monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
blatham wrote:

Indeed. Trump could even be the Christ re-risen. Who's to say our partisan preferences aren't blinding us to his majesty.

Minimum, that would be "anti-christ"! Then again, I'm just a realist......
I think that in this case we ought to adopt the Breitbartian parlance, thus "Donald Trump is the alt-Christ". Roles off the tongue in a pleasing, jaunty manner and has the extra advantage of being true.

Agreed!!!

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

Maybe . . .

No maybe about it. In a discussion concerning which guns should be banned, the type used way more often than others in mass shootings is definitely relevant. How could it not be?

Quote:

I haven't read anyone demanding that any guns should be "banned" in the USA other than ones currently restricted.

Which ones are currently restricted? What is the nature of the restriction? And why are they restricted?

Quote:

And in a discussion concerning the deadliest mass shootings it would be remiss of us not to be discussing assault-style weapons.

Yup. And in a discussion concerning the overwhelming choice of weapon of mass shooters, it would be remiss of us to not discuss handguns.

Quote:

You don't get to determine the subject under discussion

I'm afraid that I do. Of course, you're free to not respond to my posts if they are not along the same line of discussion that you would prefer.

Quote:

And articles such as the one I quoted are evidence that, currently, that type of firearm is very much of interest.

Yes. Despite the fact that the vast majority of mass shootings are done with handguns, that particular gun is under scrutiny.

1 Reply

@BillW,

Doesn't it bother you at all, Bill, just to discuss things in your own little safe bubble?

Lash sure has had you folks pegged spot on.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

In a discussion concerning which guns should be banned, the type used way more often than others in mass shootings is definitely relevant.

Except that "banning" isn't the issue, the destructive power of assault-style weaponry is.

Quote:

Which ones are currently restricted?

Machine guns, for one.

Quote:

And in a discussion concerning the overwhelming choice of weapon of mass shooters, it would be remiss of us to not discuss handguns.

Handguns are often mentioned, in passing, because the most serious incidents since 2007 have involved assault-styled weapons.

Quote:

I'm afraid that I do.

Yeah, like the media is full of stories about handguns used in mass shootings. Obviously you have no control over what topics are addressed, and in this case the subject you wish to see discussed is irrelevant. If there were a good reason to discuss the use of handguns in mass shootings it would be all over the media, the way the AR15 is these days.

Quote:

Of course, you're free to not respond to my posts if they are not along the same line of discussion that you would prefer.

Sounds like a great idea.

Quote:

Despite the fact that the vast majority of mass shootings are done with handguns, that particular gun is under scrutiny.

That's what I've been telling you all along.

4 Replies

@hightor,

Why are you seized by so much fear, hightor? The truth shall set you free.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

Except that "banning" isn't the issue, the destructive power of assault-style weaponry is.

Yes, we've established that the destructive power of rifles is what you wish to discuss. However, I'm discussing the folly of banning a particular weapon despite the fact that handguns are used way more than rifles in mass shootings. If you don't care to address that fact, then why are you arguing with me? Go ahead and focus on the destructive power of rifles if you want; I won't interrupt you.

Quote:

Machine guns, for one.

They sure are.

Quote:

the most serious incidents since 2007 have involved assault-styled weapons.

In 2007, a shooter at Virginia Tech killed 32 people using handguns. Dylann Roof killed 9 in a church with a handgun. In 2014, Elliot Rodger killed six people and injured fourteen in Santa Barbara with a handgun. At Fort Hood, Ivan Lopez killed 4 people, including himself with a handgun. The Navy Yard shooter killed 12 with a shotgun. In 2012, Jim Holmes used a rifle, a pump-action 12-gauge shotgun and at least one .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol in a Colorado theater. In 2012, a gunman killed 7 people with a handgun inside Oikos University in California.

These incidents were found at a site listing the deadliest U.S. mass shootings between 1984 and 2017. I could go on.

Quote:

Yeah, like the media is full of stories about handguns used in mass shootings.

Yeah, that's what I've been showing you.

Quote:

the subject you wish to see discussed is irrelevant.

Well sure, if you don't give a damn about the kind of weapon that is used in the vast majority of mass shootings. You're under no obligation to acknowledge that fact or respond to it if you don't want to.

Quote:

If there were a good reason to discuss the use of handguns in mass shootings it would be all over the media

So now you're appealing to the media as if that will take away from the fact that handguns are used way more often than rifles in mass shootings. But I promise you that it doesn't take away from the facts.

Quote:

Sounds like a great idea.

Well, better late than never.

Now, just so we're clear, you do, or you don't, support a ban on handguns?

2 Replies

@hightor,

You stroke each other's egos just to get some thumbs up. Doesn't the truth mean anything to you at all?

The essence of a real citizen of any country is one that is ALWAYS willing to hold their governments to account no matter what the political stripe may be.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

In 2007, a shooter at Virginia Tech killed 32 people using handguns. Dylann Roof killed 9 in a church with a handgun. In 2014, Elliot Rodger killed six people and injured fourteen in Santa Barbara with a handgun. At Fort Hood, Ivan Lopez killed 4 people, including himself with a handgun. The Navy Yard shooter killed 12 with a shotgun. In 2012, Jim Holmes used a rifle, a pump-action 12-gauge shotgun and at least one .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol in a Colorado theater. In 2012, a gunman killed 7 people with a handgun inside Oikos University in California.

Any information on the nature of the wounds suffered by the injured? See, that's a big part of the reason for the media attention. Along with the fact that this incident just happened recently. If Cruz had used several pistols the media would be talking about handguns. That's just the way the news cycle works.

