Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

@OmSigDAVID,

There's a difference between gratitude and toadying.

@izzythepush,

We don t want u to be toads.

We have a lot of them in our Southwestern desert.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

I denied it because it was such an idiotic thing to say.

If it wasn't you and it wasn't me then Dave must have made it up.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Hitler defeated himself by over-reach and impatience.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Hitler defeated himself by over-reach and impatience.

LOL they did take away those history books as Hitler was stop by a river of blood on the allies side.

With special note of the USSR people defending their homeland at a cost of tens of millions of it citizens.

Wonderful how people try to rewrite even recent history.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

in the fullness of sincerity & candor, it has never even occurred to me to strut, nor has any person at any gunnery-related meeting
walked in any
un-natural fashion. Hunte
rs don't do it.
Soldiers don't
do it. Police don't do
it. We
don't
do
it.

spendius wrote:

Not been around a lot of guns have you Dave.

Probably more than u have, Spendius.
I keep my gun collection close at hand. I USE it.
I 'm a fairly decent shot. I practice for accuracy & fun.

Care to tell us about YOUR gun collection ??????

spendius wrote:

Never seen the French Foreign Legion eh?

Yes. I never have; not much interest in them.
Do thay strut as well as the nazis??

spendius wrote:

You were strutting to some boy scouts earlier.

No; not at all. I find it interesting
that u chose to express that as a declaration,
rather than a question.

I am a soft-spoken fellow of gentle demeanor, most of the time.
I addressed them with humility & respect.
I was hardly moving at all in the gunnery range; let alone "strutting".

spendius wrote:

And your stainless steel handgun flashing in the sunlight.

No. U don't get the point.
The event occurred at around midnight,
in very low light conditions; but for the reflective properties
of the "stainless steel mirror" revolver, it might well not have been seen,
resulting in a bilateral gunfight, with lethal results, instead of what actually happened.
A .44 revolver packs some serious firepower, especially with hollowpointed slugs.
Have u tried any of them??????? Be prepared to experience Newton's 3rd Law of Motion.

ABout 4O or 5O years ago, I was counselled by my TV repairman to carry a reflective
silver colored gun, especially at night. I took his advice.

I have no fear of werewolves.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I have no fear of werewolves.

I should think not. They only exist as a light pattern in 2 dimensions on a screen while the projector is running.

Beware women mate.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Sometimes thay DO.

Need we be wary thereof ?

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

You should get a Purdey. They make patterns with the pellets Chuck Cathcart would have appreciated.

If my funds allowed, I'd consider a Purdey double rifle chambered in .300 H&H for black bear defense.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

BillRM wrote:
From military history books written in many cases by those who was there.

Those who was there eh? In your case History is bunk.

Says the person who is unable to counter any of his points.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I told them ages ago, ff, that it's all a business proposition but they won't listen.

That is because we are so involved with the issue that we know that it is untrue.

The gun manufacturers are not against gun control of their own volition. The gun manufacturers are only against gun control because if they aren't, we zealots will see to it that they are boycotted and driven out of business.

They whined about it at first, but we refused to offer them any mercy or compromise, and they came to realize that being driven out of business was bad for profits.

Now the gun manufacturers try to suck up to us.

The notion that the gun manufacturers are the ones manipulating the activists may sound plausible to people who are not familiar with the issue. But to those of us who were involved in beating the manufacturers into submission, such claims are likely to make us burst out laughing.

spendius wrote:

And the more guns there are the more ill-at-ease they are bound to feel.

That's silly. When I consider the possibility of machineguns and bazookas being legally present in most households across the entire US, the only thing I feel is happiness and joy.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

The interpretation of the Second Amendment as giving individuals an "absolute right" to the "freedom" to possess and carry guns for personal protection is not an idea that has been inherent in the American psyche since the founding of the country. It is a view that has largely been advanced since only the 1960's.

Wrong. It has been a part of English Common Law for many centuries (even before the US came into existence as an independent nation).

Quote:

Gun-rights arguments have their origins not in eighteenth-century Anti-Federalism but in twentieth-century liberalism. They are the product of what the Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet has called the “rights revolution,” the pursuit of rights, especially civil rights, through the courts...
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore#ixzz23G3NuCCr

Their dates are off by a bit. The origins of the argument come from the 1600's.

firefly wrote:

A future Supreme Court could rule quite differently and could certainly impose new restrictions on these relatively recently acquired "gun rights".

In other words, the left means to try to pack the courts with judges who hate the Constitution. Anyone who doesn't wish the left to take America's freedom away needs to vote only for candidates who are endorsed by the NRA.

Duly noted.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Every single point you and Bill made has been countered, but you're both far too stupid to see that.

It's not possible to dumb an argument down so much that you understand it.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Every single point you and Bill made has been countered,

Liar. You clowns haven't even made an attempt, much less a successful attempt.

izzythepush wrote:

but you're both far too stupid to see that.
It's not possible to dumb an argument down so much that you understand it.

You trash shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own stupidity.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I really don't enjoy having conversations with stupid bigots with only two or three pat phrases they repeat ad nauseam.

However, you have not provided any evidence for any of your paranoid claims, other than your own fevered imagination. Whenever evidence is provided you dismiss it out of hand as biased. I'm not the only one to think you need psychiatric help, but as CI keeps noting, there's no cure for stupid.

BillRM's repeated mangling of the English language is proof he's never even read a book, and only an idiot would believe otherwise. His ridiculous assertion that the seige of Stalingrad was lifted just by small arms ignores the facts.

