If the government cannot set limits on rights how come you can’t go to the corner gun store and buy a full-automatic assault weapon? Sure, looks like a limit to me.

More talking out of both sides of your face again.

Quote:
If America is overrun by a foreign country you will have no rights and if you speak up you will be killed. The primary purpose of government is defense of the homeland if that fails everything goes with it.

America will never be overrun by another country, the people will fight. You might welcome the invaders, but a majority of Americans will fight them. Another reason the 2nd Amendment is important, we have the largest "unregistered" military in the world if you count American gun owners.

Quote:
As always you wanted to start plucking the figures out of the gun death statistics to hide the actual deaths caused by guns.

That's where you would be wrong. What is actually happening is putting gun deaths into perspective, as not all gun deaths are the same. You can't claim there is massive gun violence when a majority of the deaths from guns are suicides. You also can't claim how deadly the semi-auto rifles are when they only account for 297 out of 12,000 actual murders with guns.

Quote:
When you site the murder of people murdered with guns you want to leave out 40% of the deaths.

No, when we are talking about murder with guns, we leave out the 60% that are suicides, people killing themselves.

Quote:
That is a fact there are thousands of gun nuts who have their on line communities, trying to figure out the best way to kill the most people.

That's just a straight up lie and you have zero proof to back this claim. If they were making such plans, the FBI would be all over them. What you are really talking about is people who own guns talking about their guns and how they would use them in a self-defense situation, or in a situation where they had to protect our nation from either an external or internal source.
You should check out the following youtube channel, this is an example of what I think you are talking about and which you are wrong about:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9ZKDGCc5R67fVvLFSv-OLA

Quote:
A few thousand can do a tremendous amount of damage.

Yet the stats are not in your favor, yet again. If gun owners were as violent as you and the anti-gun left say they were, we would have a murder rate that is 10x as bad as it is now. There are over 250 million guns in the US, yet only 13k murders per year? Who commits a majority of those murders per year? It isn't your average gun owner.

Quote:
I think if you put most gun owners in a situation that really angered them, they would reach for their gun. I have seen gun owner grab their guns for even for minor annoyances.

More of your gun fever dreams and a good amount of projection to boot.

Quote:
That is exactly what the supreme ruled when it said: “you are not entitled to any weapon whatsoever for any purpose whatsoever. That is extremely clear.

I'm still waiting for you to provide this ruling, so far you haven't and you keep putting your own spin on it. Where is the ruling?

Quote:
If the government wants to arrest you, do you think your gun will stop them? All these anti-government radicals armed to teeth fall. The government will always have more guns and more people.

If that's the case, how on earth did civilians prevail in the BLM standoff? It seems armed civilians did just fine holding off the Obama Feds. No one died and the courts later ruled in the civilians favor and against the federal govt.

Quote:
Rights are not supernatural they don’t materialize out of thin air. They need to be in writing to carry the force of law. I get it, like your superhero, they always were and always will be, the end all argument.


Quote:
Now you want to reverse course and say the bill rights is where our rights came from, they were not inalienable.

I never said such a thing, I said we already had those Rights and they were written down so the govt knew their limits on what they could and couldn't do with laws. Once again, in and unalienable mean the same exact thing, the words are interchangeable. Using one of the other doesn't change the meaning. Yes, the DoI says very clearly that our rights are un/inalienable.

Quote:
Assault weapons are responsible for close to 60 deaths at one time and 500 wounded no other weapon comes close to that.

So what, it was a rare occurrence, and we shouldn't be giving up our rights because of a few bad apples, that is the lesson we should have learned from 9-11.

Quote:
That is the definition simply four or more killed or wounded. The mass shooting in New Orleans over the weekend showed one of the victims half way in the street and half way over the curb. Should he be counted or not? I think the measurement would give you about 5/8 of that victim in a public place. A mass shooting is a crime in itself. So, if it is a crime, we can’t count it, that is absurd.

You are wrong.

Quote:
The statistic given for mass murder count all shooting where four or more were shot or wounded.

That is the easily hyped definition and it doesn't match what the FBI claims. The only reason you like that definition is because it makes mass shootings look worse than they really are, it's an emotional definition that doesn't meet the actual criteria.

Quote:
Free speech applied to written speech from the very beginning of the country. Whether it is published in the paper or the internet it is the same. Whether it is sent through the mail or sent electronically the speech is the same.

We can agree on that, but according to you, if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution it doesn't count. The internet didn't exist and wasn't even thought about, so how can a technology that didn't exist back then be considered legal today?

What it shows is that the advance of technology has nothing to do with our modern day rights. Gun is a gun is a gun, just like speech with a quill is equal to speech on the phone or speech on the internet. Technology shouldn't effect our in/unalienable rights.

Quote:
It is just the type of cases that are bought into court. In Criminal court the penalty can be a fine or jail time, or both. In civil court the damages are assessed to defendant but they are both government courts in the same court house.