Quote:

Now, just so we're clear, you do, or you don't, support a ban on handguns?

If you want to attack or defend a ban on any particular class of firearm you'll need to explain the potential ban in some detail. Otherwise I won't know what you're talking about.

First you need to delineate the specific terms of this "ban". Restrict sales? Ban sales entirely? License owners? Make possession illegal? Something else?

How would the "ban" be implemented? What are the chances of one even being established? How would it be enforced? Would enforcement be left to the Feds?

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

That's just the way the news cycle works.

Sure, and that's clearly demonstrated by the fact that rifles are given all the press even though handguns are used in the vast majority of mass shootings.

Quote:

If Cruz had used several pistols the media would be talking about handguns.

Why would you think that? The shooter at Virginia Tech killed 32 people using only handguns, and Dylann Roof killed 9 people in a church using only a handgun. And what about all the other cases of handguns being the only weapon in mass shootings. I don't recall any citizens or organizations mounting a campaign against handguns. Do you?

Quote:

First you need to delineate the specific terms of this "ban".

Let's start with a ban whose terms are identical to those being contemplated for rifles. Or, as a rather nasty poster on these boards has already indicated, an out and out ban on all guns. Of course, said poster was under the illusion that anyone who wants a handgun for personal home protection is a coward who is compensating for a small body part. So, what terms would you approve of when it comes to a ban on handguns?

1 Reply

https://www.axios.com/robert-muller-questions-list-trump-russia-54d00d1c-f008-457c-b304-ee601a98d78c.html

Quote:

Axios has reviewed a Grand Jury subpoena that Robert Mueller's team sent to a witness last month.

What Mueller is asking for:

Mueller is subpoenaing all communications — meaning emails, texts, handwritten notes, etc. — that this witness sent and received regarding the following people:

Carter Page
Corey Lewandowski
Donald J. Trump
Hope Hicks
Keith Schiller
Michael Cohen
Paul Manafort
Rick Gates
Roger Stone
Steve Bannon

The subpoena asks for all communications from November 1, 2015, to the present. Notably, Trump announced his campaign for president five months earlier — on June 16, 2015.

Bottom line: In December, the president's lawyer Ty Cobb told me the White House would be free of the Mueller investigation "shortly after the first of the year absent some unforeseen delay."

We know very little about what's keeping the investigators so busy, but the breadth of this subpoena means Mueller's team could easily stumble into goodies about Trump's inner circle given so many people are coughing up material. (Cobb didn't respond to a request for comment.)

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Yes, we've established that the destructive power of rifles is what you wish to discuss.

Actually it isn't what he wants to discuss. He wants to discuss the destructive power of pistol grips. He isn't actually referring to rifles in general.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Except that "banning" isn't the issue, the destructive power of assault-style weaponry is.

Adding a pistol grip to a gun does not change its destructive power.

hightor wrote:

Handguns are often mentioned, in passing, because the most serious incidents since 2007 have involved assault-styled weapons.

And those cosmetics had nothing to do with how serious the incidents were.

You might as well be arguing over what color a car is in a discussion of drunk driving.

hightor wrote:

in this case the subject you wish to see discussed is irrelevant.

If anything is irrelevant in this discussion, it is the cosmetic features that you insist on focusing on.

hightor wrote:

If there were a good reason to discuss the use of handguns in mass shootings it would be all over the media, the way the AR15 is these days.

As if there was some force of nature that compelled the media to focus on things that are important?

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

And what about all the other cases of handguns being the only weapon in mass shootings. I don't recall any citizens or organizations mounting a campaign against handguns. Do you?

I remember them being featured in the news and attention being drawn to their easy availability. But no, not an equivalent campaign against handguns as you to perceive against assault-style weapons. And you know why? Because the effects are just as fatal but nowhere near as ghastly. People are freaked out at how easy it is for a psychopath to amass so much firepower. People are appalled. There's no simple explanation for why certain stories in the news develop the way they do. This one's taken a direction you don't feel comfortable with.

2 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

People are freaked out at how easy it is for a psychopath to amass so much firepower.

Yeah, and that's because they've been sucking on the MSM teat for so long that they're oblivious to the fact that handguns are used in twice as many of the deadliest mass shootings than rifles from 1984 to 2017.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

I remember them being featured in the news and attention being drawn to their easy availability. But no, not an equivalent campaign against handguns as you to perceive against assault-style weapons. And you know why? Because the effects are just as fatal but nowhere near as ghastly.

Pistol grips do not make wounds any more ghastly.

The reason behind the focus on pistol grips is because Freedom Haters like to violate people's rights for no reason.

hightor wrote:

People are freaked out at how easy it is for a psychopath to amass so much firepower. People are appalled.

Pistol grips hardly cause an increase in firepower.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I have a question for you. How is it that your last post has been up for almost a full hour and no one has given it the thumbs-down?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

I have a question for you. How is it that your last post has been up for almost a full hour and no one has given it the thumbs-down?

Aside from izzythepush, I believe the people who automatically thumb down posts are people who don't actively post in the thread.

Anyway to answer your question, I suppose the down-thumbers are away from the board, off doing something else at the moment.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

I suppose the down-thumbers are away from the board, off doing something else at the moment.

Perhaps down-thumbing someone else's posts?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

I understand that the Oscars are on. Perhaps they are watching those.

Perhaps the downthumbing will resume two minutes after the Oscars are over.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Perhaps? Get real!

And I think you're mistaken about the two minute prediction. I'll bet you three up-thumbs that it'll be one minute.

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know