Quote:

On 19 November 1942, the Red Army unleashed Operation Uranus. The attacking Soviet units under the command of Gen. Nikolay Vatutin consisted of three complete armies, the 1st Guards Army, 5th Tank Army, and 21st Army, including a total of 18 infantry divisions, eight tank brigades, two motorized brigades, six cavalry divisions and one anti-tank brigade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

Your paranoid ramblings about freedom and guns are predicated on completely false assumptions. America is not threatened by a Hitler type figure a few miles offshore, your democracy is not so weak that a dictator would suddenly decide to kill his own people, and a couple of sad sacks like you and BillRM would be of no use if either of the two ridiculous assertions actually happened.

It's clear you're both all mouth and trousers, and if armed police actually turned up at your doors you'd be on your knees sobbing, begging for mercy with **** running down your legs like the cowardly braggarts you both are.

The Warsaw uprising, (small arms against regular troops,)also failed

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I really don't enjoy having conversations with stupid bigots with only two or three pat phrases they repeat ad nauseam.

You trash shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own stupidity and bigotry.

izzythepush wrote:

However, you have not provided any evidence for any of your paranoid claims, other than your own fevered imagination.

I have not made any paranoid claims, and there is no reason I should provide evidence for a claim I've never made.

I do provide lots of evidence for the claims that I actually do make, however.

izzythepush wrote:

Whenever evidence is provided you dismiss it out of hand as biased.

Maybe if the supposed "evidence" is blatant anti-Semitism or something.

But in such a case, I am right to do so.

izzythepush wrote:

I'm not the only one to think you need psychiatric help, but as CI keeps noting, there's no cure for stupid.

CI shouldn't run around falsely accusing his betters of his own stupidity. He's even stupider than you are (and you're pretty stupid).

izzythepush wrote:

BillRM's repeated mangling of the English language is proof he's never even read a book, and only an idiot would believe otherwise.

He is very likely better-read than you are.

izzythepush wrote:

His ridiculous assertion that the seige of Stalingrad was lifted just by small arms ignores the facts.

I don't recall such an assertion on his part. Are you trying to misconstrue the post where he pointed out that heavy bombardment and other heavy weaponry did not secure the city for those who were trying to capture it?

izzythepush wrote:

Your paranoid ramblings about freedom and guns are predicated on completely false assumptions.

My pointing out the truth is hardly paranoid rambling.

And you cannot show a single false assumption on my part.

izzythepush wrote:

America is not threatened by a Hitler type figure a few miles offshore, your democracy is not so weak that a dictator would suddenly decide to kill his own people,

Totally irrelevant to any point I've ever made.

izzythepush wrote:

and a couple of sad sacks like you and BillRM would be of no use if either of the two ridiculous assertions actually happened.

Falsely accusing your betters of your own worthlessness does not count as a legitimate argument about the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare.

izzythepush wrote:

It's clear you're both all mouth and trousers,

You trash shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own big-mouthed uselessness.

izzythepush wrote:

and if armed police actually turned up at your doors you'd be on your knees sobbing, begging for mercy with **** running down your legs like the cowardly braggarts you both are.

Falsely accusing your betters of your own sniveling cowardice does not count as a legitimate argument about the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare.

izzythepush wrote:

The Warsaw uprising, (small arms against regular troops,)also failed

The fact that one effort may have failed does not mean that all such efforts are doomed to fail.

Note also that a successful guerrilla effort does not involve direct conflict with regular forces, but rather depends on slipping away and hiding whenever the enemy attacks a location. The Warsaw Uprising is hardly a good model for analyzing guerrilla tactics.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Poor Izzy needing to make up what others had posted in order to be able to attack positions that they never had taken.

My point with the cities I had names were that the claims that urban population centers can be taken at little cost and in short order by an army with heavy equipments had been shown time after time not to be the case if the defenders are very determine, no matter if they are short of heavy weapons themselves and the attacking army even had been able to cut their supply lines to the outside world.

Armor and air support and other heavy weapons in city fighting is not nearly as useful as they are outside such environments.

1 Reply

Where did the arms come from that the passing of the 2nd legislated for. It was proposed by James Madison of Virginia which was a slave owning state. With slaves being counted as three fifths of men they obviously had no rights under the 2nd.

Were firearms manufactured in Virginia or shipped through from abroad for distribution?

The fears of the nascent United States of a slave revolt, Indian wars, British, French or Spanish expeditions, pioneer isolation and of each other, were real enough and thus not in the least paranoid. Had I been there I'm sure I would have voted with the "ayes".

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Here is a link to a great article on the problems of Urban combat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_warfare

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

It was proposed by James Madison of Virginia

It's a bit more complicated than that. The Second Amendment actually evolved from the 1689 English Bill of Rights.

And Madison just boiled proposals down into more concise language and presented them to Congress. He was not the one making the proposals.

It is true that the proposal that led to the Second Amendment being adopted originated from Virginia however.

spendius wrote:

The fears of the nascent United States of a slave revolt, Indian wars, British, French or Spanish expeditions, pioneer isolation and of each other, were real enough and thus not in the least paranoid. Had I been there I'm sure I would have voted with the "ayes".

That is all wrong. The effort to strengthen the militia had nothing to do with fear of unrest or foreign aggression.

If that was the fear, they could have just set up a powerful standing army.

The reason they made the militia as strong as possible was because they did not want a standing army. They wanted to have a militia instead of a standing army.

Now, if you want to follow the history of the militia back over to England, and then way back through time past the English Bill of Rights, until we finally reach Henry Plantagenet's 1188 Assize of Arms, that was an example of a militia that was set up because of such fears.

But it wasn't the issue 600 years later in the United States. The issue at that time was "how to avoid having a standing army".

1 Reply

Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know