Except they don't work the same and you know it.

Quote:
The reality is that there is a limit on the second amendment.

An artificial limit that isn't supported by the 2nd Amendment and was put in place by activist judges.

Quote:
Can you imagine what America would be like if the streets were full of full-automatic assault weapons and Thomson submachine guns?

It wouldn't look any different now, mass shootings are less than 1% of the gun murders in the US, the stats are pretty clear, the media and anti-gun groups like to hype cases for the emotional votes they will get.

Quote:
We would have roving gangs armed to teething taking over the inner cities. Bank robberies would triple. There would be no safe places in America. But gun manufactures would no longer be going bankrupt.

We already have gangs who rules these cities, where do you live. You can't walk through the south or west side of Chicago without getting shot, you can see how the youth of today are running wild and it has nothing to do with guns, it's all attitude and upbringing.

Quote:
You would like to live during the revolutionary war period when you could have a state-of-the-art weapon.

State of the art rifle during that time would have been a multi-shot rifle, The Belton flintlock, not the musket. If changes in technology have no bearing on the 1st Amendment, how can they have an effect on the 2nd Amendment?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock
Quote:
The Belton flintlock was a repeating flintlock design using superposed loads, conceived by Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, resident Joseph Belton some time prior to 1777. The musket design was offered by Belton to the newly formed Continental Congress in 1777. Belton wrote that the musket could fire eight rounds with one loading,[1] and that he could support his claims "by experimental proof."[2] Belton failed to sell the musket to Congress, and later was unable to sell the design to the British Army a year after the American Revolution.[1] There are no records that indicate that the gun was ever supplied, and it is uncertain if or how exactly the Belton improvement operated.[2]


Quote:
The only problem I have is with assault weapons. The gun nuts can shoot each other and their families but the mass shootings need to stop.

Except that most mass shootings are not done with semi-auto rifles, they are done with mostly handguns. Less than 1% of mass shootings take place with a semi-auto rifle. Sorry, but the stats are not in your favor again.

Quote:
When ever a bill is written experts are called and those experts came up with the definition.

No they didn't and you can't prove it, that's why you keep repeating your false claims. If it was provable, you would have done it by now, but like in most cases, you are trying to push your opinion as fact. I can tell you that not one single "expert" was used when that law was drafted. They would have used anti-gun people to write the law, not pro-gun people.

Quote:
The only reason the parents of the Sandy Hook parents might lose is the liability exception that the gun manufacturers bought with their blood money.

It's a perfectly good exception that applies to a majority of manufactures of goods. You can't sue a car company because someone was killed in a drunk driving accident, you could only sue the car company for faults with the vehicle. The same should go for gun manufactures, if someone uses their gun for bad reasons, they can't be held responsible.

Quote:
The fact is it can be both a bank robbery and a mass shooting.

No it can't. The only person who considers a bank robbery as mass shooting is you.

Quote:
You believe that you can modify a regular 22 rifle into full-automatic.

You are the only one here talking about modifying weapons, I've said nothing about modify weapons. It's also illegal to modify a semi-auto weapon to fire full automatic.

What's a regular 22 rifle? I have a lever action rifle, my buddy has a pump action 22 rifle and another buddy has a semi-auto AR15 platform that is also .22. So what "regular" 22 rifle are you talking about?

Quote:
The poll said that 70% of the American people believed Trump has done something wrong. They did not all believe he should be impeached but they believe he has done something wrong. Mine was a poll of all voters while your poll is of independent voters. When all voters are polled a majority support impeachment.

I'd like to see proof of these polls, you won't provide it because you never provide proof of your claims.
Here's a CNN story on the polls, and they mention 50% and they also mention that impeachment isn't a high priority for most Americans.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/03/politics/impeachment-polling-analysis/index.html
Once again, the stats are not in your favor. The House will vote to impeach, but it will be a one sided vote, there will be no bi-partisan support for it.

Quote:
At least one elected Republican is already supporting impeachment and more will follow. Trump runs the Republican party like a godfather and politically assonates anyone who does not support. Trump’s impeachment will be bipartisan also.

Yet in the House when the vote was taken a few weeks ago, the only bi-partisan support was against impeachment. Sorry to tell you, but you are wrong again, this is going to cost the DNC a few races in the 2020 election.













0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Thu 5 Dec, 2019 09:54 pm
@Baldimo,
Read the Heller Decision and not just the first paragraph.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Read the “Heller Decision” that states “you are not entitled to any weapon whatsoever for any reason whatsoever,” if you think that is an absolute right you need to reread the definition of “absolute.” Shall not be infringed applies only to “a right to keep and bear arms.” An as long as you have an arm to bear that right has not been infringed. Since the second amendment is the right most likely to be repealed it is not very important.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not all assault weapons have a selective fire switch and most assault weapons used in massacres in America don’t have one.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is on record that the Pulse Night Club mass murderer was firing his assault weapon at a rate of 130 rounds per minute. They have actual recordings that verify that speed. If you were in a crowed bar and had a mass murderer firing at a 130 rounds per minute rate do you think you would have a chance of getting away?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day and that is the way the reporting of mass murderers works. The Las Vegas mass murderer never said a word to anybody.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Experts in the field are always consulted and they got the definition of assault weapons exactly right.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Some of the information about how Remington marketed assault weapons is already out there and the rest will come out in court. According to Remington they were targeting the most aggressive gun nuts to sell assault weapons to. To get your man ticket punched you need an assault weapon and it does not have a selective fire switch.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Dec, 2019 11:42 am
@Zardoz,
Quote:
Don’t you find it funny that there was no such thing as a left-wing media until was a right-wing media?

You are mistaken, there has always been a left and right media. If there wasn't, there would have been no need for a "Fairness Doctrine".

Quote:
The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine by Reagan launched the right-wing press.

That would indicate that there was a left-wing press to start with. Just so you know, there was actually almost 10 years between the end of the Fairness Doctrine 1987, and the founding of Fox News in 1996. It would have actually been Bill Clinton who launched the right-wing press, he was President at the time and CNN was already known as the Clinton News Network... you tell me, which came first left or right wing media?

Quote:
Media was required to give equal time to both sides of a political issue. Even an ordinary man could demand time on television to rebut an editorial argument from the television station.

Yeah, right, the news would let on any Joe to speak their peace about a political issue. You know that isn't true, that sort of reply was left to the politicians, not a regular citizen.

Quote:
The extreme right wing did not want equal time they wanted all of the time to erase any other opinion.

Except in our modern day news, it is only Fox News who has people on with a difference of opinion, they always have 2 people on to discuss an issue. The rest of the news organizations like CNN and MSNBC are only interested in one opinion.

Quote:
This was when Fox News was founded by long-time political operatives.

Who cares, there is plenty of room in the market for different political opinions. Have you seen the way Jeff Zucker runs CNN? Project Veritas exposed the lopsidedness of CNN.

Quote:
If you have a middle of the road media and you create an extreme right-wing media, what happens? The positions are relative, now middle of the road is to the left of the extreme right.

You would be completely wrong. The extremism is actually from the left news organizations and their ratings show it. CNN hasn't had a #1 show in years, they have been getting spanked by Fox news for over 10 years.

Quote:
The middle didn’t change only the media manned by far-right extremist created that illusion.

You are mistaken again. The Overton Window has indeed shifted, the right is far more centrist than the left is. When the major news channels promote socialist candidates, that is not the middle, that is extremism to the left.

Quote:
Since most of the guns purchased are private sales Obama figure was low.

You are wrong again. The majority of gun sales take place in gun stores, not private sales. I'd ask for some proof of your claim, but you never do, you just repeat you false claims.

Quote:
I have an uncle that sells more guns then most gun stores. There is utterly no way to know for sure the number of private sales.

Except you are claiming that a majority of gun sales take place as private sales, if your second claim is true, then you have no facts to back your first claim. You do speak out of both sides of your mouth.

Quote:
You should have been disappointed when the first Republican came out to back Trump’s impeachment. When the thumb comes out that is holding the dike back there will be a flood.

You should be equally disappointed that a Dem has already come out and said they won't be voting for impeachment. Also the approval for impeachment is down. When polled, it isn't even in the top 5 issues for voters, they see it for the political scam that it is.

Quote:
Do you know why Trump was able to send troops in to kill the leader of ISIS? The Kurds had a spy in the ISIS leader compound without that spy and the Kurds that would have never happened. The Kurds made that hit possible and their reward is that Trump is going to have the Kurds listed as a terrorist organization so the Russian have a license to slaughter them. The Russian have now taken control of our military bases in northern Syria.
The troops never left Iraq we have continued to have troops in that country. Russia has now taken complete control of that area of Syria and there is no free press in Russia. The only thing come out of there will be propaganda films much like Fox News.

I don't care about Syria, I care about America. You don't care about Syria, you only care how it makes Trump look. Obama had no reason for the US to be in Syria. They can all fade away or die for all I care.

Quote:
Fox News and the right-wing news media treat the public like they are extremely gullible unfortunately they are right in about 50% of the cases.

What other right-wing media is there besides Fox news? They are the only right leaning news channel on cable, the rest of the news agencies are left leaning or blantant left.

Quote:
Tucker Carlson has publicly come out on the side of Russia invading the Ukraine.

Has he? Do you have some proof of this claim?

Quote:
Travon was staying with his uncle and had been there a week.

He was not staying with his Uncle, none of his family lived there. These are easy facts to prove and I've already post the relevant info, but I'll do it again.
Quote:
On the day he was fatally shot, he and his father were visiting his father's fiancée and her son at her town home in Sanford, Florida. She lived in The Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community Martin had visited several times before.[9][10][11]

According to his autopsy, Martin was 5 feet 11 inches (1.80 m) tall and weighed 158 pounds (72 kg) at the time of his death.[12]


Quote:
Had Martin’s family had the money to get a good lawyer and sue for wrongful death they would have won because the police department had told Zimmerman not to follow Martin.

They would have lost. The Obama DOJ did a civil rights investigation and cleared him saying they didn't have enough evidence. If the Obama DOJ didn't file changes against him, then a civil case isn't going to win anything.
Quote:
The incident was reviewed by the Department of Justice for potential civil rights violations, but no additional charges were filed, citing insufficient evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

Did you see the latest news about Zimmerman? He's suing the Martin family and a couple of news agencies because of the lies they told. I wonder how this one is going to turn out. I wish him luck.

Quote:
The police instructed him not to follow Martin and that is exactly what he didn’t do.

A 911 dispatcher has no law enforcement powers, you are not under any obligation to follow the requests of dispatchers.

Quote:
You found the link and you know that number is correct.

I found what link, without a quote I have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:
Six gun manufacturers have already went bankrupt and more will follow.

You of course have some proof of this claim and you should really provide it. I know of only one manufacture who has made a claim and a majority of their problem was they lost a Federal contract to provide weapons to the US military and their competitors were selling more AR platforms than they were.

Quote:
Hunting was responsible for a lot of gun sales at one time but the younger generations no longer get as much joy out of killing animals.

I guess you missed the story from a couple of months ago indicating that there are over 400 million guns in the US? Guns are far more popular in the US then the anti-gun left would lead everyone to believe. It's one of the reasons you haven't posted any links to your claims of lower gun ownership.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2018/06/us-civilians-own-400-million-guns-compared-to-militarys-4-5-million-survey-shows/


0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Dec, 2019 12:57 pm
@Zardoz,
Quote:
Anybody being followed at night is being threatened.

That just isn't the case and the Obama DOJ didn't charge Zimmerman with any crimes, they also returned his legally owned firearm to him.

Quote:
Why would anyone be following you that wasn’t up to no good?

He was the neighborhood watch leader, he was following someone he didn't know and since there were a lot of break-in's there, he was following him to make sure he didn't do anything wrong in Zimmerman's area.

Quote:
They teach you to be aware of your surroundings and that would especially include anyone following you.

They don't teach you to confront someone following you and they don't teach you to attack them because they were following you.

Quote:
Being followed on a dark night by criminal would have anyone’s adrenaline pumping. Why do you think the police department told Zimmerman not to follow Martin? The police department knew what would happen to that wife beater. Following someone is provoking them.

Funny how the Obama DOJ cleared him.

Quote:
You don’t expect anyone to believe that. It was the front of Zimmerman’s face that was messed up that means Zimmerman was face down with Martin on top of him.

You would be wrong again. The forensic's doesn't match what you claim, it matches exactly with what Zimmerman said, you should really stop lying about things that are easily provable as lies, it doesn't help your case.

Quote:
If your head is being banged onto the concrete you are not going to be able to reach for a gun and shoot backwards. This story is from a known criminal that beat his wife and disobeyed the police order.

Instead of making things up that are in the court record, you should actually read what the forensic's report actually said, instead of making things up to fit your propaganda. None of the facts are in your favor.

Quote:
Travon Martin and his father were visiting his father’s fiancée.

So you admit to lying about an uncle living there? I've been telling you for many posts that it was the fathers girlfriend. What other lies are you going to confess to?

Quote:
It makes no difference whether it was a relative or a future relative.

You are correct, it makes no difference, Martin didn't live in the neighborhood and Zimmerman did and he didn't recognize Martin as a resident. They were also having a lot of break-in's into homes. If a stranger is walking around a neighborhood where houses have been broken into, they deserve to be followed. You don't live here and have no reason to be here.

Quote:
Not a girlfriend, his father’s fiancée.

You spent many posts lying about who he was there to visit, and now you want to try and correct me?

Quote:
It was not who Trayvon was staying with it was Zimmerman not following the police’s orders that caused the problem.

Police dispatchers have zero law enforcement powers, they can only recommend and not order.

Quote:
Trayvon may have been visiting his dad’ fiancée but he was living there unless he was dead at the time. He was living and he was there.

You are still wrong. He didn't live there, he lived with his mother and was visiting with his father while Trayvon was on school suspension.

Quote:
It really doesn’t make any difference if he was visiting Tiny Tim, he should not have been killed by a criminal gun nut who refused to follow the police orders.

He wouldn't have been shot if he had not attacked Zimmerman. He took his own life into his hands when he attacked a stranger.

Quote:
The stand your ground law has absolutely nothing to do with protecting anyone it just makes it legal for criminals like Zimmerman to kill children.

Your bias opinion has no basis in reality.

Quote:
How do you expect to get stats when stand your laws made murdering children legal? If it is not a crime to murder someone there are no stats for something that is not a crime.

Murder isn't legal, self-defense is. You would feel worse about a crook being killed than you do about innocent homeowners being killed. You have fallen off the deep end.

0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 12:14 am
@Baldimo,
I never said they would both be as fast off the line or have the same top sped. I said they would both be Mustangs even though there were difference. It is not a requirement that both cars have the same top speed to be a Mustang just as all assault weapons don’t have to fire the same number of rounds per minute to be an assault weapon.
Everybody constructs their own reality by picking and choosing what pieces of reality they will accept. The welder died at 36 after using too much drugs and alcohol. His wife continued to work for the city until she retired. The drug king pin was arrested and sent to prison. The welder gave the king pin a ride to a white-collar prison with a gun in his pocket. I would have had no way of knowing that they could be converted let alone how to convert a semi-automatic assault weapon to full-automatic otherwise. I did not run with a gun nut crowd.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The reason the statement “shall not be infringed” is pretty much ignored is that it is actually extraneous it does not change the statement “a right to keep and bear arms.” It simply says that it won’t be violated. They could have included “shall not be infringed” in all the other rights also but it is a complete waste of ink. The only thing that statement is gives the mentally ill and criminals the right to guns.

The “Heller Decision” is what you need to read.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That is what I have said all along, the only rights you have are the ones granted by the bill of rights not any of these rights handed down from before time began.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The founding fathers reduced those unalienable rights to writing it is called the Bill of Rights.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Bill of Rights speaks for itself you don’t get to make a right out of anything you can imagine.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Unfortunately, in any society there has to be a limit on freedoms. Your dream would be one where there was no limit on rights at all. You could drive down any residential street at 150 mph. Children playing in the streets would not be a problem. You could rape and molest children. Gun down anyone you wanted to. Each law limits someone’s freedom. When you take the guys freedom to drive a 150 mph down residential streets you manage to save several lives. Society will always have to balance the freedom of one against the rights of others.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In the North Hollywood shootout, they had several assault weapons that were converted to full automatics so it is not difficult to change those three small parts or they would have been lucky to have one converted assault weapon. North Hollywood was one of the most famous mass shooting in history.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My daughter got rid of her cable about a year ago but she signed up for a streaming service at about a ¼ of the price of her cable that even has local channels.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It has to be a mass shooting when three people are wounded and one killed. The one punch confrontation was over but gun nut goes back to his car and gets his gun out of the glove box and then walks back ninety steps to get close enough to start shooting. His dad was a gun instructor for the NRA and taught him he can kill four people for being hit in the face. The trouble was his aim was off and he only killed one. This is not a stand your ground law incident, he walked away and then decided to come back for revenge and they could not pay enough.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I asked for a source and finally O listed an article about assault weapons
but the definition does not occur in that article. Evidently, he took bits and pieces and constructed that definition. You can go back over this thread and you find at least 30 occasions where sources are listed. Often even a quote is attributed to the book it came out of.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Books are where you actually find information on the internet you get at best a few paragraphs. I don’t do links but I list sources.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They just failed to renew the assault weapon ban but after almost to decades of constant massacres there is far more support for an assault weapon than was ever imagined in 1994. Whatever case makes it to the supreme court the Heller decision will not be overturned. Even supreme court justices don’t want to see their grandchildren gun down by a gun nut with an assault weapon. No matter how much freedom the supreme court justices believe in. They don’t believe in the freedom of gun nuts to mow their grandchildren with weapons designed for war.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It has nothing to do with protecting themselves. If you gave each of those students, guns to carry there would be at least 200 dead. They would shoot each other at drunken parties and fist fights. A good example happened in a Florida mass shooting today. Two innocent bystanders were killed by the police. If that is the result with well trained professionals what would happen with the untrained gun nuts.

Texas is not a gun free zone but one of the top ten massacres in American history and not even one gun nut pulled their gun. So much for that worthless theory. There is your gun nut fantasy and there is reality.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I posted that source a few posts back all need do is search for: “Arming teachers has already led to a slew of gun accidents in schools.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There have already been 30 “gun accidents” in a very short period and not near that many massacres in that time period.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your source lack vital details. If the shooter only shot three people it would have happened extremely quickly. What would have taken time was the heroes to run to their cars get their guns and return. Was shooter out of ammunition? Had his gun jammed? Did they decide to execute him?

The Police captain refused to call the two shooters heroes and has not determined whether they will be charged with crimes.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Most mass murderers will save the last bullet for themselves.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That is the statistic the police use when responding to a massacre from past experience they know it will be over in two minutes.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don’t think you have any understanding of the word “projecting” means. You are like my parrot he can say the word but he does not know what it means. Suicide by cop is pretty common some will even point a cell phone at cops in a dark alley in order to get killed.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In fact, most assault weapons don’t have selective fire switches they are all assault weapons.

Massacres are a subset of mass shootings. Not all mass shootings are massacres but all massacres are mass shootings.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The assault weapons are specifically designed to have those three parts installed in them. Machine work is necessary to make a lot of modifications to cars. I have built race cars from the ground up a lot of the specialty parts were made.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Machining is common in all sorts of modifications it is not that big a problem.
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 10:18 pm
@Baldimo,
They are also trying to outlaw high capacity magazines. The problem with that is some people claim to change magazines in just a few seconds. I think the magazines should be limited to one round. That would give them two one in the chamber and one in the magazine.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The base AR-15 platform is designed to fire at a 900 round per minute rate. We already know that the Pulse Night Club mass murderer was recorded firing at a 130 round per minute rate. With practice that rate would be much higher. This gives no chance to people in a night club or class room.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Thompsons were extremely popular with gangsters and the only reason they declined was $200 tax levied on them in 1934 by the Federal government and it was the seller that was responsible for paying the tax. That would be about $3,800 in today’s dollars

“A machine gun, of course, ought never be in the hands of any private individual, said Attorney General Homer Cummings at a House Hearing.
There is not the slightest excuse for it, not the least in the world, and we must if we are going to be successful in this effort to suppress crime in America, take these machine guns out of the hands of the criminal class.

1934 gun debate.

This is just a case of history repeating itself.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Assault weapons do not need to have a selective fire switch to be assault weapons. Semi-automatic assault weapons have the same potential.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When You have one student shooting another student because he made a pass at his girlfriend, they use a pistol. But when you have a school shooter intent on a massacre, they almost always use assault weapons because assault weapons are made for massacres. You are confusing school shootings with school massacres.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2019 09:46 pm
@oralloy,
Assault weapons are assault weapons both the semi-automatic version
and the automatic version come down the same assembly line getting all the same parts only after the assault weapons is nearly complete do most of the assault weapons get one trigger mechanism and the automatics get another trigger mechanism. There are no differences until they decide which assault weapons will get the automatic trigger mechanism. You can not take a regular semi-automatic 22 rifle and add that trigger mechanism.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I read the whole article looking for that exact definition and I did not find it. Since the StG 44 was considered the first assault weapon then Henry Ford’s first car would set the definition for cars today but cars today are far more complex, with electric starters, windshield wipers, and head lights. The development of assault weapons followed a similar course with the AR-15 being far superior to StG 44.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sorry in case you have, heard Nazi Germany lost and they don’t get to decide anything. They were a bunch of losers.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Dec, 2019 11:57 am
@Zardoz,
Quote:
I never said they would both be as fast off the line or have the same top sped.

So then, they are not the same cars, they share a name but that is all they share, performance between the 2 is vastly different.

Quote:
I said they would both be Mustangs even though there were difference. It is not a requirement that both cars have the same top speed to be a Mustang just as all assault weapons don’t have to fire the same number of rounds per minute to be an assault weapon.

That isn't what you have said though. You have claimed, without proof, that the AR platform shoots just as fast as the military versions. We that isn't true because semi-auto don't shoot in full auto, so they CAN'T fire bullets at the same speed, that makes them different weapons.

If I buy a Mustang built for Nascar, is it the same car that I can by at the car lot?

Quote:
Everybody constructs their own reality by picking and choosing what pieces of reality they will accept.

You seem to think we live in a reality where a semi-auto rifle can shoot as fast as a full auto rifle, that's the fantasy world you live in.

Quote:
The welder died at 36 after using too much drugs and alcohol. His wife continued to work for the city until she retired. The drug king pin was arrested and sent to prison. The welder gave the king pin a ride to a white-collar prison with a gun in his pocket. I would have had no way of knowing that they could be converted let alone how to convert a semi-automatic assault weapon to full-automatic otherwise. I did not run with a gun nut crowd.

You still don't know how to convert a semi-auto into a full auto, a vast majority of gun owners do not know how this is done. You live in a fantasy world if you think thousands of people are converting their semi-auto rifles.

Quote:
The reason the statement “shall not be infringed” is pretty much ignored is that it is actually extraneous it does not change the statement “a right to keep and bear arms.”

It isn't extraneous, that's an excuse to violate a contract.

It's only ignored by anti-gun leftists. The phrase is actually very important and is only ignored because it allows anti-gun people to infringe on something that is shouldn't be infringed upon. That's how important the FF saw the 2nd Amendment, it's the only one with that phrase.

Quote:
The founding fathers reduced those unalienable rights to writing it is called the Bill of Rights.

They didn't reduce anything, it's who, the freedom thief who thinks our Rights are limited. How do you support freedom and liberty when you want to infringe on the Constitution?

Quote:
The Bill of Rights speaks for itself you don’t get to make a right out of anything you can imagine.

Where is abortion listed in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution?

Quote:
Unfortunately, in any society there has to be a limit on freedoms.

Says the Communist and anti-liberty person.

Quote:
Your dream would be one where there was no limit on rights at all.

That would indeed be a world worth living in, much better than the thought that we need to be controlled for our own good.

Quote:
You could drive down any residential street at 150 mph. Children playing in the streets would not be a problem.

There is no Constitutional Right to drive, that is a privilege handed down by the states, not the feds. You don't even seem to see the difference between a Right and a privilege.

Quote:
You could rape and molest children. Gun down anyone you wanted to. Each law limits someone’s freedom. When you take the guys freedom to drive a 150 mph down residential streets you manage to save several lives. Society will always have to balance the freedom of one against the rights of others.

Once again, you fail to know the difference between a Right and a privilege. There is no Constitutional right to do any of the things you claimed. When you fail to win with logic, you move to the illogical. It's another weakness in your personality.

Quote:
In the North Hollywood shootout, they had several assault weapons that were converted to full automatics so it is not difficult to change those three small parts or they would have been lucky to have one converted assault weapon. North Hollywood was one of the most famous mass shooting in history.

You keep repeating this claim of "3 small parts", but you have failed to provide any proof that it's only 3 small parts. Also a bank robbery isn't a mass shooting, it doesn't even fit the definition of a mass shooting.

Quote:
It has to be a mass shooting when three people are wounded and one killed.

Look at you trying to change the meaning of a phrase. When you fail to win, you change the rules?

Quote:
The one punch confrontation was over but gun nut goes back to his car and gets his gun out of the glove box and then walks back ninety steps to get close enough to start shooting. His dad was a gun instructor for the NRA and taught him he can kill four people for being hit in the face. The trouble was his aim was off and he only killed one. This is not a stand your ground law incident, he walked away and then decided to come back for revenge and they could not pay enough.

You live in a fantasy world of made up rules.

Quote:
This is not a stand your ground law incident, he walked away and then decided to come back for revenge and they could not pay enough.

You are correct, this would not be a stand your ground case, was he set free or did he go to jail? I'm willing to be he was arrested and stood trial. That's part of the story you wouldn't share.

Quote:
Books are where you actually find information on the internet you get at best a few paragraphs. I don’t do links but I list sources.

You would be wrong, you can find several different sources on the internet, not just a single source of a book. I'll take the internet multi-source over your single books source any day. College accept the internet as sourcing for papers. If it's good enough for the modern day college, it's good enough to debate your weak mind.

Quote:
They just failed to renew the assault weapon ban but after almost to decades of constant massacres there is far more support for an assault weapon than was ever imagined in 1994.

They didn't fail to do anything, they refused to renew the ban because it was pointless, it didn't stop any mass shootings. Columbine was right in the middle of the ban, it did no good. We refuse to have our Rights limited because of a few bad actors, it was a lesson we should have learned after 9-11 but the dunder headed left hasn't learned that lesson.

Quote:
It has nothing to do with protecting themselves.

It has to do with protecting the students from a mass shooter.

Quote:
If you gave each of those students, guns to carry there would be at least 200 dead.

The only people talking about giving students guns is the anti-gun left. We propose training and arming the teachers or having more police officers on campus. Your answer is to take my guns away... which would do nothing to prevent the next mass shooter.

Quote:
They would shoot each other at drunken parties and fist fights. A good example happened in a Florida mass shooting today. Two innocent bystanders were killed by the police. If that is the result with well trained professionals what would happen with the untrained gun nuts.

You are really trying to prove one event that recently happened is going to be the way it always happens? You live in a fantasy world of fascism.

Quote:
Texas is not a gun free zone but one of the top ten massacres in American history and not even one gun nut pulled their gun. So much for that worthless theory. There is your gun nut fantasy and there is reality.

I've already posted well over a dozen instances where people with a gun have stopped someone else from doing harm. In your eye's those people had to be up to no good, why else would they have a gun. You want to point to a few times someone didn't have a gun as proof that carrying a gun doesn't work?

Quote:
There have already been 30 “gun accidents” in a very short period and not near that many massacres in that time period.

From what I could find on the article you posted was that it was "30 accidents" since 2014. That's a 4 year time span and 30 supposed accidents. Considering how many schools have armed teachers and have police on campus, I say 30 in 4 years isn't that bad. Not a single student was actually shot. When you have a new procedure, it takes time to get with the program. I wonder how many there have been in the last 2 years since the article was written. Any bets there were no follow ups or updates since then.

Quote:
Your source lack vital details. If the shooter only shot three people it would have happened extremely quickly. What would have taken time was the heroes to run to their cars get their guns and return. Was shooter out of ammunition? Had his gun jammed? Did they decide to execute him?

Good guys with guns have stopped bad guys with guns. My source didn't lack any details and at least I posted a source to back up my claims. You never do.

Quote:
The Police captain refused to call the two shooters heroes and has not determined whether they will be charged with crimes.

He refused to call them hero's? I don't think that is something you can claim with any assurance. They also won't be charged with anything, they didn't break any laws. Only someone like you would arrest people who stopped a mass shooting.

Quote:
Most mass murderers will save the last bullet for themselves.

Most? Do you have any actual proof of this claim? The article I posted a couple of weeks ago pointed to about 50/50 being taken into custody if they are not killed by the police or someone else trying to stop them.

Quote:
That is the statistic the police use when responding to a massacre from past experience they know it will be over in two minutes.

Once again, you are going to have to provide some proof of this claim. In reality, if no one is there to confront them, they will keep going with their shooting spree.

Quote:
I don’t think you have any understanding of the word “projecting” means.

Projection: Psychological projection is a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting and can manifest as shame dumping.[2]
It is exactly what you do when you talk about your fever gun dreams. You are the only one here who is attempting to live in a gun slaughter world, issuing reasons for people doing things with zero proof.

Quote:
In fact, most assault weapons don’t have selective fire switches they are all assault weapons.

There is no such thing as a semi-auto assault weapon, assault weapons have selective fire switches that allow them to fire more than one round with a trigger pull. Semi-auto rifles do not fire anywhere near as fast as an assault weapon.

I'm still waiting for the proof that the AR can fire at 900 rounds per minute, you keep claiming it but fail to prove it.

Quote:
Massacres are a subset of mass shootings. Not all mass shootings are massacres but all massacres are mass shootings.

True, but murders are not suicides and vice versa. If they were the same thing, the police wouldn't call them murder/suicides.

Quote:
The assault weapons are specifically designed to have those three parts installed in them.

What 3 parts are these and how do they convert a semi-auto into a full auto? Still waiting for some proof of this claim instead of your continued insistence with no proof.

Quote:
Machine work is necessary to make a lot of modifications to cars. I have built race cars from the ground up a lot of the specialty parts were made.

This has zero bearing on your claim that there are so many converted semi-auto rifles out in the US. Still waiting for proof of a mass shooting with a converted rifle. So far the only thing you have brought up was a bank robbery, which isn't a mass shooting.

Quote:
Machining is common in all sorts of modifications it is not that big a problem.

Still waiting for proof of all these converted rifles out in the US.

0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Dec, 2019 01:41 pm
@Zardoz,
Quote:
They are also trying to outlaw high capacity magazines. The problem with that is some people claim to change magazines in just a few seconds. I think the magazines should be limited to one round. That would give them two one in the chamber and one in the magazine.

We have a difference of opinion on what a "large capacity magazines" are. 30 round mags are actually standard capacity mags and I'd agree with banning anything more than 30 rounds as "large capacity" mags.

Quote:
The base AR-15 platform is designed to fire at a 900 round per minute rate.

You keep saying this but you fail to provide any facts to back up this claim. A semi-auto rifle can't fire that fast and you fail to prove it can. I know it can't from experience.

Quote:
We already know that the Pulse Night Club mass murderer was recorded firing at a 130 round per minute rate.

No, we don't know that, it was another claim you made but failed to back up.

Quote:
With practice that rate would be much higher. This gives no chance to people in a night club or class room.

I know who the fastest shooter in the world is, he can't shoot 900 rounds per minute with a semi-auto rifle, so you can claim with practice that someone could, but then again you fail to provide any proof that the rifle can even fire that fast in semi-auto mode.

Quote:
“A machine gun, of course, ought never be in the hands of any private individual, said Attorney General Homer Cummings at a House Hearing.
There is not the slightest excuse for it, not the least in the world, and we must if we are going to be successful in this effort to suppress crime in America, take these machine guns out of the hands of the criminal class.

1934 gun debate.

This is just a case of history repeating itself.

That guy says there was no reason and I would disagree. We don't have to have a reason to own a gun, we have the 2nd Amendment that says as much. There is also no restriction written into the 2nd Amendment.

Quote:
Assault weapons do not need to have a selective fire switch to be assault weapons. Semi-automatic assault weapons have the same potential.

They don't have the same potential of firing the same as an full auto rifle, in fact they don't even come close. In order for a weapon to be an assault weapon, it must have a selective fire switch to change between different firing modes, which semi-auto rifle do not have the option.

Quote:
When You have one student shooting another student because he made a pass at his girlfriend, they use a pistol. But when you have a school shooter intent on a massacre, they almost always use assault weapons because assault weapons are made for massacres. You are confusing school shootings with school massacres.

You seem to be confused by the whole thing. You are making claims you can't back up. I know for a fact that the shooting at Stem School here in CO was a mass shooting event, they used a pistol. Your claims have no basis in reality, you are living in that gun fever dream again.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/12/2019 at 04:50:13